03/09/2013

:00:45. > :00:50.Daily Politics. The worst refugee crisis for decades, says the UN, as

:00:50. > :00:55.US politicians are told that missile strikes will significantly degrade

:00:55. > :00:59.President Assad's military capacity, but as the crisis in Syria worsens,

:00:59. > :01:03.Britain is left on the sidelines. The government legislates to

:01:03. > :01:07.regulate lobbying, but good efforts to clean up British politics curtail

:01:07. > :01:11.free speech? So you already knew you might be

:01:11. > :01:14.eligible for PPI compensation 's does there need to be a change in

:01:14. > :01:19.the law to clamp down on those nuisance calls?

:01:19. > :01:27.And what you choose to wear to work might say about which political

:01:27. > :01:30.party you support. All that in the next hour. With us

:01:30. > :01:34.for the whole programme today is Admiral Lord West, or Alan West to

:01:34. > :01:39.his friends. He was a security minister in the last government and

:01:39. > :01:43.is still a Labour peer. And he used to be first Sea Lord. He is wearing

:01:43. > :01:49.some appropriate socks, which he will now demonstrate for your

:01:49. > :01:53.delight. We will come to those later. Let's start by talking about

:01:53. > :01:56.the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, and yet another damning report into

:01:56. > :01:59.the way replacement carriers have been commissioned by the Ministry of

:01:59. > :02:05.Defence. The Public accounts committee of MPs said this morning

:02:05. > :02:08.that the cost of the project, which began in 2007, could spiral

:02:09. > :02:14.uncontrollably. The decision to scrap plans for them to carry jump

:02:14. > :02:17.jets and then switch back again wasted �74 million, and it now seems

:02:17. > :02:21.that the first carriers could enter service before there early warning

:02:21. > :02:30.radar system is ready. Here is what defence secretary Philip Hammond had

:02:30. > :02:35.to say about it. We made a tough decision in 2012 to revert to the

:02:35. > :02:40.other aircraft type. We did it to save �1.2 billion of public money,

:02:40. > :02:44.because the project to fit catapults was running out of control. I said

:02:44. > :02:51.at the time that the cost of making that decision would be up to �100

:02:51. > :02:53.million. It turns out that it is nearer to �75 million. That is a

:02:53. > :02:59.sensible investment of public money in order to prevent a loss of a much

:02:59. > :03:03.larger sum. Our guest of the day, Alan West, is

:03:03. > :03:07.a former head of the Royal Navy. Did the coalition government make a

:03:07. > :03:15.mistake when they decided to dump the last Labour government's plans

:03:15. > :03:21.for jump jets? Yes, they did. They obviously had very bad advice from

:03:21. > :03:25.within the Ministry of Defence. These people must be experts.

:03:25. > :03:32.does make one wonder. I understand why they want to go for what is

:03:32. > :03:37.known as the carrier variant, because it does not have to have all

:03:37. > :03:42.the engines for vertical lift and it carries more weapons and more fuel.

:03:42. > :03:45.That sounded a very attractive option. But catapults and Di Resta

:03:45. > :03:51.wires on your aircraft. Because you have to adapt the aircraft in order

:03:51. > :03:55.for these planes to take off and land. Absolutely. One would assume

:03:55. > :03:59.they were making this change and that someone would have done some

:03:59. > :04:06.sums, but clearly, they hadn't. That shows a certain incompetence within

:04:06. > :04:11.the MoD. When civil servants and officials present ministers with

:04:11. > :04:15.options, you talked about the fact that perhaps the variant fighter

:04:15. > :04:22.jets were better. Does cost not play a big part in making those

:04:23. > :04:27.decisions? Absolutely. Obviously, one wants capability, but it has to

:04:27. > :04:32.be within cost parameters. Therefore, it is extraordinary. When

:04:32. > :04:36.I was first Sea Lord, I insisted that new aircraft carriers were

:04:36. > :04:40.designed so that should we change our mind about the type of

:04:40. > :04:46.aircraft, we could easily convert it. When it came to the point of

:04:46. > :04:50.doing it, that work had not been done. I am interested in them to

:04:50. > :04:55.know what had been done in terms of the design work, because we paid

:04:55. > :05:00.them to do that, and yet it was not ready to be converted. Cynically,

:05:00. > :05:06.some might say, are there people within the MoD furthering their own

:05:06. > :05:12.vested interests in certain types of military capability or certain types

:05:12. > :05:18.of objects or vessels that they prefer? Inevitably, there are people

:05:18. > :05:24.like that, but there should be mechanisms to stop that happening. I

:05:24. > :05:30.think this did go wrong. The whole process, from the defence review in

:05:30. > :05:34.1997-8, Labour said, we need these carriers if we are still to have any

:05:34. > :05:39.chance of power projection. It has been a tortuous process. Decisions

:05:39. > :05:43.have been made and changed, and they have cost a lots more than they need

:05:43. > :05:46.have done, often because of political interference. Was it the

:05:47. > :05:52.right decision to switch back to the original plan? Is Philip Hammond

:05:52. > :05:59.right that overall, money will be saved by not pursuing the path taken

:05:59. > :06:04.by his predecessor? I think so. This is water under the bridge, but way

:06:04. > :06:08.back in 2002, the decision to have gone for different variant was made

:06:08. > :06:12.them, but we lost that battle. we going to be better protected?

:06:12. > :06:16.When we have the new aircraft carriers. We will have had ten years

:06:16. > :06:23.without carriers, which is not clever. But when we get the new

:06:23. > :06:27.carriers, it will make our forces safer and more capable. But will it

:06:27. > :06:32.be necessary if we are not going to go into conflicts like Syria?

:06:32. > :06:40.will still find ourselves involved in things all over the world. We run

:06:40. > :06:43.global shipping from this country. Sadly, I wish there were not any

:06:43. > :06:46.actions. And the taxpayer will have to foot the �74 million bill for the

:06:46. > :06:52.conversion. Now, the United Nations has

:06:52. > :06:55.registered more than 2 million refugees in the conflict. Another 5

:06:55. > :06:59.million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner for

:06:59. > :07:02.refugees has said the Syrian crisis is the tragedy of this century. In

:07:02. > :07:07.Washington, Senator is preparing to vote on military action have been

:07:07. > :07:11.told by President Obama that US attacks would significantly degrade

:07:11. > :07:15.President Assad's military capacity and swing momentum from Assad to the

:07:15. > :07:21.opposition forces. But Britain, of course, will not be involved. The

:07:21. > :07:22.prime minister ruled out British involvement after last week's

:07:22. > :07:27.Parliamentary votes. Yesterday, defence secretary Philip Hammond

:07:27. > :07:32.told the Commons that the situation would have to change significantly

:07:32. > :07:36.for the MPs to be consulted again. Labour echoed Mr Hammond's words,

:07:36. > :07:41.but also sad Al-Qaeda getting hold of chemical weapons might persuade

:07:41. > :07:45.them to change their position. America's new best friend is France.

:07:45. > :07:49.Their National Assembly meets tomorrow, but unlike their British

:07:49. > :07:53.and American counterparts, French deputies will not be given a vote.

:07:53. > :07:57.Meanwhile, it has emerged that British military are being excluded

:07:57. > :08:01.from Central command meetings in the US. The Foreign Secretary has been

:08:01. > :08:05.answering questions about Syria this morning and specifically whether

:08:05. > :08:09.President Obama had told senators any military action would be

:08:09. > :08:12.necessary to tip the balance towards the opposition. President Obama has

:08:12. > :08:20.made his purpose clear. He has now referred this to the United States

:08:20. > :08:25.Congress, so we have to allow them to make their decision. We had our

:08:25. > :08:29.vote last week. The US Congress will have its vote. But President Obama

:08:29. > :08:34.is clear that any action proposed by the United States would be to deter

:08:34. > :08:42.the further use of chemical weapons. I think we can take him at

:08:42. > :08:49.his word. I will not criticise him for putting that forward.

:08:49. > :08:55.We are joined now by our defence correspondent. We also heard from

:08:55. > :08:59.the American general, who said that rather than limited targeted

:08:59. > :09:02.strikes, if the American administration goes into conflict,

:09:02. > :09:10.the American administration is prepared to hit Syria with some

:09:10. > :09:16.force. Is that right? Yes, this is a former US general who was one of the

:09:16. > :09:20.architects of the surge in Iraq. He has now retired, but is in close

:09:20. > :09:24.contact with Senator John McCain. So is Lindsay Graham. They are both on

:09:24. > :09:27.the hawkish side of this debate. They want more action on Syria from

:09:27. > :09:33.I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.. They had a meeting with

:09:33. > :09:40.President Obama, in which they said they were encouraged by the steps he

:09:40. > :09:46.was prepared to take. The senator was left with the impression that

:09:46. > :09:52.strikes were being planned. He believed they would be able to

:09:52. > :09:57.significantly undermine the military capability of Syrian forces. You

:09:57. > :09:59.have to see this in the context of what is going on politically, which

:09:59. > :10:05.is that President Obama is clearly seeking the authorisation of

:10:05. > :10:10.Congress. He has to get those who are hawkish in their views on side,

:10:10. > :10:14.people like John McCain. But equally, he has talked about limited

:10:14. > :10:18.strikes in public. He does not want boots on the ground. So I imagine

:10:18. > :10:26.that when he speaks to those who are against military action, the message

:10:26. > :10:30.will be different. So has the military objective changed?

:10:30. > :10:39.hasn't changed. President Obama's number-1 goal is to deter the Assad

:10:39. > :10:44.from using chemical again. And to deter them, you have to degrade the

:10:44. > :10:47.Syrian military capability. You have to target the weapon systems and

:10:47. > :10:53.units that have been accused of using those chemical weapon is. The

:10:53. > :10:58.problem for President Obama is that now that we all know he is debating

:10:58. > :11:08.his military strikes, it gives time for the military in Syria to move

:11:08. > :11:15.

:11:15. > :11:25.those assets, possibly into areas where there are population centres,

:11:25. > :11:39.

:11:39. > :11:41.to deter America from carrying out those strikes. It is a very

:11:41. > :11:44.difficult calibration for President Obama, dealing both with Congress,

:11:44. > :11:46.but also trying to keep the focus on what he can achieve militarily. With

:11:46. > :11:48.us now is Bob Stewart, a Conservative member of the defence

:11:48. > :11:51.select committee, and former British UN commander in Bosnia. Our guest of

:11:51. > :11:53.the day, Alan West, former head of the Navy, is still here. Alan West,

:11:53. > :11:56.last week we talked about this in Parliament. You were apprehensive

:11:56. > :11:59.about Western intervention in Syria. Are you still apprehensive? I am,

:11:59. > :12:02.because I want to know exactly what we try to achieve. It seems to me

:12:02. > :12:04.that there was no charity to what we want to achieve. To say we want to

:12:04. > :12:06.degrade his ability to use chemical weapons again, what exactly does

:12:06. > :12:09.that mean in terms of an attack? Inevitably, you will change the

:12:09. > :12:16.balance of capability in the civil war. And what then? We need much

:12:16. > :12:22.more clarity about what we as a nation want out of military action

:12:22. > :12:25.if we embark on it. Do you think there should be a further vote if

:12:25. > :12:35.Congress votes yes for military strikes? Would you like to see them

:12:35. > :12:42.vote yes? Probably yes. But as long as I know what they are embarking

:12:42. > :12:46.on. I would like to have much greater clarity. I was slightly

:12:46. > :12:51.shocked that a vote in our house, which was effectively just saying,

:12:51. > :12:55.if we get further evidence, will we go ahead and do something? We have

:12:55. > :13:01.got rid of that option, which is unfortunate. Do you want Congress to

:13:01. > :13:06.vote yes for strikes in Syria? up to them, but yes. But I would

:13:06. > :13:10.want is to have a second vote before military action. Last week's vote

:13:10. > :13:17.was not about going to war. It was not about taking military action. As

:13:17. > :13:22.Alan said, we would discuss what we might do in that second vote, and

:13:22. > :13:27.that second vote will apparently now not take place. I am upset that we

:13:27. > :13:34.have not had the opportunity to consider what we might do. It was

:13:34. > :13:39.not a vote for war last week. that basis, it looks like senators

:13:39. > :13:42.who previously said they did not think much of Obama's plans because

:13:42. > :13:48.they did not go far enough now may support it action in Syria. Do you

:13:48. > :13:52.think the objective of the US administration has changed? Are they

:13:52. > :13:57.going to go for a broader military assault to degrade Assad's capacity

:13:57. > :14:04.to launch or chemical attacks? will take President Obama on his

:14:04. > :14:08.word, and his word was "we are going to degrade the capacity of the Assad

:14:08. > :14:17.regime to use chemical weapons. We are not trying to do regime change"

:14:17. > :14:21.. The rest of this is fluff. But in order to degrade, I am not a

:14:21. > :14:28.military expert, but when they use terms like trying to degrade

:14:28. > :14:36.Assad's capacity, what do you need? Almost inevitably, anything done

:14:36. > :14:41.will have an impact, small large, on the balance within Syria. If he

:14:41. > :14:44.decides to destroy lots of fighter jets and aircraft and helicopters,

:14:44. > :14:53.that makes a huge change, because they are being used to attack his

:14:53. > :14:57.own people. My worry looking to the future is that you get something you

:14:57. > :15:01.don't want. Let's say the opposition took over in Syria. It is very

:15:01. > :15:11.fragmented and there are extremely nasty bits of it. What happens when

:15:11. > :15:22.

:15:22. > :15:26.they start massacring Christians? Do And the point of it is we have to

:15:26. > :15:32.stop for the use of chemical weapons. That is why we wanted to

:15:32. > :15:41.debated in Parliament, which we cannot do. If there is a larger

:15:41. > :15:49.military assault, could it tip the balance? Of course it well. -- it

:15:49. > :15:59.will. We -- we do not know what the assault will be. I am taking

:15:59. > :16:01.

:16:01. > :16:05.President Obama on his word. general previously warned that even

:16:05. > :16:13.limited strikes would involve hundreds of aircraft. The costs

:16:13. > :16:18.would be in the billions. Do you agree with that? I am not sure I do.

:16:18. > :16:23.This is the point, we do not know what is envisaged. It might be a

:16:23. > :16:28.signal to Assad, do not do it again, a signal rather than extensive

:16:28. > :16:35.destruction. The business of saying you are a naughty boy smacks of

:16:35. > :16:40.empire. You need to have a clearer concept. What is the military

:16:40. > :16:46.campaign plan? To say you are a naughty boy to somebody who is

:16:46. > :16:50.clearly deranged if he has used chemical weapons, then you have to

:16:50. > :16:57.do the follow one and the full one. You need to be clear what that is

:16:57. > :17:03.and what you want to achieve. there any point in military action

:17:03. > :17:06.that could achieve the limited, perhaps less limited air strikes,

:17:06. > :17:12.that do not really degrade his capacity, and it will have been

:17:12. > :17:17.pointless? We do not know. The fact of the matter is that at the moment

:17:17. > :17:22.we are doing nothing. Thankfully, it does not seem chemical weapons

:17:22. > :17:28.have been used again and that is the purpose of what we do. Whatever

:17:28. > :17:35.we do, the yardstick we measure against should be, will this save

:17:35. > :17:42.lives? Also, will it actually tell Assad not you ever used chemical

:17:42. > :17:47.weapons again. Is that in itself worthwhile? It achieves that,

:17:47. > :17:56.absolutely. We were galloping last week to be doing something

:17:56. > :18:06.yesterday. It would have been happening on Sunday. We were not.

:18:06. > :18:13.

:18:13. > :18:19.That was not the motion. It changed. Last week, when I came into this.

:18:19. > :18:24.We had asked for them to go in and asked the Russians to do that. We

:18:24. > :18:27.had not explained what we were trying to achieve. We know the

:18:27. > :18:32.British people are concerned. Those things should have been done. It

:18:32. > :18:36.was hastily put together. The motion was changed. It was a shame

:18:36. > :18:41.to rush us down that route. Better to do it in a balanced way,

:18:41. > :18:46.checking through each thing. I regret the final result, to say we

:18:46. > :18:52.will not think about it. We were not saying we were going to attack.

:18:52. > :19:00.We were saying we would look at it when we had the evidence.

:19:00. > :19:09.motion put those points in to play and we would have gone -- gone to

:19:09. > :19:19.the United Nations. It was not a motion to deploy, News British --

:19:19. > :19:21.

:19:21. > :19:31.use British military. It was a shambles. I was quite shocked.

:19:31. > :19:31.

:19:31. > :19:39.Labour shot? I think the front bench was shocked. I did not think

:19:39. > :19:44.for a moment, you could see the shock. By wanted a signal to Assad

:19:44. > :19:49.that what he had done has gone wrong -- I wanted. We have him

:19:49. > :19:54.saying actually, the British are going to do nothing. Would you like

:19:54. > :19:59.it to come back, if the circumstances were enough to

:19:59. > :20:05.persuade them to bring a motion back? You are should have options

:20:05. > :20:10.open always. Our I agree with Alan West. I think it will come back --

:20:10. > :20:14.I agreed. Syria is a real problem, the biggest problem in the world at

:20:14. > :20:18.the moment. We will have to address it and it could be that we have to

:20:18. > :20:23.come back and think about military options again. I wish we did not

:20:23. > :20:27.have to use the military, but we should not take the auction off the

:20:27. > :20:31.table at an early stage. David Cameron said it would be the next

:20:31. > :20:36.big scandal to hit politics and sure enough, a succession of

:20:36. > :20:41.politicians have been caught out selling services to lobbyists. The

:20:41. > :20:45.Prime Minister employed Lynton Crosby as director of strategy. He

:20:45. > :20:50.also runs a lobbying firm. The Government has brought forward a

:20:50. > :20:56.Bill that will aim to regulate the lobbying business. It will be

:20:56. > :21:01.debated today. Andrew Lansley was grilled this morning. We have had a

:21:01. > :21:06.queue of people from the voluntary sector asking why we did not talk

:21:07. > :21:12.to them about this. They are not facts. We want the legislation to

:21:12. > :21:17.be better. You can talk to us, you can inform us, you can consult. We

:21:17. > :21:22.feel we have a contribution to make. And, speaking for Parliament, it is

:21:22. > :21:28.a legitimate issue that this committee and Parliament is

:21:28. > :21:32.properly involved in this process. It is not a Bill published one day

:21:32. > :21:37.before the recess and a second reading one day after the recess,

:21:37. > :21:40.three working days between a Bill that not many of us knew certain

:21:40. > :21:46.sections existed and parliament is due to have it put through

:21:46. > :21:54.committee next week. Why on earth do you not get people on your side

:21:54. > :21:57.to make a better Bill? Part one of the Bill in that sense has been,

:21:57. > :22:02.although the drafting you might have seen, the policy on which it

:22:02. > :22:10.is based has been the subject of discussion for a long time. Part

:22:10. > :22:14.two, non-party campaigning, I accept your strictures more, that

:22:14. > :22:23.is the part two of the Bill was trying to do what it is sometimes

:22:23. > :22:31.represented as doing. The boundary between what is and can -- what is

:22:31. > :22:34.campaigning and electoral purposes. To talk about the Lobbying Bill,

:22:34. > :22:36.I'm joined by the Deputy Leader of the House, Tom Brake. First, let's

:22:36. > :22:38.talk to Alexandra Runswick of pressure group Unlock Democracy.

:22:38. > :22:42.You have been campaigning for legislation. Are you pleased that,

:22:42. > :22:47.finally, it looks as if the legislation will get onto the

:22:47. > :22:55.statute book? It will not deliver transparency in lobbying, if

:22:55. > :23:00.anything it will make it worse. The definition of lobbying is so narrow.

:23:00. > :23:04.Because it only focuses on consultants. It will catch us so

:23:04. > :23:14.little activity in the United Kingdom. The what is the difference

:23:14. > :23:14.

:23:14. > :23:18.between a consultant and in House lobbyist? And in House lobbyist

:23:18. > :23:23.works for an organisation, it could be Tesco supermarket, it could be

:23:23. > :23:27.me working for Unlock Democracy. The other works for different

:23:27. > :23:34.clients. The work we do is the same, to influence government policy and

:23:34. > :23:38.we should be captured by the lobbying register. Industry figures

:23:38. > :23:47.recognise four out of five lobbyists are in house, not agency.

:23:47. > :23:52.Even those who work as agency lobby -- lobbyists, are unlikely to be

:23:52. > :23:59.captured by this. Very little lobbying activity in the UK is

:23:59. > :24:06.based on meeting senior civil servants and politicians. What

:24:06. > :24:10.could be done? The version of the register we are presented with is a

:24:10. > :24:14.weaker version than the one that exists in Australia. What we have

:24:14. > :24:20.seen in Australia is what happened with having a narrowly defined

:24:20. > :24:25.register his activity may have to wait from consultants and lobbyists,

:24:25. > :24:30.and moved to management consultants, accountancy firms, lawyers. It

:24:30. > :24:37.moved lobbying activity away from the people on the register.

:24:37. > :24:40.will it affect third party organisations, such as charities?

:24:40. > :24:45.Part two of the Bill will have a chilling effect on the voluntary

:24:45. > :24:48.sector. It is interesting to see that while the Government is

:24:48. > :24:52.unwilling to regulate corporate lobbying, it is more than willing

:24:52. > :24:57.to put in restrictions on voluntary sector campaigning, because they

:24:57. > :25:03.have taken up the definition of the tent of producing materials for

:25:03. > :25:06.electoral purposes, it means any statement of public policy by a

:25:06. > :25:10.voluntary organisation could be considered to be for electoral

:25:10. > :25:19.purposes and could prevent people campaigning and getting involved in

:25:19. > :25:21.campaigns. Tom Brake, it will have a chilling effect on third party

:25:21. > :25:25.organisations who will be frightened to campaign on

:25:25. > :25:31.legitimate issues which can only in the broader sense be defined as

:25:31. > :25:39.political because of this legislation? There is a clear

:25:39. > :25:43.misunderstanding of what it proposes. In it is very clear that

:25:43. > :25:48.a charity is that want to campaign on policy issues, they will be able

:25:48. > :25:53.to continue to do that. The Bill does not affect them. It's limits

:25:53. > :25:59.the amount of money they can spend in the year running up to an

:25:59. > :26:03.election. They would have to register at everything after �5,000.

:26:03. > :26:07.What the charities seem to suggest is the Government is trying to

:26:07. > :26:11.constrain them in relation to policy. It is true that any

:26:11. > :26:17.organisation seeking to influence the outcome of an election,

:26:17. > :26:23.supporting a party, they will have to register. Most charities do not

:26:23. > :26:27.do political campaigning work, because they are not allowed to.

:26:27. > :26:35.Influencing an election outcome could include all sorts of things,

:26:35. > :26:39.inadvertently. Campaigns such as international a lead, if Oxfam

:26:39. > :26:47.carried out a campaign and their opponent was the UK Independence

:26:47. > :26:52.Party, they would be limited. would have to be accounted for

:26:52. > :26:55.walls if Oxfam in a constituency said they encouraged members to

:26:56. > :26:59.vote for a certain candidate, that is something they would have to

:26:59. > :27:04.account for. If it is the charity arm, they would not be allowed to

:27:04. > :27:08.do that because the Charity Commission would not allow it.

:27:08. > :27:15.does this have to do with the scandal we have watched regarding

:27:15. > :27:21.lobbying? The Government is trying to do one thing, it is about

:27:21. > :27:27.addressing consultant lobbyists, and ensuring when a minister meets

:27:27. > :27:31.with a third-party, a lobbyist, those details, people can track to

:27:31. > :27:36.the Third Party lobbyist is working for. They will see it on the

:27:36. > :27:41.register. If a minister meets an external organisation at the moment,

:27:41. > :27:47.the in house lobbyist for a certain company, bat would be on the report

:27:47. > :27:55.of the meeting, -- that would be. There is already transparency about

:27:55. > :27:58.meetings. The what she has not done and the organisations who are

:27:58. > :28:03.advocating having the in house lobbyists on the register is

:28:03. > :28:07.explain why that is needed when that reports that ministers have

:28:07. > :28:10.about the meetings they have with in-house lobbyists are reported on

:28:10. > :28:16.a quarterly basis. What would we gain by having them on the

:28:16. > :28:24.register? Be cos they will still be treated differently to the other

:28:24. > :28:28.and lobbyists -- because. We do not want to duplicate what is being

:28:28. > :28:32.done in government. The Government reports meetings that ministers

:28:32. > :28:38.have with in-house lobbyists. You can see the meetings I have had an

:28:38. > :28:48.see the purposes of the discussion. Ministers and permanent secretaries.

:28:48. > :28:52.Why do about other politicians? and what about? These would be the

:28:52. > :28:55.ones who exert the most influence and we would have to control those

:28:55. > :29:00.contacts more carefully. In relation to scandals that there

:29:00. > :29:06.have been, they have been members of parliament he would have been in

:29:06. > :29:11.breach of the Code of Conduct, which covers those issues. That is

:29:11. > :29:15.not about introducing the new rules. We can think about a campaign that

:29:15. > :29:24.your party was involved in, the National Union of Students pledge

:29:24. > :29:32.not to raise tuition fees. Did you sign that? I did.That would not

:29:32. > :29:35.happen now. There is a limit that if an organisation like the

:29:35. > :29:41.National Union of Students wanted to run a national campaign, they

:29:41. > :29:45.would only be allowed to spend just under 400,000. In the run-up there

:29:45. > :29:50.were two organisations that spent over that limit. In terms of having

:29:50. > :29:55.a dampening effect on the ability of organisations to campaign, that

:29:55. > :30:04.will not be the case. It will save you signing any more pledges that

:30:04. > :30:08.have to be broken! A response Alexandra Runswick. If you look at

:30:08. > :30:12.the legal advice that has been produced by the National Council

:30:12. > :30:19.for Voluntary organisations and leave the notes -- and read the

:30:19. > :30:24.notes to the Bill, it says the Bill will remove the test of intent and

:30:24. > :30:27.any statement of public policy could be covered by this Bill. That

:30:27. > :30:31.is why it will have a chilling effect on voluntary sector

:30:31. > :30:41.campaigning. We want more people taking part in campaigning and not

:30:41. > :30:52.

:30:52. > :30:56.The things that upset the public are things like insiders who are paid

:30:56. > :31:06.somebody to get regular access to ministers or the prime minister or

:31:06. > :31:06.

:31:07. > :31:13.whatever. Also, they don't like it when there is money involved. It is

:31:13. > :31:21.that aspect of lobbying that people don't like. I don't think this bill

:31:21. > :31:25.gets the take from me. It will need a lot of tightening up.

:31:26. > :31:30.Now, it has been a torrid few years for the journalistic profession. We

:31:30. > :31:34.have had the phone hacking scandal at the newspapers, revelations of

:31:34. > :31:37.cosy relationships between politicians, editors and proprietors

:31:37. > :31:45.and the BBC's editorial decisions have come under the spotlight. So

:31:45. > :31:48.the actions of journalists themselves need to be scrutinised,

:31:48. > :31:50.but if they are going to hold power for people to account, do they also

:31:50. > :31:54.need special legal protection? That question was put in perspective

:31:54. > :31:58.over the summer when David Miranda was arrested at Heathrow Airport and

:31:58. > :32:02.detained by police for nine hours under the terrorism act. He is the

:32:02. > :32:05.partner of the Guardian journalist responsible for bringing the

:32:05. > :32:09.revelations of whistle-blower and former intelligence officer Edward

:32:09. > :32:12.Snowden to public attention. UK intelligence officers then entered

:32:12. > :32:15.Guardian offices and oversaw the destruction of hard drives

:32:15. > :32:21.containing sensitive information. Mr Snowden himself spent weeks inside

:32:21. > :32:25.Moscow airport, escaping American jurisdiction, and has now been

:32:25. > :32:29.granted asylum in Russia. He is being helped by the Wikileaks

:32:29. > :32:33.organisation. Its founder Julian Assange is himself avoiding

:32:33. > :32:38.extradition to Sweden inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

:32:38. > :32:42.Joining us now is George Brock, a former Times journalist and now I

:32:42. > :32:47.professor of journalism at City University who has just published a

:32:47. > :32:53.book, Out Of Print?, about the changing nature of journalism. Who

:32:53. > :32:57.classifies as a journalist? There is no agreed legal definition. There

:32:57. > :33:01.was nowhere in the world where you could have that question settled

:33:01. > :33:10.easily. In the United States, there are what are called shield laws in

:33:10. > :33:13.some states which say that if you are a journalist, you can't be

:33:13. > :33:16.required by court to disclose your sources. But trying to define

:33:16. > :33:22.journalists is a mistake. But then how can you advise protection for a

:33:23. > :33:26.group of people who are difficult to define? Journalism is a messy

:33:26. > :33:31.business and it is always changing. You should not try and roped off the

:33:31. > :33:37.profession. The law needs to look at whether there is a public interest

:33:37. > :33:40.and a value in what journalism does. That may involve people who call

:33:40. > :33:46.themselves journalists, or not. They might be whistle-blowers or people

:33:46. > :33:52.in the right place at the right time. Is there a danger that always

:33:52. > :33:58.using the public interest defence, if you are somebody that the public

:33:58. > :34:04.might not see as a journalist, somebody working for a newspaper, a

:34:04. > :34:08.whistle-blower, for example? One has to be careful about trying to define

:34:08. > :34:11.these things. You can't do it easily. Clearly, if there is

:34:11. > :34:16.something coming out that is in the public interest, there has to be a

:34:16. > :34:19.common-sense view about it. But equally, there is a great desire

:34:20. > :34:26.that you see in the Guardian a lot. They don't like secrets. Just

:34:26. > :34:30.because it is secret, but is what all of our secret intelligence

:34:30. > :34:33.agencies are about. Occasionally, things are over classified. The

:34:33. > :34:36.Guardian are frightfully British in they somehow seem to think they

:34:36. > :34:42.should have access to all of this and make the decisions. That is

:34:42. > :34:47.dangerous. And it responsible for people who have signed up to the

:34:47. > :34:52.intelligence services to a code of conduct to protect certain

:34:52. > :34:55.information? I think most journalists accept that there are

:34:55. > :35:00.some things which governments and states are going to do which they

:35:00. > :35:04.are entitled to keep secret. That is not the issue. The issue is how much

:35:04. > :35:14.they are entitled to keep secret and how much we are entitled to inspect

:35:14. > :35:14.

:35:14. > :35:16.what they are doing with that secrecy. And where would you draw

:35:17. > :35:19.that line? I accept that it is difficult to draw, but I have been

:35:19. > :35:21.involved with intelligence officers for years. And I know there are

:35:22. > :35:27.large numbers of people working very hard to protect our nation, not

:35:27. > :35:31.trying to eavesdrop on things people are doing normally and not trying to

:35:31. > :35:41.do nasty things. They occasionally get it wrong because it is so

:35:41. > :35:42.

:35:42. > :35:45.complicated, but better to give them the benefit of the doubt, because

:35:45. > :35:48.the people who are against us in all these areas, they have no interest

:35:48. > :35:51.in these things. I would accept that there are many people who work in

:35:51. > :35:53.secret who are trying to do the right thing, but things also go

:35:53. > :35:57.wrong. There was a government official in that case about David

:35:57. > :35:59.Miranda, who was involved in the Edward Snowden leaks. A British

:35:59. > :36:06.government official said there are 58,000 documents in his possession

:36:06. > :36:15.which were passed to him by this whistle-blower, Edward Snowden. What

:36:15. > :36:21.is a contractor, not even a member of the US intelligence staff, doing

:36:21. > :36:26.with 58,000 sensitive British documents? We are tagged to ask.

:36:26. > :36:30.have moved so fast. Once upon a time, there would have been files.

:36:30. > :36:35.Now you can have 58,000 things on a memory stick. I agree it is a

:36:35. > :36:42.problem. I hope there are people in our agency is asking the question,

:36:42. > :36:45.which bit of the US needed to have that? But to release 58,000 without

:36:45. > :36:50.needing to see what damage that does to security, I think is extremely

:36:50. > :36:56.risky. And this sort of self-justification of people like

:36:56. > :37:01.Snowden, I am doing this because I am wonderful, it does not... But the

:37:01. > :37:07.newspaper concerned has not released all that information, let's be fair.

:37:07. > :37:12.No, but it is sitting there and there may be something in there. We

:37:12. > :37:15.need to review it and say, let's not let this be released. You can't

:37:15. > :37:21.leave it sitting there. Has Edward Snowden done anything in terms of

:37:21. > :37:25.service to the world and the public interest? Well, I am not sure he

:37:25. > :37:33.has, to be honest. As I say, there are certain secrets that are secret,

:37:33. > :37:35.and people are trying hard to do things that look after our security.

:37:35. > :37:38.I am not saying there should not be whistle-blowers, but it is a very

:37:38. > :37:45.difficult balance. At the moment, I am afraid we have tipped the wrong

:37:45. > :37:50.way. There is a difference. If you are being paid by the Guardian, that

:37:50. > :37:54.is one thing. If you are making your living by taking the US dollar or

:37:54. > :37:58.the British pound, surely your obligations are different? If you

:37:58. > :38:04.are a servant of the state, of course your obligations are

:38:04. > :38:07.different to a journalist. But in an open society, you have journalists.

:38:07. > :38:10.But you say they are an undefined group which could spread to being

:38:10. > :38:14.servants of the state. I don't think you should confuse journalists with

:38:14. > :38:19.servants of the state. I am not saying that journalists are only

:38:19. > :38:27.one. It is just that in legal terms, defining journalists is

:38:27. > :38:32.difficult. Should they be protected? I think journalists are very

:38:33. > :38:39.important. Should they be protected in law? I am not sure how you do it.

:38:39. > :38:45.But they should be looked after. But it is amazing that people who are

:38:45. > :38:48.shouting this to the rooftops are the ones who were having a go at the

:38:48. > :38:51.Sun and the Times for the things they did.

:38:51. > :38:54.They want to have their cake and eat it. So, you are sitting and watching

:38:54. > :38:58.your favourite TV programme, like the Daily Politics. The phone rings,

:38:58. > :39:02.you get up to and it and it is a recorded voice informing you for the

:39:02. > :39:06.umpteenth time that you may be owed compensation for mis-sold PPI,

:39:06. > :39:09.whether or not you have it. The culture select committee have been

:39:09. > :39:16.taking evidence on this subject this morning, though they could have just

:39:17. > :39:22.spent a day in my front room. He was Richard Lloyd consumer group which

:39:22. > :39:26.macro, explaining the scale of the problem. We found that 85% of people

:39:26. > :39:29.said they had had an unsolicited call or text in the previous month.

:39:29. > :39:33.That is a big proportion of the population, and that includes people

:39:33. > :39:39.who had signed up to the Telephone preference service in the past not

:39:39. > :39:46.to be contacted for marketing purposes. We are keen to see the

:39:46. > :39:52.committee look into this. It has become a growing problem. More

:39:52. > :39:57.people have come to which macro complaining about this, and there is

:39:57. > :40:02.a significant proportion of people who have had this nuisance. They are

:40:02. > :40:09.now saying they are afraid or do not want to answer the phone because

:40:09. > :40:12.they are fearful that it will be a marketing call.

:40:12. > :40:17.Joining us from Salford is Simon Entwistle from the Office of the

:40:17. > :40:22.Information Commissioner, and John Major some of the Direct Marketing

:40:22. > :40:27.Association, who appeared before the select committee this morning. You

:40:27. > :40:31.are head of preference services for the Direct Marketing Association, so

:40:31. > :40:36.can you explain what the Telephone preference system is, and how it

:40:37. > :40:40.should stop before receiving nuisance calls? The Telephone

:40:40. > :40:44.preference service is the central opt out register in the UK. Anybody

:40:44. > :40:48.that wants to reduce the number of sales calls they receive can

:40:48. > :40:51.register their telephone number with us either by going to our website or

:40:51. > :40:55.calling our contact centre. Once their phone number has been

:40:55. > :40:59.registered with us for 28 days, it is a legal requirement for companies

:40:59. > :41:04.to screen out that number. But it does not seem to work, because the

:41:04. > :41:08.evidence presented by Richard Lloyd from the witch consumer organisation

:41:08. > :41:13.says that although it works initially, after signing up, people

:41:13. > :41:18.reported receiving an average ten unsolicited calls in the previous

:41:18. > :41:22.month. Yes, the research also went on to say that people received fewer

:41:22. > :41:27.calls after registering than they did before. The problem we have is

:41:27. > :41:31.with rogue companies that are willing to ignore the legislation

:41:31. > :41:36.and make telephone calls to any registered on TPS. We would

:41:36. > :41:40.obviously like to see more enforcement. Simon Entwistle, would

:41:40. > :41:44.that do it, more enforcement? Is it just rogue companies ignoring the

:41:44. > :41:49.rules? There are two elements to this. There is this element of rogue

:41:49. > :41:54.callers ignoring the rules, but there is also this blurring of what

:41:54. > :41:57.accounts for consent when people have already signed up for the

:41:57. > :42:01.Telephone preference service, but they are deemed to have consented to

:42:01. > :42:05.the call being made. So even if you have signed up, if you consent to a

:42:05. > :42:09.call being made to you perhaps via something you have done online,

:42:09. > :42:12.calls can be made to you legitimately. This is a big

:42:12. > :42:18.challenge for us, to tease out those cases where consent has not been

:42:18. > :42:22.given and to take action. We have issued fines, but we also find it

:42:22. > :42:29.challenging to issue them because the law currently requires us to

:42:29. > :42:33.show substantial distress before we can find an organisation. Do you not

:42:33. > :42:37.agree that the buyer is too high? Why should people have to

:42:37. > :42:44.demonstrate a level of harm? If it is a nuisance and you are receiving

:42:44. > :42:49.ten unsolicited calls, that is too much? Should the barbie lowered?

:42:49. > :42:53.agree. At the moment, they have to prove significant damage, and it

:42:53. > :42:57.would be better if that was reduced to nuisance. You agree with the law

:42:58. > :43:03.being changed in that respect. Which is calling for the government to

:43:03. > :43:06.introduce a set expiry date when a person agrees to being contacted by

:43:06. > :43:09.selected third parties, and an obligation on businesses to prove to

:43:09. > :43:15.the information commission office that a person has consented to being

:43:15. > :43:18.contacted. Would you support that? Certainly the obligation of an

:43:18. > :43:23.organisation to prove that it had consent would be important. Most

:43:23. > :43:29.companies can do that already. The issue of the expiry of consent, I am

:43:29. > :43:32.not so sure about. I would have to see the details. If you have signed

:43:32. > :43:36.up to the Telephone preference system, even if you accidentally

:43:36. > :43:40.ticked a box on something completely unrelated which did arguably give

:43:40. > :43:45.your consent to receive calls, should you still be able to say, I

:43:45. > :43:49.must not receive any calls? Yes, there are couple of ways this can be

:43:49. > :43:53.done. If somebody calls you and you ask them not to call you again,

:43:53. > :43:58.there is an obligation on that company to add your number to that

:43:58. > :44:01.do not call list and they should not contact you again. But the issue of

:44:01. > :44:11.third-party consent, which is where if you sign up for something

:44:11. > :44:12.

:44:12. > :44:17.online, you are giving consent for some police to contact you. So you

:44:17. > :44:22.can still get nuisance calls. Isn't that a bigger problem, that people

:44:22. > :44:26.do tick boxes to say you can receive calls, and then you are not

:44:26. > :44:29.protected by the Telephone preference service? That is a

:44:29. > :44:36.problem throughout the internet. A lot of areas have terms and

:44:36. > :44:38.conditions that are very complicated. You end up digging a

:44:38. > :44:43.box without having read the appropriate details. That is not

:44:43. > :44:47.just about consent to calls being made, it is about other contractual

:44:47. > :44:50.obligations that you enter into when you are on websites. We would like

:44:51. > :45:00.to see the law simplified here as well. But it goes beyond signing up

:45:01. > :45:02.

:45:02. > :45:07.for calls being made to you or not. Within a household, a child might

:45:07. > :45:10.sign up to receive calls without your knowledge. So the call is being

:45:10. > :45:14.made legitimately, but someone else has signed up to it using your

:45:14. > :45:22.telephone number. All sorts of things happen. Coming back to the

:45:22. > :45:28.rogue callers, we have done some research and we find that well over

:45:28. > :45:33.15% of calls being made now are being made using spoofed numbers.

:45:33. > :45:38.There is a whole range of areas to be looked at that go beyond how well

:45:38. > :45:41.the Telephone preference service is working. Do you think this is a

:45:41. > :45:46.problem you can get to grips with, bearing in mind the examples you

:45:46. > :45:50.have given? Do I think we will ever stop all cold calls and people

:45:50. > :45:56.getting annoyed, the answer is probably no. But we can reduce them

:45:56. > :45:59.to the minimum, and that is what we are trying to do by taking steps to

:45:59. > :46:09.change the law and take enforcement action against those who are

:46:09. > :46:20.

:46:20. > :46:24.I have friends who are constantly being telephoned. Resolving it will

:46:24. > :46:31.be difficult. I sometimes feel sorry for people ringing because

:46:31. > :46:38.they are desperately trying to earn a crust. But it is annoying.

:46:38. > :46:42.companies really do enough to actually limit their cold calling?

:46:42. > :46:49.Some of it is legitimate business and a lot of it is not and have

:46:49. > :46:58.numbers are being called at random and nobody is checking the list.

:46:58. > :47:02.That's it is the side of the industry we would describe as rogue.

:47:02. > :47:09.There is a legitimate side to the industry that takes the legislation

:47:09. > :47:16.seriously. When we go out complaints we receive, the majority

:47:16. > :47:20.-- when we look at, the majority are from small organisations,

:47:20. > :47:26.trying to gather information to sell on to other people and maybe

:47:27. > :47:31.make a PPI claim, something like that. I am sure we will have you

:47:32. > :47:35.back and see if any more nuisance calls have come in here. Some

:47:35. > :47:41.holidays might feel like a distant memory, particularly if you were

:47:41. > :47:47.ordered back early for the vote on Syria. But some cannot switch off.

:47:47. > :47:51.Their idea of a cracking vacation, apolitical tour of Scotland.

:47:51. > :48:01.Knowing David likes the exotic, we sent him to Glasgow to find out

:48:01. > :48:02.

:48:02. > :48:08.what it was all about. Did she go anywhere nice? A spot of

:48:08. > :48:15.foreign culture? Some people's idea of getting away from it all was a

:48:15. > :48:18.political tour of Scotland. How big a vehicle would you need to fit in

:48:18. > :48:23.every one who wanted a political tour of Scotland? As it happens,

:48:23. > :48:29.you can get them comfortably in the back of a minibus. This minibus.

:48:29. > :48:32.They include this woman from Australia who came here for a taste

:48:32. > :48:38.of Scottish weather and Scottish politics. When I heard political

:48:38. > :48:42.tour, I thought it was for me. I waited for the opportunity and look

:48:42. > :48:48.to see which country I would like to go to and I had heard about the

:48:48. > :48:54.referendum, and thought it would be a fan -- fascinating place to see.

:48:54. > :48:59.They visit first a political cartoonist. And then it was off to

:48:59. > :49:06.Stirling Castle for history and traditional music. The musicians

:49:06. > :49:16.were from New Zealand. Normally, the company behind the political

:49:16. > :49:17.

:49:17. > :49:24.tour treat their customers to the exotic delights to places such as -

:49:24. > :49:28.- Greece. The are trying to explain the debate to. It is complex -- and

:49:28. > :49:34.we are trying. We are trying to bring people on the Tour closer to

:49:34. > :49:40.the main protagonist, the main argument and strands of debate, say

:49:40. > :49:44.they get a broad understanding of what is being voted on. That is

:49:44. > :49:48.Robert the Bruce and his horse under that, I have to take their

:49:48. > :49:58.word for it because they are being refurbished in time for the

:49:58. > :49:58.

:49:58. > :50:02.anniversary. There are celebrations next year. It will play a part a

:50:02. > :50:08.few weeks before polling day and the Scottish National Party are

:50:08. > :50:13.keen that people have these events in mind when they cast their vote.

:50:13. > :50:18.This couple were actually from Scotland. Did they feel more

:50:18. > :50:27.prepared for the big vote? E it has made me think about the referendum

:50:27. > :50:33.and independence. Whereas last week I would think it is not for ages.

:50:33. > :50:41.His is definitely, I hope, a more informed though it -- it is

:50:41. > :50:45.definitely. If it might not be everybody's idea of an ideal summer

:50:45. > :50:49.holiday. But it is like the Scottish weather, it might be dull

:50:49. > :50:54.sometimes but it is never boring. And now I know where David has been

:50:54. > :50:58.over the summer. George Osborne went on his own tour of Scotland

:50:58. > :51:02.today. He is in Aberdeen, addressing oil industry executives.

:51:02. > :51:09.He told his audience the Scottish people would be out of pocket if

:51:10. > :51:15.they opted for independence. Scottish GDP could be 4% higher in

:51:15. > :51:22.30 years if it is part of the United Kingdom. �2,000 for every

:51:22. > :51:29.family in Scotland. Put it another way, separated from the UK, and the

:51:29. > :51:35.loss to every household would be �2,000. We can now speak to Douglas

:51:35. > :51:43.Fraser. He has been listening to the Chancellor in Aberdeen. Welcome.

:51:43. > :51:51.What was the response to what he had to say? He was saying a number

:51:51. > :51:55.of things around the UK offering broad shoulders, shared risks. This

:51:55. > :52:05.is a volatile source of revenue for the UK, he said comparing it with

:52:05. > :52:08.

:52:08. > :52:12.Scotland, it would be more volatile for Scotland than if it were in --

:52:12. > :52:16.independent. The response coming from the Scottish National Party,

:52:16. > :52:21.they say George Osborne is here to make up with an industry that had a

:52:21. > :52:29.tax rate, �2 billion a year taken off them without warning. The had

:52:29. > :52:36.to give away a lot of tax breaks. He is now taking credit for the

:52:36. > :52:40.record investment, more money being spent to get more oil and gas out.

:52:40. > :52:46.The other argument about a small country being less able to handle

:52:46. > :52:52.this, he is pointing across the North Sea. Norway has �470 billion

:52:52. > :52:56.of oil wealth because it managed resources differently. What about

:52:56. > :53:04.the reception generally to the Chancellor in warning people in

:53:04. > :53:09.Scotland that they will be worse off? If we go back to the polling

:53:09. > :53:14.last year, people are receptive to arguments about whether

:53:14. > :53:19.independence will make them better or worse off. If you were �500

:53:19. > :53:28.better off, how would you vote? There was a huge difference in how

:53:28. > :53:33.people might behave. He is now talking about �2,000. They are not

:53:33. > :53:39.many examples. If you look at the border between Canada and the US,

:53:39. > :53:43.Germany and Austria, the Treasury did some modelling, and they reckon

:53:43. > :53:49.the �2,000 after 30 years as a result of reducing trade. The

:53:49. > :53:53.reaction you get into Scotland, people are very receptive to the

:53:53. > :54:00.arguments about the economic effect of independence and what might

:54:00. > :54:05.happen. We do not know either way. And the Scottish National Party

:54:05. > :54:15.comes back saying that George Osborne does not know how the UK

:54:15. > :54:20.economy will be over the next 30 years. We are told you should not

:54:20. > :54:24.judge a book by its cover. Apparently, and you can judge

:54:24. > :54:30.someone's politics by how they dress. The Deputy Prime Minister

:54:30. > :54:35.has admitted to padding around the office without his shoes on. He was

:54:35. > :54:40.even perfectly relaxed about people in offices wearing shorts in hot

:54:40. > :54:46.weather. What do the rest do? An opinion poll asked on a normal day,

:54:46. > :54:51.of what you wear in the office? Out of the three biggest parties,

:54:51. > :54:56.conservative men are most likely to conservative men are most likely to

:54:56. > :55:01.wear a suit and tie. 30% said they did. Labour men are most likely to

:55:01. > :55:06.wear casual trousers. Liberal Democrat men are more likely to

:55:06. > :55:12.wear smart trousers and less likely to wear a suit and tie than the

:55:12. > :55:18.Labour and conservative men. The majority of women, whatever their

:55:18. > :55:23.support, opted for smart trousers and a top. And Liberal Democrat men

:55:23. > :55:27.and women are most likely to go to work in jeans and T-shirt. I am

:55:27. > :55:34.joined by the cultural commentator Peter York. Alan West is still with

:55:34. > :55:39.us. What do you make of the results? There are no surprises. By

:55:39. > :55:49.definition, Tories are going to dress more formally. I am surprised

:55:49. > :55:57.it is not more extreme. In any case, what it does not is whether the

:55:57. > :56:01.Tories in question are simply older and a more senior social class than

:56:01. > :56:08.the Labour and Liberal Democrat people. I am surprised it is not

:56:08. > :56:13.more extreme. The Tory idea is either you are aspirational, that

:56:13. > :56:21.his Sunday Times man, or you are retro, which means Sunday Express

:56:21. > :56:27.man. What are you? If I do not do smart, I look as if I am doing

:56:27. > :56:36.gardening. I do not do casual well. I am certain the Liberal Democrats

:56:36. > :56:41.wear sandals with their socks. with you. I am sure a lot of them

:56:41. > :56:50.do. They are told not to at conference. They push those people

:56:50. > :56:57.to the back! I am bucking the trend by wearing a dress. I presume

:56:57. > :57:07.trousers and top, that is comfort. It cuts both ways. You will

:57:07. > :57:11.

:57:11. > :57:19.remember, Lord West, "Folleting". Barbara Follett, who became a

:57:19. > :57:24.minister, I think. She was employed to make the Labour ladies look more

:57:24. > :57:31.like Tory ladies. They would dress smart. What you wear is important,

:57:31. > :57:41.it says something about it? Because today his Merchant Navy Day, 74

:57:41. > :57:43.

:57:43. > :57:47.years ago today week declared war on Nazi Germany. The question for

:57:47. > :57:57.viewers is are these on the right feet? They will have to think about

:57:57. > :58:02.

:58:02. > :58:10.that. That is rather smart. You have not come in a shirt and tie.

:58:10. > :58:20.came straight from my seaside holiday. However, you can see.

:58:20. > :58:23.

:58:23. > :58:29.you have a rather nice handkerchief. Do you wear your uniform? I do. I

:58:29. > :58:37.was going to St Paul's. Some youngsters saw me and he asked what

:58:37. > :58:41.I do. I said I was in the baby. He asked me what was the Navy. I tell

:58:41. > :58:50.them until I reach my station. When I got out, the whole carriage