03/09/2013 Daily Politics

Daily Politics. The worst refugee crisis for decades, says the UN, as

US politicians are told that missile strikes will significantly degrade

President Assad's military capacity, but as the crisis in Syria worsens,

Britain is left on the sidelines. The government legislates to

regulate lobbying, but good efforts to clean up British politics curtail

free speech? So you already knew you might be

eligible for PPI compensation 's does there need to be a change in

the law to clamp down on those nuisance calls?

And what you choose to wear to work might say about which political

party you support. All that in the next hour. With us

for the whole programme today is Admiral Lord West, or Alan West to

his friends. He was a security minister in the last government and

is still a Labour peer. And he used to be first Sea Lord. He is wearing

some appropriate socks, which he will now demonstrate for your

delight. We will come to those later. Let's start by talking about

the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, and yet another damning report into

the way replacement carriers have been commissioned by the Ministry of

Defence. The Public accounts committee of MPs said this morning

that the cost of the project, which began in 2007, could spiral

uncontrollably. The decision to scrap plans for them to carry jump

jets and then switch back again wasted �74 million, and it now seems

that the first carriers could enter service before there early warning

radar system is ready. Here is what defence secretary Philip Hammond had

to say about it. We made a tough decision in 2012 to revert to the

other aircraft type. We did it to save �1.2 billion of public money,

because the project to fit catapults was running out of control. I said

at the time that the cost of making that decision would be up to �100

million. It turns out that it is nearer to �75 million. That is a

sensible investment of public money in order to prevent a loss of a much

larger sum. Our guest of the day, Alan West, is

a former head of the Royal Navy. Did the coalition government make a

mistake when they decided to dump the last Labour government's plans

for jump jets? Yes, they did. They obviously had very bad advice from

within the Ministry of Defence. These people must be experts.

does make one wonder. I understand why they want to go for what is

known as the carrier variant, because it does not have to have all

the engines for vertical lift and it carries more weapons and more fuel.

That sounded a very attractive option. But catapults and Di Resta

wires on your aircraft. Because you have to adapt the aircraft in order

for these planes to take off and land. Absolutely. One would assume

they were making this change and that someone would have done some

sums, but clearly, they hadn't. That shows a certain incompetence within

the MoD. When civil servants and officials present ministers with

options, you talked about the fact that perhaps the variant fighter

jets were better. Does cost not play a big part in making those

decisions? Absolutely. Obviously, one wants capability, but it has to

be within cost parameters. Therefore, it is extraordinary. When

I was first Sea Lord, I insisted that new aircraft carriers were

designed so that should we change our mind about the type of

aircraft, we could easily convert it. When it came to the point of

doing it, that work had not been done. I am interested in them to

know what had been done in terms of the design work, because we paid

them to do that, and yet it was not ready to be converted. Cynically,

some might say, are there people within the MoD furthering their own

vested interests in certain types of military capability or certain types

of objects or vessels that they prefer? Inevitably, there are people

like that, but there should be mechanisms to stop that happening. I

think this did go wrong. The whole process, from the defence review in

1997-8, Labour said, we need these carriers if we are still to have any

chance of power projection. It has been a tortuous process. Decisions

have been made and changed, and they have cost a lots more than they need

have done, often because of political interference. Was it the

right decision to switch back to the original plan? Is Philip Hammond

right that overall, money will be saved by not pursuing the path taken

by his predecessor? I think so. This is water under the bridge, but way

back in 2002, the decision to have gone for different variant was made

them, but we lost that battle. we going to be better protected?

When we have the new aircraft carriers. We will have had ten years

without carriers, which is not clever. But when we get the new

carriers, it will make our forces safer and more capable. But will it

be necessary if we are not going to go into conflicts like Syria?

will still find ourselves involved in things all over the world. We run

global shipping from this country. Sadly, I wish there were not any

actions. And the taxpayer will have to foot the �74 million bill for the

conversion. Now, the United Nations has

registered more than 2 million refugees in the conflict. Another 5

million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner for

refugees has said the Syrian crisis is the tragedy of this century. In

Washington, Senator is preparing to vote on military action have been

told by President Obama that US attacks would significantly degrade

President Assad's military capacity and swing momentum from Assad to the

opposition forces. But Britain, of course, will not be involved. The

prime minister ruled out British involvement after last week's

Parliamentary votes. Yesterday, defence secretary Philip Hammond

told the Commons that the situation would have to change significantly

for the MPs to be consulted again. Labour echoed Mr Hammond's words,

but also sad Al-Qaeda getting hold of chemical weapons might persuade

them to change their position. America's new best friend is France.

Their National Assembly meets tomorrow, but unlike their British

and American counterparts, French deputies will not be given a vote.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that British military are being excluded

from Central command meetings in the US. The Foreign Secretary has been

answering questions about Syria this morning and specifically whether

President Obama had told senators any military action would be

necessary to tip the balance towards the opposition. President Obama has

made his purpose clear. He has now referred this to the United States

Congress, so we have to allow them to make their decision. We had our

vote last week. The US Congress will have its vote. But President Obama

is clear that any action proposed by the United States would be to deter

the further use of chemical weapons. I think we can take him at

his word. I will not criticise him for putting that forward.

We are joined now by our defence correspondent. We also heard from

the American general, who said that rather than limited targeted

strikes, if the American administration goes into conflict,

the American administration is prepared to hit Syria with some

force. Is that right? Yes, this is a former US general who was one of the

architects of the surge in Iraq. He has now retired, but is in close

contact with Senator John McCain. So is Lindsay Graham. They are both on

the hawkish side of this debate. They want more action on Syria from

I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.. They had a meeting with

President Obama, in which they said they were encouraged by the steps he

was prepared to take. The senator was left with the impression that

strikes were being planned. He believed they would be able to

significantly undermine the military capability of Syrian forces. You

have to see this in the context of what is going on politically, which

is that President Obama is clearly seeking the authorisation of

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

people like John McCain. But equally, he has talked about limited

strikes in public. He does not want boots on the ground. So I imagine

that when he speaks to those who are against military action, the message

will be different. So has the military objective changed?

hasn't changed. President Obama's number-1 goal is to deter the Assad

from using chemical again. And to deter them, you have to degrade the

Syrian military capability. You have to target the weapon systems and

units that have been accused of using those chemical weapon is. The

problem for President Obama is that now that we all know he is debating

his military strikes, it gives time for the military in Syria to move

those assets, possibly into areas where there are population centres,

to deter America from carrying out those strikes. It is a very

difficult calibration for President Obama, dealing both with Congress,

but also trying to keep the focus on what he can achieve militarily. With

us now is Bob Stewart, a Conservative member of the defence

select committee, and former British UN commander in Bosnia. Our guest of

the day, Alan West, former head of the Navy, is still here. Alan West,

last week we talked about this in Parliament. You were apprehensive

about Western intervention in Syria. Are you still apprehensive? I am,

because I want to know exactly what we try to achieve. It seems to me

that there was no charity to what we want to achieve. To say we want to

degrade his ability to use chemical weapons again, what exactly does

that mean in terms of an attack? Inevitably, you will change the

balance of capability in the civil war. And what then? We need much

more clarity about what we as a nation want out of military action

if we embark on it. Do you think there should be a further vote if

Congress votes yes for military strikes? Would you like to see them

vote yes? Probably yes. But as long as I know what they are embarking

on. I would like to have much greater clarity. I was slightly

shocked that a vote in our house, which was effectively just saying,

if we get further evidence, will we go ahead and do something? We have

got rid of that option, which is unfortunate. Do you want Congress to

vote yes for strikes in Syria? up to them, but yes. But I would

want is to have a second vote before military action. Last week's vote

was not about going to war. It was not about taking military action. As

Alan said, we would discuss what we might do in that second vote, and

that second vote will apparently now not take place. I am upset that we

have not had the opportunity to consider what we might do. It was

not a vote for war last week. that basis, it looks like senators

who previously said they did not think much of Obama's plans because

they did not go far enough now may support it action in Syria. Do you

think the objective of the US administration has changed? Are they

going to go for a broader military assault to degrade Assad's capacity

to launch or chemical attacks? will take President Obama on his

word, and his word was "we are going to degrade the capacity of the Assad

regime to use chemical weapons. We are not trying to do regime change"

. The rest of this is fluff. But in order to degrade, I am not a

military expert, but when they use terms like trying to degrade

Assad's capacity, what do you need? Almost inevitably, anything done

will have an impact, small large, on the balance within Syria. If he

decides to destroy lots of fighter jets and aircraft and helicopters,

that makes a huge change, because they are being used to attack his

own people. My worry looking to the future is that you get something you

don't want. Let's say the opposition took over in Syria. It is very

fragmented and there are extremely nasty bits of it. What happens when

they start massacring Christians? Do And the point of it is we have to

stop for the use of chemical weapons. That is why we wanted to

debated in Parliament, which we cannot do. If there is a larger

military assault, could it tip the balance? Of course it well. -- it

will. We -- we do not know what the assault will be. I am taking

President Obama on his word. general previously warned that even

limited strikes would involve hundreds of aircraft. The costs

would be in the billions. Do you agree with that? I am not sure I do.

This is the point, we do not know what is envisaged. It might be a

signal to Assad, do not do it again, a signal rather than extensive

destruction. The business of saying you are a naughty boy smacks of

empire. You need to have a clearer concept. What is the military

campaign plan? To say you are a naughty boy to somebody who is

clearly deranged if he has used chemical weapons, then you have to

do the follow one and the full one. You need to be clear what that is

and what you want to achieve. there any point in military action

that could achieve the limited, perhaps less limited air strikes,

that do not really degrade his capacity, and it will have been

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

we are doing nothing. Thankfully, it does not seem chemical weapons

have been used again and that is the purpose of what we do. Whatever

we do, the yardstick we measure against should be, will this save

lives? Also, will it actually tell Assad not you ever used chemical

weapons again. Is that in itself worthwhile? It achieves that,

absolutely. We were galloping last week to be doing something

yesterday. It would have been happening on Sunday. We were not.

That was not the motion. It changed. Last week, when I came into this.

We had asked for them to go in and asked the Russians to do that. We

had not explained what we were trying to achieve. We know the

British people are concerned. Those things should have been done. It

was hastily put together. The motion was changed. It was a shame

to rush us down that route. Better to do it in a balanced way,

checking through each thing. I regret the final result, to say we

will not think about it. We were not saying we were going to attack.

We were saying we would look at it when we had the evidence.

motion put those points in to play and we would have gone -- gone to

the United Nations. It was not a motion to deploy, News British --

use British military. It was a shambles. I was quite shocked.

Labour shot? I think the front bench was shocked. I did not think

for a moment, you could see the shock. By wanted a signal to Assad

that what he had done has gone wrong -- I wanted. We have him

saying actually, the British are going to do nothing. Would you like

it to come back, if the circumstances were enough to

persuade them to bring a motion back? You are should have options

open always. Our I agree with Alan West. I think it will come back --

I agreed. Syria is a real problem, the biggest problem in the world at

the moment. We will have to address it and it could be that we have to

come back and think about military options again. I wish we did not

have to use the military, but we should not take the auction off the

table at an early stage. David Cameron said it would be the next

big scandal to hit politics and sure enough, a succession of

politicians have been caught out selling services to lobbyists. The

Prime Minister employed Lynton Crosby as director of strategy. He

also runs a lobbying firm. The Government has brought forward a

Bill that will aim to regulate the lobbying business. It will be

debated today. Andrew Lansley was grilled this morning. We have had a

queue of people from the voluntary sector asking why we did not talk

to them about this. They are not facts. We want the legislation to

be better. You can talk to us, you can inform us, you can consult. We

feel we have a contribution to make. And, speaking for Parliament, it is

a legitimate issue that this committee and Parliament is

properly involved in this process. It is not a Bill published one day

before the recess and a second reading one day after the recess,

three working days between a Bill that not many of us knew certain

sections existed and parliament is due to have it put through

committee next week. Why on earth do you not get people on your side

to make a better Bill? Part one of the Bill in that sense has been,

although the drafting you might have seen, the policy on which it

is based has been the subject of discussion for a long time. Part

two, non-party campaigning, I accept your strictures more, that

is the part two of the Bill was trying to do what it is sometimes

represented as doing. The boundary between what is and can -- what is

campaigning and electoral purposes. To talk about the Lobbying Bill,

I'm joined by the Deputy Leader of the House, Tom Brake. First, let's

talk to Alexandra Runswick of pressure group Unlock Democracy.

You have been campaigning for legislation. Are you pleased that,

finally, it looks as if the legislation will get onto the

statute book? It will not deliver transparency in lobbying, if

anything it will make it worse. The definition of lobbying is so narrow.

Because it only focuses on consultants. It will catch us so

little activity in the United Kingdom. The what is the difference

between a consultant and in House lobbyist? And in House lobbyist

works for an organisation, it could be Tesco supermarket, it could be

me working for Unlock Democracy. The other works for different

clients. The work we do is the same, to influence government policy and

we should be captured by the lobbying register. Industry figures

recognise four out of five lobbyists are in house, not agency.

Even those who work as agency lobby -- lobbyists, are unlikely to be

captured by this. Very little lobbying activity in the UK is

based on meeting senior civil servants and politicians. What

could be done? The version of the register we are presented with is a

weaker version than the one that exists in Australia. What we have

seen in Australia is what happened with having a narrowly defined

register his activity may have to wait from consultants and lobbyists,

and moved to management consultants, accountancy firms, lawyers. It

moved lobbying activity away from the people on the register.

will it affect third party organisations, such as charities?

Part two of the Bill will have a chilling effect on the voluntary

sector. It is interesting to see that while the Government is

unwilling to regulate corporate lobbying, it is more than willing

to put in restrictions on voluntary sector campaigning, because they

have taken up the definition of the tent of producing materials for

electoral purposes, it means any statement of public policy by a

voluntary organisation could be considered to be for electoral

purposes and could prevent people campaigning and getting involved in

campaigns. Tom Brake, it will have a chilling effect on third party

organisations who will be frightened to campaign on

legitimate issues which can only in the broader sense be defined as

political because of this legislation? There is a clear

misunderstanding of what it proposes. In it is very clear that

a charity is that want to campaign on policy issues, they will be able

to continue to do that. The Bill does not affect them. It's limits

the amount of money they can spend in the year running up to an

election. They would have to register at everything after �5,000.

What the charities seem to suggest is the Government is trying to

constrain them in relation to policy. It is true that any

organisation seeking to influence the outcome of an election,

supporting a party, they will have to register. Most charities do not

do political campaigning work, because they are not allowed to.

Influencing an election outcome could include all sorts of things,

inadvertently. Campaigns such as international a lead, if Oxfam

carried out a campaign and their opponent was the UK Independence

Party, they would be limited. would have to be accounted for

walls if Oxfam in a constituency said they encouraged members to

vote for a certain candidate, that is something they would have to

account for. If it is the charity arm, they would not be allowed to

do that because the Charity Commission would not allow it.

does this have to do with the scandal we have watched regarding

lobbying? The Government is trying to do one thing, it is about

addressing consultant lobbyists, and ensuring when a minister meets

with a third-party, a lobbyist, those details, people can track to

the Third Party lobbyist is working for. They will see it on the

register. If a minister meets an external organisation at the moment,

the in house lobbyist for a certain company, bat would be on the report

of the meeting, -- that would be. There is already transparency about

meetings. The what she has not done and the organisations who are

advocating having the in house lobbyists on the register is

explain why that is needed when that reports that ministers have

about the meetings they have with in-house lobbyists are reported on

a quarterly basis. What would we gain by having them on the

register? Be cos they will still be treated differently to the other

and lobbyists -- because. We do not want to duplicate what is being

done in government. The Government reports meetings that ministers

have with in-house lobbyists. You can see the meetings I have had an

see the purposes of the discussion. Ministers and permanent secretaries.

Why do about other politicians? and what about? These would be the

ones who exert the most influence and we would have to control those

contacts more carefully. In relation to scandals that there

have been, they have been members of parliament he would have been in

breach of the Code of Conduct, which covers those issues. That is

not about introducing the new rules. We can think about a campaign that

your party was involved in, the National Union of Students pledge

not to raise tuition fees. Did you sign that? I did.That would not

happen now. There is a limit that if an organisation like the

National Union of Students wanted to run a national campaign, they

would only be allowed to spend just under 400,000. In the run-up there

were two organisations that spent over that limit. In terms of having

a dampening effect on the ability of organisations to campaign, that

will not be the case. It will save you signing any more pledges that

have to be broken! A response Alexandra Runswick. If you look at

the legal advice that has been produced by the National Council

for Voluntary organisations and leave the notes -- and read the

notes to the Bill, it says the Bill will remove the test of intent and

any statement of public policy could be covered by this Bill. That

is why it will have a chilling effect on voluntary sector

campaigning. We want more people taking part in campaigning and not

The things that upset the public are things like insiders who are paid

somebody to get regular access to ministers or the prime minister or

whatever. Also, they don't like it when there is money involved. It is

that aspect of lobbying that people don't like. I don't think this bill

gets the take from me. It will need a lot of tightening up.

Now, it has been a torrid few years for the journalistic profession. We

have had the phone hacking scandal at the newspapers, revelations of

cosy relationships between politicians, editors and proprietors

and the BBC's editorial decisions have come under the spotlight. So

the actions of journalists themselves need to be scrutinised,

but if they are going to hold power for people to account, do they also

need special legal protection? That question was put in perspective

over the summer when David Miranda was arrested at Heathrow Airport and

detained by police for nine hours under the terrorism act. He is the

partner of the Guardian journalist responsible for bringing the

revelations of whistle-blower and former intelligence officer Edward

Snowden to public attention. UK intelligence officers then entered

Guardian offices and oversaw the destruction of hard drives

containing sensitive information. Mr Snowden himself spent weeks inside

Moscow airport, escaping American jurisdiction, and has now been

granted asylum in Russia. He is being helped by the Wikileaks

organisation. Its founder Julian Assange is himself avoiding

extradition to Sweden inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Joining us now is George Brock, a former Times journalist and now I

professor of journalism at City University who has just published a

book, Out Of Print?, about the changing nature of journalism. Who

classifies as a journalist? There is no agreed legal definition. There

was nowhere in the world where you could have that question settled

easily. In the United States, there are what are called shield laws in

some states which say that if you are a journalist, you can't be

required by court to disclose your sources. But trying to define

journalists is a mistake. But then how can you advise protection for a

group of people who are difficult to define? Journalism is a messy

business and it is always changing. You should not try and roped off the

profession. The law needs to look at whether there is a public interest

and a value in what journalism does. That may involve people who call

themselves journalists, or not. They might be whistle-blowers or people

in the right place at the right time. Is there a danger that always

using the public interest defence, if you are somebody that the public

might not see as a journalist, somebody working for a newspaper, a

whistle-blower, for example? One has to be careful about trying to define

these things. You can't do it easily. Clearly, if there is

something coming out that is in the public interest, there has to be a

common-sense view about it. But equally, there is a great desire

that you see in the Guardian a lot. They don't like secrets. Just

because it is secret, but is what all of our secret intelligence

agencies are about. Occasionally, things are over classified. The

Guardian are frightfully British in they somehow seem to think they

should have access to all of this and make the decisions. That is

dangerous. And it responsible for people who have signed up to the

intelligence services to a code of conduct to protect certain

information? I think most journalists accept that there are

some things which governments and states are going to do which they

are entitled to keep secret. That is not the issue. The issue is how much

they are entitled to keep secret and how much we are entitled to inspect

what they are doing with that secrecy. And where would you draw

that line? I accept that it is difficult to draw, but I have been

involved with intelligence officers for years. And I know there are

large numbers of people working very hard to protect our nation, not

trying to eavesdrop on things people are doing normally and not trying to

do nasty things. They occasionally get it wrong because it is so

complicated, but better to give them the benefit of the doubt, because

the people who are against us in all these areas, they have no interest

in these things. I would accept that there are many people who work in

secret who are trying to do the right thing, but things also go

wrong. There was a government official in that case about David

Miranda, who was involved in the Edward Snowden leaks. A British

government official said there are 58,000 documents in his possession

which were passed to him by this whistle-blower, Edward Snowden. What

is a contractor, not even a member of the US intelligence staff, doing

with 58,000 sensitive British documents? We are tagged to ask.

have moved so fast. Once upon a time, there would have been files.

Now you can have 58,000 things on a memory stick. I agree it is a

problem. I hope there are people in our agency is asking the question,

which bit of the US needed to have that? But to release 58,000 without

needing to see what damage that does to security, I think is extremely

risky. And this sort of self-justification of people like

Snowden, I am doing this because I am wonderful, it does not... But the

newspaper concerned has not released all that information, let's be fair.

No, but it is sitting there and there may be something in there. We

need to review it and say, let's not let this be released. You can't

leave it sitting there. Has Edward Snowden done anything in terms of

service to the world and the public interest? Well, I am not sure he

has, to be honest. As I say, there are certain secrets that are secret,

and people are trying hard to do things that look after our security.

I am not saying there should not be whistle-blowers, but it is a very

difficult balance. At the moment, I am afraid we have tipped the wrong

way. There is a difference. If you are being paid by the Guardian, that

is one thing. If you are making your living by taking the US dollar or

the British pound, surely your obligations are different? If you

are a servant of the state, of course your obligations are

different to a journalist. But in an open society, you have journalists.

But you say they are an undefined group which could spread to being

servants of the state. I don't think you should confuse journalists with

servants of the state. I am not saying that journalists are only

one. It is just that in legal terms, defining journalists is

difficult. Should they be protected? I think journalists are very

important. Should they be protected in law? I am not sure how you do it.

But they should be looked after. But it is amazing that people who are

shouting this to the rooftops are the ones who were having a go at the

Sun and the Times for the things they did.

They want to have their cake and eat it. So, you are sitting and watching

your favourite TV programme, like the Daily Politics. The phone rings,

you get up to and it and it is a recorded voice informing you for the

umpteenth time that you may be owed compensation for mis-sold PPI,

whether or not you have it. The culture select committee have been

taking evidence on this subject this morning, though they could have just

spent a day in my front room. He was Richard Lloyd consumer group which

macro, explaining the scale of the problem. We found that 85% of people

said they had had an unsolicited call or text in the previous month.

That is a big proportion of the population, and that includes people

who had signed up to the Telephone preference service in the past not

to be contacted for marketing purposes. We are keen to see the

committee look into this. It has become a growing problem. More

people have come to which macro complaining about this, and there is

a significant proportion of people who have had this nuisance. They are

now saying they are afraid or do not want to answer the phone because

they are fearful that it will be a marketing call.

Joining us from Salford is Simon Entwistle from the Office of the

Information Commissioner, and John Major some of the Direct Marketing

Association, who appeared before the select committee this morning. You

are head of preference services for the Direct Marketing Association, so

can you explain what the Telephone preference system is, and how it

should stop before receiving nuisance calls? The Telephone

preference service is the central opt out register in the UK. Anybody

that wants to reduce the number of sales calls they receive can

register their telephone number with us either by going to our website or

calling our contact centre. Once their phone number has been

registered with us for 28 days, it is a legal requirement for companies

to screen out that number. But it does not seem to work, because the

evidence presented by Richard Lloyd from the witch consumer organisation

says that although it works initially, after signing up, people

reported receiving an average ten unsolicited calls in the previous

month. Yes, the research also went on to say that people received fewer

calls after registering than they did before. The problem we have is

with rogue companies that are willing to ignore the legislation

and make telephone calls to any registered on TPS. We would

obviously like to see more enforcement. Simon Entwistle, would

that do it, more enforcement? Is it just rogue companies ignoring the

rules? There are two elements to this. There is this element of rogue

callers ignoring the rules, but there is also this blurring of what

accounts for consent when people have already signed up for the

Telephone preference service, but they are deemed to have consented to

the call being made. So even if you have signed up, if you consent to a

call being made to you perhaps via something you have done online,

calls can be made to you legitimately. This is a big

challenge for us, to tease out those cases where consent has not been

given and to take action. We have issued fines, but we also find it

challenging to issue them because the law currently requires us to

show substantial distress before we can find an organisation. Do you not

agree that the buyer is too high? Why should people have to

demonstrate a level of harm? If it is a nuisance and you are receiving

ten unsolicited calls, that is too much? Should the barbie lowered?

agree. At the moment, they have to prove significant damage, and it

would be better if that was reduced to nuisance. You agree with the law

being changed in that respect. Which is calling for the government to

introduce a set expiry date when a person agrees to being contacted by

selected third parties, and an obligation on businesses to prove to

the information commission office that a person has consented to being

contacted. Would you support that? Certainly the obligation of an

organisation to prove that it had consent would be important. Most

companies can do that already. The issue of the expiry of consent, I am

not so sure about. I would have to see the details. If you have signed

up to the Telephone preference system, even if you accidentally

ticked a box on something completely unrelated which did arguably give

your consent to receive calls, should you still be able to say, I

must not receive any calls? Yes, there are couple of ways this can be

done. If somebody calls you and you ask them not to call you again,

there is an obligation on that company to add your number to that

do not call list and they should not contact you again. But the issue of

third-party consent, which is where if you sign up for something

online, you are giving consent for some police to contact you. So you

can still get nuisance calls. Isn't that a bigger problem, that people

do tick boxes to say you can receive calls, and then you are not

protected by the Telephone preference service? That is a

problem throughout the internet. A lot of areas have terms and

conditions that are very complicated. You end up digging a

box without having read the appropriate details. That is not

just about consent to calls being made, it is about other contractual

obligations that you enter into when you are on websites. We would like

to see the law simplified here as well. But it goes beyond signing up

for calls being made to you or not. Within a household, a child might

sign up to receive calls without your knowledge. So the call is being

made legitimately, but someone else has signed up to it using your

telephone number. All sorts of things happen. Coming back to the

rogue callers, we have done some research and we find that well over

15% of calls being made now are being made using spoofed numbers.

There is a whole range of areas to be looked at that go beyond how well

the Telephone preference service is working. Do you think this is a

problem you can get to grips with, bearing in mind the examples you

have given? Do I think we will ever stop all cold calls and people

getting annoyed, the answer is probably no. But we can reduce them

to the minimum, and that is what we are trying to do by taking steps to

change the law and take enforcement action against those who are

I have friends who are constantly being telephoned. Resolving it will

be difficult. I sometimes feel sorry for people ringing because

they are desperately trying to earn a crust. But it is annoying.

companies really do enough to actually limit their cold calling?

Some of it is legitimate business and a lot of it is not and have

numbers are being called at random and nobody is checking the list.

That's it is the side of the industry we would describe as rogue.

There is a legitimate side to the industry that takes the legislation

seriously. When we go out complaints we receive, the majority

-- when we look at, the majority are from small organisations,

trying to gather information to sell on to other people and maybe

make a PPI claim, something like that. I am sure we will have you

back and see if any more nuisance calls have come in here. Some

holidays might feel like a distant memory, particularly if you were

ordered back early for the vote on Syria. But some cannot switch off.

Their idea of a cracking vacation, apolitical tour of Scotland.

Knowing David likes the exotic, we sent him to Glasgow to find out

what it was all about. Did she go anywhere nice? A spot of

foreign culture? Some people's idea of getting away from it all was a

political tour of Scotland. How big a vehicle would you need to fit in

every one who wanted a political tour of Scotland? As it happens,

you can get them comfortably in the back of a minibus. This minibus.

They include this woman from Australia who came here for a taste

of Scottish weather and Scottish politics. When I heard political

tour, I thought it was for me. I waited for the opportunity and look

to see which country I would like to go to and I had heard about the

referendum, and thought it would be a fan -- fascinating place to see.

They visit first a political cartoonist. And then it was off to

Stirling Castle for history and traditional music. The musicians

were from New Zealand. Normally, the company behind the political

tour treat their customers to the exotic delights to places such as -

- Greece. The are trying to explain the debate to. It is complex -- and

we are trying. We are trying to bring people on the Tour closer to

the main protagonist, the main argument and strands of debate, say

they get a broad understanding of what is being voted on. That is

Robert the Bruce and his horse under that, I have to take their

word for it because they are being refurbished in time for the

anniversary. There are celebrations next year. It will play a part a

few weeks before polling day and the Scottish National Party are

keen that people have these events in mind when they cast their vote.

This couple were actually from Scotland. Did they feel more

prepared for the big vote? E it has made me think about the referendum

and independence. Whereas last week I would think it is not for ages.

His is definitely, I hope, a more informed though it -- it is

definitely. If it might not be everybody's idea of an ideal summer

holiday. But it is like the Scottish weather, it might be dull

sometimes but it is never boring. And now I know where David has been

over the summer. George Osborne went on his own tour of Scotland

today. He is in Aberdeen, addressing oil industry executives.

He told his audience the Scottish people would be out of pocket if

they opted for independence. Scottish GDP could be 4% higher in

30 years if it is part of the United Kingdom. �2,000 for every

family in Scotland. Put it another way, separated from the UK, and the

loss to every household would be �2,000. We can now speak to Douglas

Fraser. He has been listening to the Chancellor in Aberdeen. Welcome.

What was the response to what he had to say? He was saying a number

of things around the UK offering broad shoulders, shared risks. This

is a volatile source of revenue for the UK, he said comparing it with

Scotland, it would be more volatile for Scotland than if it were in --

independent. The response coming from the Scottish National Party,

they say George Osborne is here to make up with an industry that had a

tax rate, �2 billion a year taken off them without warning. The had

to give away a lot of tax breaks. He is now taking credit for the

record investment, more money being spent to get more oil and gas out.

The other argument about a small country being less able to handle

this, he is pointing across the North Sea. Norway has �470 billion

of oil wealth because it managed resources differently. What about

the reception generally to the Chancellor in warning people in

Scotland that they will be worse off? If we go back to the polling

last year, people are receptive to arguments about whether

independence will make them better or worse off. If you were �500

better off, how would you vote? There was a huge difference in how

people might behave. He is now talking about �2,000. They are not

many examples. If you look at the border between Canada and the US,

Germany and Austria, the Treasury did some modelling, and they reckon

the �2,000 after 30 years as a result of reducing trade. The

reaction you get into Scotland, people are very receptive to the

arguments about the economic effect of independence and what might

happen. We do not know either way. And the Scottish National Party

comes back saying that George Osborne does not know how the UK

economy will be over the next 30 years. We are told you should not

judge a book by its cover. Apparently, and you can judge

someone's politics by how they dress. The Deputy Prime Minister

has admitted to padding around the office without his shoes on. He was

even perfectly relaxed about people in offices wearing shorts in hot

weather. What do the rest do? An opinion poll asked on a normal day,

of what you wear in the office? Out of the three biggest parties,

conservative men are most likely to conservative men are most likely to

wear a suit and tie. 30% said they did. Labour men are most likely to

wear casual trousers. Liberal Democrat men are more likely to

wear smart trousers and less likely to wear a suit and tie than the

Labour and conservative men. The majority of women, whatever their

support, opted for smart trousers and a top. And Liberal Democrat men

and women are most likely to go to work in jeans and T-shirt. I am

joined by the cultural commentator Peter York. Alan West is still with

us. What do you make of the results? There are no surprises. By

definition, Tories are going to dress more formally. I am surprised

it is not more extreme. In any case, what it does not is whether the

Tories in question are simply older and a more senior social class than

the Labour and Liberal Democrat people. I am surprised it is not

more extreme. The Tory idea is either you are aspirational, that

his Sunday Times man, or you are retro, which means Sunday Express

man. What are you? If I do not do smart, I look as if I am doing

gardening. I do not do casual well. I am certain the Liberal Democrats

wear sandals with their socks. with you. I am sure a lot of them

do. They are told not to at conference. They push those people

to the back! I am bucking the trend by wearing a dress. I presume

trousers and top, that is comfort. It cuts both ways. You will

remember, Lord West, "Folleting". Barbara Follett, who became a

minister, I think. She was employed to make the Labour ladies look more

like Tory ladies. They would dress smart. What you wear is important,

it says something about it? Because today his Merchant Navy Day, 74

years ago today week declared war on Nazi Germany. The question for

viewers is are these on the right feet? They will have to think about

that. That is rather smart. You have not come in a shirt and tie.

came straight from my seaside holiday. However, you can see.

you have a rather nice handkerchief. Do you wear your uniform? I do. I

was going to St Paul's. Some youngsters saw me and he asked what

I do. I said I was in the baby. He asked me what was the Navy. I tell

them until I reach my station. When I got out, the whole carriage