03/09/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/09/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles