:00:40. > :00:46.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. The Skull Cracker is
:00:47. > :00:52.back behind bars but why was this violent criminal in an open prison
:00:53. > :00:55.and allowed out on day release? Four big retailers and a major
:00:56. > :01:01.restaurant chain have confirmed that they sell some halal meat without it
:01:02. > :01:04.being labelled as such. Should we be told?
:01:05. > :01:08.18 months after Lord Justice Levenson published his inquiry into
:01:09. > :01:13.the culture and practices of the press, are we any closer to a deal
:01:14. > :01:16.on regulating the press? We speak to a former Fleet Street editor. And
:01:17. > :01:21.Indian mangoes are a former Fleet Street editor. And
:01:22. > :01:26.best in the world so why has the EU banned them?
:01:27. > :01:35.We speak to a top chef who said the ban needs to be listed lifted. All
:01:36. > :01:38.that in the next hour. With us for the programme is Tony Gallagher, the
:01:39. > :01:42.former editor of the Daily Telegraph, soon to return to his
:01:43. > :01:48.former employer the Daily Mail. Welcome to the show. The so-called
:01:49. > :01:51.Skull Cracker is back behind bars, a relief for everyone. Michael
:01:52. > :01:56.Wheatley had been given 13 life sentences and was caught by police
:01:57. > :02:00.yesterday following a raid on a building society in London. He had
:02:01. > :02:05.absconded from an open prison in Kent on Saturday. The case has
:02:06. > :02:09.started a political debate around the treatment of violent criminals,
:02:10. > :02:15.with questions being asked about why Michael Wheatley was in an open
:02:16. > :02:19.prison and subject today release. Attempts to reduce the prison
:02:20. > :02:22.population mean that almost all criminals given custodial sentences
:02:23. > :02:30.are eligible to be released after serving half their terms. But
:02:31. > :02:34.Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said this week that early release
:02:35. > :02:38.rules were undermining public trust in the criminal justice system. He
:02:39. > :02:45.told MPs that in an ideal world, ten years would mean ten years. So could
:02:46. > :02:48.the issue become an election battle ground? Reports suggest the
:02:49. > :02:53.Conservatives will include plans to reform key parts of the criminal
:02:54. > :02:58.justice system in their manifesto. Under the plans, offenders would no
:02:59. > :03:03.longer be automatically eligible for release, but would have to earn that
:03:04. > :03:08.right through good behaviour, and by taking part in rehabilitation
:03:09. > :03:14.programmes. So are the proposals a good idea and could being tough on
:03:15. > :03:21.crime be a vote winner all the parties at the general election? I
:03:22. > :03:24.am joined by Conservative MP Nick Gibb and hopefully by Juliet Lyon
:03:25. > :03:28.from the Prison Reform Trust. I understand traffic is causing a
:03:29. > :03:33.problem for our guests. Well done for making it into the studio but
:03:34. > :03:38.you have not got to come very far. First of all, your reaction. In
:03:39. > :03:41.terms of hearing the news that somebody like Michael Wheatley was
:03:42. > :03:51.in an open prison and on day release. I have an open prison in my
:03:52. > :03:54.constituency. I am always struck by how many life sentence prisoners
:03:55. > :03:59.there are in it. I don't think it is right for convicted murderers,
:04:00. > :04:03.people with a violent background, to be sent to open prisons
:04:04. > :04:08.automatically. At all? The Government is reviewing the
:04:09. > :04:12.conditions that apply for early release and transfer to open
:04:13. > :04:16.prisons. I hope as part of that review they will consider toughening
:04:17. > :04:20.up those conditions. I do question whether somebody with a history of
:04:21. > :04:25.violence is right to be sent to an open prison because when they do
:04:26. > :04:29.abscond, and I have had two people absconding from an open prison last
:04:30. > :04:34.year, one of whom has been recaptured and the other hasn't, and
:04:35. > :04:38.it does undermine local confidence in having an open prison in your
:04:39. > :04:41.community. Lots of the prisons are in Laurel, small communities and you
:04:42. > :04:49.need the support of people living nearby for the prisons to remain.
:04:50. > :04:53.You are astonished by the high numbers of violent offenders who are
:04:54. > :04:57.in open prisons. But Michael Wheatley was an release on temporary
:04:58. > :05:00.licence, which are granted to prisoners to help them settle back
:05:01. > :05:05.into the community at the end of their sentences and he is just one
:05:06. > :05:08.case. When you look at the figures of another person committing a
:05:09. > :05:13.further offence while on release on temporary licence, it is still very
:05:14. > :05:18.small. It was just 0.005%, which does not tally with your feeling
:05:19. > :05:29.there being a large number of these types of violent offenders. There
:05:30. > :05:34.were 200 abscondings last year. It is 20 if you extrapolate that to
:05:35. > :05:38.Ford prison. These high profile cases alarm the public and that is
:05:39. > :05:41.my concern. There is no doubt that high profile cases alarm the public
:05:42. > :05:47.but is it the right thing to do to try and stop violent offenders when
:05:48. > :05:54.they come to the end of their sentence and they are considered
:05:55. > :05:58.eligible for day release? Should it be reviewed? Should they get that
:05:59. > :06:01.right? Clearly something has gone wrong because the Skull Cracker
:06:02. > :06:05.should not have been considered for early release and should not have
:06:06. > :06:08.been sent to an open prison in the first place. He has inadvertently
:06:09. > :06:12.done us a favour because he exposes the myth that people go down for
:06:13. > :06:17.long terms and remain in jail for long terms. I suspect what we need
:06:18. > :06:20.is some honesty in the sentencing policy going forward so when it says
:06:21. > :06:25.ten years it means ten years and people can have trust in the system.
:06:26. > :06:28.Why has the Government is not done anything to make the sentences mean
:06:29. > :06:32.what they say? Chris Grayling is talking the talk but he is not
:06:33. > :06:36.walking the walk. They have toughened up but this Government is
:06:37. > :06:41.constrained. If you talk to any Conservative, they want tougher
:06:42. > :06:45.sentences and honesty but the constraint has been the state of the
:06:46. > :06:49.public finances. There is huge pressure within the Conservative
:06:50. > :06:53.Party to have much more honest sentencing. Because it is wrong.
:06:54. > :06:58.When you hear a judge handing down a ten year sentence and you calculate
:06:59. > :07:03.that he will be out in five, it is almost hoodwinking the public in
:07:04. > :07:06.terms of the severity of the sentence being passed down. Do you
:07:07. > :07:10.think the Government has done enough? I don't but they have been
:07:11. > :07:14.hamstrung by judicial discretion. There was the case of an old age
:07:15. > :07:19.pensioner knocked down by a single punch. The four year jail term meted
:07:20. > :07:23.out to the attacker was considered adequate, despite the fact that many
:07:24. > :07:27.people would feel that man should have gone to prison for a great deal
:07:28. > :07:31.longer. Judicial discretion means that ministers are hamstrung to some
:07:32. > :07:34.extent. They have done some things but the idea that ten years will
:07:35. > :07:40.mean ten years, Chris Grayling will have a very hard time enacting that
:07:41. > :07:43.policy. He has asked the Council to review it sentences for
:07:44. > :07:59.manslaughter. That shows the direction of travel this Government
:08:00. > :08:01.is taking. But if you are saying judicial discretion, are you saying
:08:02. > :08:04.that shouldn't exist? Do we want a public vote on these things? For
:08:05. > :08:06.political decisions to make them? That is dangerous. If we had public
:08:07. > :08:10.voting, people would be hanged and drawn. The fact is that Chris
:08:11. > :08:14.Grayling has a hard time convincing judges of the things he wants to do.
:08:15. > :08:18.Quite often he can insist on something and have it overridden by
:08:19. > :08:22.the Court of Appeal or Europe. But that the battle over mandatory life
:08:23. > :08:26.sentences remaining mandatory and people being locked away forever. It
:08:27. > :08:31.only replies to a very tiny number of people, the very worst offenders
:08:32. > :08:38.in society, but there is a battle royal row over that in Europe at the
:08:39. > :08:42.moment. Let's talk about Nick Clegg's report that he has written
:08:43. > :08:47.today. He says a six-month sentence sounds tough but it is too harsh for
:08:48. > :08:55.possession of a penknife, albeit possession of that knife for a
:08:56. > :08:59.second time. Is he wrong? It is a question of judgement. We need tough
:09:00. > :09:04.sentences for serious issues. What about possession of a penknife? It
:09:05. > :09:08.can be. The case of a teacher being stabbed in school, why was that
:09:09. > :09:14.people carrying a knife? Did he search for the knife in the school?
:09:15. > :09:17.We need to send a clear message for society that carrying a sharp knife
:09:18. > :09:20.with a view to committing a violent offence is a serious matter and we
:09:21. > :09:26.should have tough sentences for these issues. Thank you.
:09:27. > :09:31.The development of shale gas, which is extracted using the controversial
:09:32. > :09:35.process of fracking, should be an urgent national priority. The House
:09:36. > :09:38.of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has backed the Government's
:09:39. > :09:43.commitment to shale gas, but says progress is being held back by
:09:44. > :09:48.complex rules. Lord MacGregor chairs the Economic Affairs Committee and
:09:49. > :09:54.joins me now. Why is it an urgent priority? Because the risks of not
:09:55. > :09:58.going ahead as fast as we can very much greater than the very small
:09:59. > :10:02.amount of risk involved in fracking. If we don't go ahead, we will not
:10:03. > :10:08.get all the advantages that the American economy has had with
:10:09. > :10:12.raising shale gas and oil. We have a real risk of energy in security.
:10:13. > :10:19.Security problems of getting energy from Russia and elsewhere in an area
:10:20. > :10:23.of the world which is pretty dangerous. The security risks
:10:24. > :10:28.long-term of that supply of gas drying up a very great for us. There
:10:29. > :10:32.are huge benefits to the public as a whole. The energy price, the effect
:10:33. > :10:36.of shale gas and oil, industry will benefit, the environment will
:10:37. > :10:41.benefit. The benefits are huge but the problem is that at the moment we
:10:42. > :10:44.are being delayed by too many organisations having different
:10:45. > :10:49.deadlines. The regulatory organisations have not got enough
:10:50. > :10:52.coordination so it is difficult for companies to go ahead and do the
:10:53. > :10:56.experimental drilling to see what shale gas we have got. I want to
:10:57. > :11:00.know how far down the line we have gone of fracking to start with but
:11:01. > :11:05.let's talk about the benefits. You talk like you know them already,
:11:06. > :11:10.using America as a comparison. It is clear we are not America in terms of
:11:11. > :11:14.size, scale, and potential damage to the environment and countryside. Is
:11:15. > :11:18.it a fair comparison? I am not making a comparison with America, I
:11:19. > :11:30.am just saying they have got huge benefits already by going ahead so
:11:31. > :11:32.well. The benefits for us would be less than the United States and we
:11:33. > :11:35.don't know until we do experimental drilling, and we have not done any
:11:36. > :11:38.yet, how much potential is there. Some people estimate several decades
:11:39. > :11:40.of gas supply and we have to find out. The benefit is to our
:11:41. > :11:44.industries. America lost lots of energy intensive industries when
:11:45. > :11:48.energy prices were high. Shale gas and oil has allowed these industries
:11:49. > :11:55.to go back to America, with huge employment benefits. There will be
:11:56. > :11:59.benefits with having their supply of our own. The opportunities are great
:12:00. > :12:03.but we are not getting an fast enough to realise them. Why has the
:12:04. > :12:07.exploratory stage not even got under way? You talk about complex
:12:08. > :12:13.difficulties. I don't need to go into the detail but what is the main
:12:14. > :12:17.block even to find out if there is shale gas? It is very complicated
:12:18. > :12:21.for companies to apply for exploratory drilling. Since the
:12:22. > :12:24.embargo on fracking was removed in 2012, we have not yet had an
:12:25. > :12:31.application letter loan approval for experimental drilling. We make
:12:32. > :12:34.proposals for not weakening the regulatory environment, because that
:12:35. > :12:38.is important and we have a very good one, but streamlining it so that
:12:39. > :12:42.companies will know how long it will take to go through the process, so
:12:43. > :12:47.that there is better coordination between the agencies that deal with
:12:48. > :12:51.the different aspects. Thank you for joining us. Marcus Adams has started
:12:52. > :12:55.a campaign group in his local area in Sussex against fracking. Welcome
:12:56. > :13:01.to the programme. You heard the benefits. Lord MacGregor says we
:13:02. > :13:03.have to get on with it. Why do you disagree? I think the priorities
:13:04. > :13:10.expressed in the report from the Lords that was published today are
:13:11. > :13:13.frankly wrong. The primary responsibility should be to protect
:13:14. > :13:18.people's health and the environment because once they are damaged, there
:13:19. > :13:21.is no going back. Any oil and gas in the ground has been there for
:13:22. > :13:25.millions of years and another couple of months waiting at ensuring that
:13:26. > :13:28.we have an appropriate regulatory regime in place, that can be
:13:29. > :13:32.properly monitored, I think is the right priority. You're not against
:13:33. > :13:38.fracking per se, even though you talk about health risks. We heard
:13:39. > :13:42.there that they believe the risks are extremely small. Contamination
:13:43. > :13:47.to the water table, for example, and other environmental concerns. But
:13:48. > :13:51.you are not against fracking in itself? I have to say that the more
:13:52. > :13:55.research I have done, the more concerned I am. I'm very sceptical
:13:56. > :13:59.that fracking can be undertaken safely. There is a wealth of
:14:00. > :14:04.evidence coming out of America from creditable sources, universities,
:14:05. > :14:10.the American Association of Paediatricians, identifying major
:14:11. > :14:14.health risks to people living in proximity to fracking sites. Do
:14:15. > :14:19.those concerns worry you? They would worry me if I was living next door
:14:20. > :14:23.to a fracking site and that is the key difference here. Public opinion
:14:24. > :14:28.has not been mobilised for fracking in a way that means it will take
:14:29. > :14:31.place any time soon. That is partly, I think, because although George
:14:32. > :14:36.Osborne has tried to minimise the tax burden for the firms in
:14:37. > :14:39.question, not nearly enough has been done for local communities. They
:14:40. > :14:43.have been offered a tiny amount of money to consider fracking in their
:14:44. > :14:49.community. I perfectly understand by Chris Adams's concerned about what
:14:50. > :14:52.is happening in his backyard. -- Marcus Adams. The financial
:14:53. > :14:58.inducement is so minimal that why put up with the disruption? And if
:14:59. > :15:02.you did not live in an area where they are possibly going to be
:15:03. > :15:07.drilling for shale gas, would you mind? I don't want it in my back
:15:08. > :15:13.garden and I don't want it in anyone's back garden. In my village
:15:14. > :15:18.it equates to ?25 a head, so derisory. There is no amount of
:15:19. > :15:21.money that could be given to compensate for the catastrophic
:15:22. > :15:24.impact that it would have on the environment. This is in the South
:15:25. > :15:32.Downs National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty, a very
:15:33. > :15:34.rural environment, and people chose to live there for those reasons.
:15:35. > :15:42.They don't want mass industrialisation on their doorstep.
:15:43. > :15:48.But do they want the lights to go out. This argument of energy
:15:49. > :15:53.security is a myth. We get gas from Russia and Norway and soon the US
:15:54. > :15:58.will start to export gas. It is incredible that any gas removed
:15:59. > :16:01.through Fracking would be sold on the European market to the Germans
:16:02. > :16:06.and French, who currently have a moratorium in place. This is about
:16:07. > :16:14.money for a few people who have invested in this industry, not about
:16:15. > :16:19.energy security. It George Osborne making a mistake by laying so much
:16:20. > :16:23.stock in this being a game changer when it cannot be compared to the
:16:24. > :16:30.kind of benefit that America has seen. It cannot and the idea that it
:16:31. > :16:37.could be a game changer is probably a mistake. The energy firms have
:16:38. > :16:41.been clear that it will not lead to a reduction in the price of your
:16:42. > :16:45.bills. I wish I shared that complacency that we are fine on the
:16:46. > :16:51.point of view of energy security. We know that Russia is frankly a rogue
:16:52. > :16:56.state and if there was a problem in the Middle East, how easy would it
:16:57. > :17:00.be to get supplies. So I think we need to get on with it but the
:17:01. > :17:04.incentives for communities need to be massively upgraded. Literally one
:17:05. > :17:10.mile down the road from where this post site is, the South Downs
:17:11. > :17:17.National Park authority has refused permission for a solar farm. That is
:17:18. > :17:22.a green energy. No one can understand that. The motivation for
:17:23. > :17:27.extracting gas by hydraulic fracturing is about money. It is a
:17:28. > :17:32.few people and mostly foreign financial backers hoping to make a
:17:33. > :17:37.large amount from this. What about the political side, is this a
:17:38. > :17:46.mistake for the Conservatives? I think so. There was an opinion poll
:17:47. > :17:57.that said 74% of people were against changing the trespass laws. And I
:17:58. > :18:02.have always been a Tory supporter. I think for Mr Cameron this could be
:18:03. > :18:08.what the poll tax did for Mrs Thatcher. Is that overstating it? I
:18:09. > :18:13.think it is. It is terrible for the areas where this is happening and
:18:14. > :18:21.there is political damage for a sitting Conservative MP but perhaps
:18:22. > :18:23.not for the country at large. Well Andrew Tyree represents your
:18:24. > :18:29.constituency and he supports Fracking. Will you stand against
:18:30. > :18:36.him? He does support Fracking but in this case he has lodged an
:18:37. > :18:40.objection. He is open about this. He is in favour of Fracking but he is
:18:41. > :18:47.not against high-rise locks but he said he would not want it close to
:18:48. > :18:53.Chichester Cathedral. But perhaps if there was more compensation and it
:18:54. > :18:58.was not in your back yard, would you be objecting in quite the same way
:18:59. > :19:04.as Mac I absolutely would. A lot of people are object to or not because
:19:05. > :19:12.they are ill informed. The Minister for energy has found time to spend a
:19:13. > :19:17.day in Blackpool with this industry and people from the government
:19:18. > :19:21.cannot find time to address the real concerns of people who will be
:19:22. > :19:27.affected by this. And the mechanisms of Fracking, you can only extract
:19:28. > :19:31.oil or gas from a very small radius. So we would need tens of thousands
:19:32. > :19:36.of bees across the country and in that sense everyone is it. So I
:19:37. > :19:43.think it will be a significant political issue in the coming years.
:19:44. > :19:46.But you think it will still go ahead, once the companies have got
:19:47. > :19:52.over the bureaucratic process, whatever those publications are
:19:53. > :19:56.before they can start, do you think it will go ahead at a pace? I do but
:19:57. > :20:03.I think the government has to do a lot more to mobilise public opinion
:20:04. > :20:07.on its side. The process that we saw I just the tip of the iceberg. And
:20:08. > :20:12.when people are mobilised they can stop something happen. So until the
:20:13. > :20:17.government decides to take the battle on public opinion I fear it
:20:18. > :20:22.will be an uphill battle, but I do think it will go ahead. And the --
:20:23. > :20:30.do you think we will see more widespread protests? I think so. And
:20:31. > :20:33.would I be willing to stand as an MP against it, I absolutely wood. And
:20:34. > :20:38.not just on the anti-fracking ticket, I think people are generally
:20:39. > :20:46.feeling disenfranchised. We had a case recently where West Sussex
:20:47. > :20:50.County Council granted permission to Cuadrilla for exploratory work,
:20:51. > :20:59.completely ignoring overwhelming public opinion against it.
:21:00. > :21:02.As a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Tony here was one of the
:21:03. > :21:05.key players in the negotiations between the government and the press
:21:06. > :21:07.over how to implement the recommendations of the Leveson
:21:08. > :21:09.Inquiry. But ever since Lord Justice Leveson delivered his conclusions,
:21:10. > :21:12.politicians and journalists have been unable to agree on how to
:21:13. > :21:19.regulate the press without compromising press freedom. Adam
:21:20. > :21:24.Fleming reports. It is the story that keeps on running. How much
:21:25. > :21:29.should the state have to do with the press. Lord Justice Levenson heard
:21:30. > :21:33.from pretty much everyone during his enquiry into the media a couple of
:21:34. > :21:39.years ago. The attitude seems to be utterly cavalier. What does it
:21:40. > :21:46.matter. You are famous you are asking for it. At midnight running
:21:47. > :21:50.down a dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me. And the fact
:21:51. > :21:56.that they had cameras meant that that was legal. But take away the
:21:57. > :22:01.cameras, what have you got. I did not sleep for three nights. You
:22:02. > :22:06.replay everything in your mind thinking, that makes sense. When his
:22:07. > :22:12.final report was published he recommended a new system of
:22:13. > :22:14.oversight. The key thing that papers should continue regulating
:22:15. > :22:19.themselves but with an independent body overseeing them. Cue the
:22:20. > :22:26.political wrangling. After some tortures negotiations involving
:22:27. > :22:29.late-night pizza and Kit Kat, cross-party support coalesced around
:22:30. > :22:34.a Royal Charter, a piece of paper issued by the Queen. It established
:22:35. > :22:40.a recognition panel, a watchdog for the watchdog, if you like. That went
:22:41. > :22:42.down badly with the newspaper industry who sought as a threat to
:22:43. > :22:47.their independence. They pressed ahead in setting up their own
:22:48. > :22:50.regulator which will start work this summer. We are promised it will have
:22:51. > :22:54.more teeth than the old press complaints commission and recently
:22:55. > :23:00.they hired Alan Moses as its first chair. He was the judge in the
:23:01. > :23:04.Solheim murder trial. But some newspapers are not signing up. The
:23:05. > :23:09.Guardian, Independent and the Financial Times. The FT said they
:23:10. > :23:12.will set up their own process for handling complaints and crucially,
:23:13. > :23:19.the body is not seeking recognition from the recognition panel
:23:20. > :23:22.established under the Royal Charter. Confused? At times like these we
:23:23. > :23:27.need a guru to explain what it means. The government are currently
:23:28. > :23:30.saying they have no further role in this but will be called upon I'm
:23:31. > :23:35.sure to stand by their pledge and pledges given by all other party
:23:36. > :23:41.leaders, that they will implement Levenson in full. There has to be an
:23:42. > :23:46.independent recognition system so they are headed for a collision of
:23:47. > :23:50.some sort. And if that crashed does happen, the thorny issue of
:23:51. > :23:56.regulating the press will be right back on the front page.
:23:57. > :24:00.Joining me now is former Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, who
:24:01. > :24:06.campaigns for Hacked Off, the group which wants tougher press
:24:07. > :24:23.regulation. And represents the suppress abuse. -- the victims of
:24:24. > :24:30.press abuse. How is IPSO any different? Well the new body will
:24:31. > :24:35.have the power to levy fines of ?1 million. It will have investigative
:24:36. > :24:39.powers and be the most draconian body imaginable for the national
:24:40. > :24:53.newspapers and they will live in fear of it. That is more funny but
:24:54. > :24:59.also shocking. History teaches us, and Levenson said this, every time
:25:00. > :25:03.there has been a scandal, the press say do not worry, we will sort it
:25:04. > :25:07.out, we have got this new thing which will deliver everything that
:25:08. > :25:12.the public want from us. And every time it turns out to be a sham. Lord
:25:13. > :25:18.Levenson said this time, that produced their own thing, keep self
:25:19. > :25:23.regulation, keep politicians out. But there has to be something that
:25:24. > :25:28.says this is not a creature of the industry, it is effective and fair
:25:29. > :25:36.and will provide arbitration and apologies, front-page apologies for
:25:37. > :25:40.front-page libels. IPSO Does none of those things, by its own admission.
:25:41. > :25:45.It will not have the power to direct apologies and everyone in the
:25:46. > :25:48.public, I cannot find anyone who does not think that the regulator
:25:49. > :25:54.should require newspapers when they have got it wrong, to apologise in
:25:55. > :26:00.the same way as the crime was committed. That is what the press
:26:01. > :26:06.would expect of the banks, of doctors, of lawyers. And rightly so.
:26:07. > :26:13.I think Evan Harris has let the cat out of the bag inadvertently.
:26:14. > :26:20.Politicians should not be able to direct the press. He wants to be
:26:21. > :26:27.able to direct front-page apologies. Not me, an independent regulator. It
:26:28. > :26:34.would be more passionate to say that Evan Harris, former Liberal Democrat
:26:35. > :26:37.MP who had a problem with his expenses and was exposed, who is a
:26:38. > :26:44.member of a party involved in the two biggest sex scandals of the year
:26:45. > :26:47.and also represents a party that has no natural supporters on Fleet
:26:48. > :26:58.Street. That has nothing to do with it. Say that to the people but I
:26:59. > :27:04.represent, people who agree with me that there is no change. I was the
:27:05. > :27:10.MP responsible for abolishing the blasphemy law which protects free
:27:11. > :27:15.expression. My point is that you have a direct interest in this and
:27:16. > :27:18.the MPs that wanted the Royal Charter... Let us just clarify and
:27:19. > :27:29.come back to the issue of independence. You can trade insults
:27:30. > :27:32.on both sides. He has slipped into the Daily Mail tactic of going for a
:27:33. > :27:46.personal attack instead of debating the issue. Let us come back to the
:27:47. > :27:50.issue of independence. IPSO, why cannot you seek some kind of
:27:51. > :27:56.independent recognition that would be compliant with Levenson. By not
:27:57. > :28:00.doing that do not play into the arguments being put forward by Evan
:28:01. > :28:03.Harris that you're just going to be the same as the press complaints
:28:04. > :28:08.commission before that, which will not have the trust of the public.
:28:09. > :28:12.The key phrase is freedom of speech. You cannot have anything like a
:28:13. > :28:18.little bit of regulation or a little bit of free speech. Either you have
:28:19. > :28:23.free speech or you do not. There is no fence about incitement to crimes,
:28:24. > :28:29.you said there should be no libel laws. Not at all. You chose to
:28:30. > :28:37.apologise on page two for a full page spread attacking JK Rowling who
:28:38. > :28:41.happened to have given evidence in the Leveson Inquiry. You libelled
:28:42. > :28:46.her, you lost that case, you tried to stop them making a statement in
:28:47. > :28:52.open court. And you buried the apology tucked away on page two. And
:28:53. > :28:57.you want the new regulator to continue to allow that. But in a
:28:58. > :29:04.sense of the system worked, there was an apology there was a fine and
:29:05. > :29:07.they had to admit they were wrong. JK Rowling can afford good lawyers.
:29:08. > :29:12.I'm speaking about ordinary people who dare not take on the press with
:29:13. > :29:16.30 pockets. The press have to answer some serious questions. I pay
:29:17. > :29:24.testament to what Tony did with the story about the MP expenses. Will
:29:25. > :29:26.you now as deputy editor of the Daily Mail give an assurance that no
:29:27. > :29:31.Daily Mail journalist will ever have to sign a gagging clause when they
:29:32. > :29:37.leave the Daily Mail and you will not enforce any debt you have
:29:38. > :29:42.imposed on them so far. I'm not working at the Daily Mail, I cannot
:29:43. > :29:46.speak for them. I no longer read the Daily Telegraph, I am between jobs.
:29:47. > :29:53.There should be gagging clauses in the press. To what end? I do not
:29:54. > :29:58.think they should be. I'm bluntly unaware of such gagging clauses
:29:59. > :30:02.relating to the behaviour of journalists and newspapers. To come
:30:03. > :30:09.back to the press complaints commission. IPSO, it is going to be
:30:10. > :30:15.in the same offices. Do we know how many staff it will have? That is
:30:16. > :30:17.being worked on at the moment. It will be quite substantial, it will
:30:18. > :30:22.be funded by the industry and have very strong powers. Newspapers are
:30:23. > :30:26.frightened of the prospect. There are in mind that the press is
:30:27. > :30:31.already heavily regulated with libel laws, the impact of the bribery act
:30:32. > :30:37.being felt in newsrooms across the country. It did not stop the kind of
:30:38. > :30:41.injustices that was heard during that no enquiry and people still
:30:42. > :30:46.doubt it will be able to prevent a repeat of that. No one is looking to
:30:47. > :30:51.defend what happened to sienna Miller but frankly that is a matter
:30:52. > :30:55.for the police. IPSO, it has the same direct is as the press
:30:56. > :31:00.complaints commission. The same company number, the same premises.
:31:01. > :31:07.The same way of attritional mediation. The only independent
:31:08. > :31:11.review of whether it complies with everything but Lord Levenson
:31:12. > :31:17.wanted, a whole series of things, said it failed on 26 out of 38. It
:31:18. > :31:22.is the press complaints commission all over again. I do not blame the
:31:23. > :31:33.press for wanting to carry on as before. There will not be serving
:31:34. > :31:39.editors on IPSO, the industry being run by the boys in it. Effectively
:31:40. > :31:43.it is, because the appointments committee for IPSO contains Rupert
:31:44. > :31:48.Murdoch's most loyal Lieutenant, the editor of The Times, himself found
:31:49. > :31:52.to be wanting by the courts. Everson said there should be no direct
:31:53. > :31:57.influence of the industry on the appointments. -- Lord Leveson. Why
:31:58. > :32:01.don't you allow this to be inspected and audited by an independent body
:32:02. > :32:05.and given the seal of approval? I think it will be transparent and it
:32:06. > :32:12.will be audited and the work will be open. How? Audited by who? You
:32:13. > :32:17.rightly don't think MPs should audit themselves so why should the press?
:32:18. > :32:22.Without the Guardian and the Financial Times and the Independent
:32:23. > :32:27.signing up to IPSO, doesn't that take away some of its credibility at
:32:28. > :32:31.the beginning? It is less than ideal that the national press is not
:32:32. > :32:35.united behind it. We will see what happens with the Guardian and the
:32:36. > :32:41.Independent. The Financial Times has decided to go its own way, not least
:32:42. > :32:46.for inconsistency. Everybody agreed the Press Complaints Commission
:32:47. > :32:52.failed and it had those newspapers on its side. It has sunk below the
:32:53. > :32:55.water line before it launches. The public will never trust any
:32:56. > :33:00.regulatory system that rejects independent oversight. If you have
:33:01. > :33:05.nothing to hide, why are you fearful of exposing the press regulator to
:33:06. > :33:09.something like what you propose for the other industries that you quite
:33:10. > :33:14.rightly should be holding to account? Isn't there a contradiction
:33:15. > :33:20.there? No. This is not an issue that convulses the public in the way it
:33:21. > :33:24.convulses Hacked Off. You will not tackle this issue in your papers and
:33:25. > :33:27.that is the problem. I am welcoming our viewers in Scotland who have
:33:28. > :33:33.been watching First Minister's Questions now.
:33:34. > :33:37.Thank you. Yesterday, UKIP held an event in London to dispel charges
:33:38. > :33:42.that it is racist. Nigel Farage said that the handful of candidates who
:33:43. > :33:46.said stupid and offensive things did not represent the party and that the
:33:47. > :33:51.event was a pivotal moment. The meeting, designed to highlight
:33:52. > :33:55.UKIP's female, black and ethnic minority candidates, was disrupted
:33:56. > :34:00.several times by protesters. Nigel Farage was in defiant mood. Let this
:34:01. > :34:04.picture of me on the stage with these wonderful men and women from
:34:05. > :34:07.all their different backgrounds and their United believe in being
:34:08. > :34:13.British and being part of this country and wanting this country to
:34:14. > :34:20.be free, independent, self-governing and proud, let this be UKIP's
:34:21. > :34:24.moment. The reason we have taken this abuse over the last few weeks
:34:25. > :34:29.is that for the first time in 100 years, a new, national, political
:34:30. > :34:34.party has come along that has got the establishment rattled. We have
:34:35. > :34:38.got them scared. Nigel Farage there. Joining me now is his right-hand
:34:39. > :34:42.man, deputy leader Paul Nuttall. Welcome to the programme. Why do you
:34:43. > :34:46.think you attract so many people with views that most people would
:34:47. > :34:51.consider unpalatable for a political party and you yourself consider
:34:52. > :34:56.unpalatable for a political party? I don't think we do. Hang on. All
:34:57. > :35:00.political parties attract certain types. Some very strange people
:35:01. > :35:05.indeed. The difference with us is that we deal with the problems that
:35:06. > :35:12.we have. We deal with it swiftly and we kick them out. Only 0.3% of our
:35:13. > :35:16.2350 candidates have been found to have a problem. We have dealt with
:35:17. > :35:21.it. Unfortunately I could not attend the event last night but I have been
:35:22. > :35:24.told it was fantastic. If you have to have an event, and you look at
:35:25. > :35:27.Nigel Farage surrounded by candidates were black and ethnic
:35:28. > :35:31.minority groups, doesn't that suggest there is a problem if you
:35:32. > :35:37.have to make such a big deal about it? The media have made a problem
:35:38. > :35:42.for us probably since 2004. I think it was the Independent that cold as
:35:43. > :35:51.the BNP in blazers. It has continued from there. -- that called us. There
:35:52. > :35:56.is a sitting Conservative that used to be part of the BNP, and a Liberal
:35:57. > :36:00.Democrat being done for racially aggravated assault, and the
:36:01. > :36:03.Conservatives have somebody being done for machete and immigrants. You
:36:04. > :36:11.don't read about this in the newspapers, but if you substituted
:36:12. > :36:15.those words will UKIP it would be front-page news. UKIP should not be
:36:16. > :36:20.so thin-skinned. It is a sign that they are threat the established
:36:21. > :36:24.political class that proper scrutiny is being applied to the candidates
:36:25. > :36:27.for the first time. Their processes have been found wanting and they
:36:28. > :36:31.have a larger number of head-bangers and other parties, which shows that
:36:32. > :36:35.they are a virgin party and it shows that they are being tested and taken
:36:36. > :36:43.seriously in a way they were not previously. I agree, actually. It is
:36:44. > :36:48.about being on the top table. So don't moan. I don't think you can
:36:49. > :36:52.call it scrutiny because it should have an even playing field and it is
:36:53. > :36:55.looking like a witch hunt. The one thing people don't like is seeing
:36:56. > :36:59.the smallest boy in the playground being bullied. It might work in
:37:00. > :37:02.America and Australia but not in this country and it is
:37:03. > :37:06.counter-productive. You have blamed a small lots of people in the party,
:37:07. > :37:11.you have dealt with it, and you say there are similar cases in other
:37:12. > :37:15.parties. It is not just other people on the sidelines of your party.
:37:16. > :37:20.There is this nationalistic use of language. Nigel Farage has said that
:37:21. > :37:24.London is experiencing a Romanian crimewave and people should beware
:37:25. > :37:29.if a Romanian family moves into their street. That is divisive
:37:30. > :37:36.language, isn't it? But it is true. But is it nationalistic language and
:37:37. > :37:39.divisive? It is true. A huge percentage is committed by Romanian
:37:40. > :37:45.gangs. If that is not a crime waves, I don't know what is. Would
:37:46. > :37:51.you say it is xenophobic to make that kind of statement even if you
:37:52. > :37:55.believe it is true? No, it is true. But is it xenophobic? To talk about
:37:56. > :37:59.all nations of people. I am not saying if it is right or wrong. But
:38:00. > :38:04.can you access that even if the Tim Raikes this has not been correctly
:38:05. > :38:12.used, is the party xenophobic about foreigners? -- the term racist has
:38:13. > :38:16.not been correctly used. No. If you look at our policy it is utterly
:38:17. > :38:20.anti-racist. We just want a points -based system for everyone. If you
:38:21. > :38:23.are an Indian brain surgeon it can be very difficult to get into this
:38:24. > :38:28.country but a low skilled migrant from Eastern Europe can come and
:38:29. > :38:31.claim benefits and work willy-nilly. That is not correct. We want a
:38:32. > :38:35.system that provides complete equality, like Australia. A points
:38:36. > :38:43.-based system. If you have the skills that we need, please come and
:38:44. > :38:45.work. It is not racist. Let's talk about the local elections. One of
:38:46. > :38:52.the big things we have talked about is a lack of a base for UKIP. You
:38:53. > :38:55.get headlines for this sort of event and talking about the EU, but you
:38:56. > :38:59.are not breaking through on the bread and butter issues that local
:39:00. > :39:04.people have. You admitted that last time. Has it changed? We had the
:39:05. > :39:08.local election launch this morning. I think UKIP has changed over three
:39:09. > :39:15.years. It has gone from being strictly EU focused to focusing on
:39:16. > :39:18.local Government. In 2013 we got 147 people elected to county councils up
:39:19. > :39:24.and down the country and they are doing a fantastic job and they have
:39:25. > :39:27.the highest attendance record of any political party as counsellors. We
:39:28. > :39:33.are putting more candidates forward than ever before. I think we will
:39:34. > :39:36.get hundreds of councillors elected on May the 22nd. There is an
:39:37. > :39:40.admission from UKIP that they have not made breakthroughs up until now.
:39:41. > :39:44.They have not got enough representation at a local level. Do
:39:45. > :39:49.you think that will change in the local elections this time? We know
:39:50. > :39:53.about the European elections. I think it will. I don't think they
:39:54. > :39:57.will have a single MP in 2015 but if they get the local breakthrough, the
:39:58. > :40:02.danger for the Conservatives will be feet and boots on the ground in 2015
:40:03. > :40:07.to do enough damage and denied Tory MPs a majority. They will not be a
:40:08. > :40:11.mass force in local Government but they are a dangerous force from the
:40:12. > :40:17.point of view of the Conservatives. Do you think UKIP is a blip? I don't
:40:18. > :40:19.actually. I think it is one of the most interesting political
:40:20. > :40:26.phenomenon is we have seen in recent years. Attacks on Nigel Farage have
:40:27. > :40:30.backfired so spectacular because he is seen as the anti-politics
:40:31. > :40:37.candidate, none of the above. The problem they are having, it is all
:40:38. > :40:43.being ignored by the opinion polls. People want to give a bloody nose to
:40:44. > :40:46.political parties of any stripes, and Nigel Farage effectively
:40:47. > :40:50.represents none of the above. You do need a breakthrough at local
:40:51. > :40:57.elections otherwise it is just Nigel Farage and Hugh, to a lesser extent.
:40:58. > :41:04.And it can't carry on like that. -- and you. We know that local
:41:05. > :41:07.elections are the Trojan Horse for Westminster. Paddy Ashdown was
:41:08. > :41:12.brilliant in the way he demonstrated that. Two thirds of our vote comes
:41:13. > :41:15.from people who don't vote Conservative. We are now taking more
:41:16. > :41:19.votes in the North of England than ever before and we are making
:41:20. > :41:23.serious inroads into the big areas like Liverpool, Manchester and
:41:24. > :41:28.Newcastle. The reason UKIP is so exciting is because we are the
:41:29. > :41:30.outsiders. It is not like the SDP in the early 1980s because they all
:41:31. > :41:35.came from within the establishment and they had all been laboured
:41:36. > :41:40.cabinet ministers. We are the outsiders and we are shaking up
:41:41. > :41:43.British politics. Thank you. Earlier we were talking about the
:41:44. > :41:46.arrest of the so-called Skull Cracker Michael Wheatley and how he
:41:47. > :41:51.was able to abscond again after he was given 13 life sentences for
:41:52. > :41:57.raids on banks and building societies in 2002. He had gone on
:41:58. > :42:03.the run twice in the past, and each time he staged a series of violent
:42:04. > :42:15.robberies, before he was caught and re-jail. He absconded from Stanford
:42:16. > :42:19.Hill Broken -- open prison in Kent. I am now joined by Juliet Lyon from
:42:20. > :42:22.the prison reform traffic. Well done for battling your way through the
:42:23. > :42:27.traffic and making it. Were you surprised to hear that someone like
:42:28. > :42:31.that was in an open prison? No, that is the purpose of open prisons. They
:42:32. > :42:36.are designed for people who have served a serious offence and a
:42:37. > :42:44.seriously long sentence, and the point is that they unable to be --
:42:45. > :42:55.people to go from a closed world back to society. It is at the end of
:42:56. > :43:00.a long sentence when people readjust and are assessed by staff so I was
:43:01. > :43:05.not surprised. He was considered for parole after eight years despite
:43:06. > :43:09.having 13 life sentences. I don't know his individual case. I think he
:43:10. > :43:13.served something like 12 years, beyond the minimum term that he had
:43:14. > :43:17.been given certainly. 12 or 13, I think. But should violent offenders
:43:18. > :43:23.like murderers and sex offenders be banned from open prison? Is it not a
:43:24. > :43:30.good idea to consider anybody who has considered that -- committed
:43:31. > :43:34.that kind of crime? It is the opposite. You need an open prison
:43:35. > :43:39.system in order for people to come out safely into the community and
:43:40. > :43:43.the vast majority of people do. In a prison population of 84,000, fewer
:43:44. > :43:47.than 50 are serving whole life tariffs, and they will stay in
:43:48. > :43:51.forever and everyone else will come out. I would rather in terms of
:43:52. > :43:55.public safety see somebody come out in a series of steps, rather than
:43:56. > :44:00.simply walking out of a prison gate, hearing it slammed behind
:44:01. > :44:07.them, and going out to find work and housing and contact their family,
:44:08. > :44:13.all of which will cut reoffending rates. Open prisons test people out
:44:14. > :44:16.in the community. What do you say? That is common sense but
:44:17. > :44:25.unfortunately the Skull Cracker is a bad example. Something went wrong in
:44:26. > :44:28.the system for him to go to the open prisons so soon. Nobody doubts the
:44:29. > :44:31.value of the open prison but clearly the Skull Cracker should never have
:44:32. > :44:39.been a candidate for the open prison. Not at this stage anyway.
:44:40. > :44:43.Are people scrutinised carefully so that they do not get these rights
:44:44. > :44:47.automatically? Indeed they don't. I hope this case is not typical
:44:48. > :44:51.because people are assessed very thoroughly. They have to be assessed
:44:52. > :44:54.by the parole board, which is a very thorough process. They have to be
:44:55. > :45:00.assessed within the prison and they need approval of the governor. Cases
:45:01. > :45:04.like this are signed off by the Secretary of State for justice.
:45:05. > :45:07.There will be a series of checks and balances. This person will have gone
:45:08. > :45:15.through all that and has ended up absconding. The point I want to make
:45:16. > :45:20.is actually this is an unusually safe system. If you look at release
:45:21. > :45:26.on temporary licence and at 2012, there were 485,000 days served in
:45:27. > :45:29.the community by people released on temporary licence, which would
:45:30. > :45:33.include the two men from Brixton prison who served time in our office
:45:34. > :45:41.and worked diligently and hard, in a very good way. Out of that number, I
:45:42. > :45:49.think it was only 0.005%... Yes, that was that statistic that I used
:45:50. > :45:53.earlier. Only that small percentage was a failure. So one case can ramp
:45:54. > :45:57.up the media reaction which destroys what the prison service is trying to
:45:58. > :46:04.do in a balanced and sensible way. Thank you. Now, Marks and Spencer,
:46:05. > :46:06.Tesco, Morrisons and the Co-op have confirmed that their lamb imported
:46:07. > :46:08.from New Zealand is halal-slaughtered. Yesterday The Sun
:46:09. > :46:12.newspaper revealed that all chicken served in Pizza Express restaurants
:46:13. > :46:22.was halal, although not labelled as such. We were hoping to be joined by
:46:23. > :46:29.Dr Shuja Shafi from the Muslim Council of Britain. But he has also
:46:30. > :46:32.been thwarted by the London traffic. Are you shocked by the the
:46:33. > :46:39.revelation that supermarkets are serving halal meat without it being
:46:40. > :46:46.labelled? I was. Anyone walking into a supermarket now concede that their
:46:47. > :46:53.food is traceable. You can trace the origin of the cut of beef dating
:46:54. > :46:57.back to the BSE scandal so it was surprising to discover that most of
:46:58. > :47:04.the halal products are not labelled as such. Do you think people have
:47:05. > :47:09.been duped, to use the word that was reported in some newspapers? I think
:47:10. > :47:12.that is perhaps overstating it. I think there is a lack of
:47:13. > :47:15.transparency and the supermarkets should be labelling them eat
:47:16. > :47:21.accordingly. We cannot afford to be pretty, if you're killing an animal
:47:22. > :47:27.it has got to be a bloody and brutal business. But the products just need
:47:28. > :47:33.to be labelled. How do you think we have got to situation where we have
:47:34. > :47:38.supermarket change that chains as well as food outlets actually
:47:39. > :47:43.serving food without explaining how it was killed? I think there is a
:47:44. > :47:47.gap in the legislation which means they do not have to explain all of
:47:48. > :47:50.that. It seems that a number of them have chosen the option of default
:47:51. > :47:56.halal meat because they know there is a small constituency very
:47:57. > :48:00.concerned about that. Most people are not offered one way or the
:48:01. > :48:03.other. I think if there was just clear labelling they would get
:48:04. > :48:09.themselves out of this pickle. If not this will only end badly for the
:48:10. > :48:13.supermarket. The horse meat scandal saw a collapse in the sale of ready
:48:14. > :48:17.meals. Last week a ban on the import of
:48:18. > :48:20.Indian mangoes was brought in by the EU following an outbreak of fruit
:48:21. > :48:23.flies. Leicester East MP Keith Vaz told David Cameron during PMQs that
:48:24. > :48:28.hundreds of businesses in this country were losing out because of
:48:29. > :48:31.the ban. It was imposed because of fears that the flies could
:48:32. > :48:43.contaminate home-grown tomatoes and cucumbers. Here's what Keith Vaz had
:48:44. > :48:48.to say. Last Thursday the EU ban on the import of Indian mangoes took
:48:49. > :48:51.effect. As a result hundreds of businesses in Leicester and
:48:52. > :48:55.throughout the UK will suffer millions of pounds of losses. There
:48:56. > :48:58.was no consultation with this House and no vote by British ministers.
:48:59. > :49:04.Next week he will have his first conversation with the new Indian
:49:05. > :49:08.Prime Minister. Will he do his best to reverse this ban so we keep the
:49:09. > :49:11.special relationship with India which he and his predecessors have
:49:12. > :49:16.worked so hard to maintain and so we can have delicious mangoes once
:49:17. > :49:22.again. There are concerns about particular cross contamination in
:49:23. > :49:26.terms of British crops and British interests so we have to make sure
:49:27. > :49:30.that that is got right. But I understand how strongly he feels and
:49:31. > :49:34.how strongly the Indian community feel in this country and I look
:49:35. > :49:38.forward to discussing it with the new Indian Prime Minister. With us
:49:39. > :49:41.now is Vivek Singh, an Indian chef and founder of one of Westminster's
:49:42. > :49:49.culinary hot spots, the Cinnamon Club. Thank you for bringing us this
:49:50. > :49:55.delicious food, all Mango based. What is your reaction to the ban,
:49:56. > :50:01.bearing in mind that this could be a risk to British crops. Correct and
:50:02. > :50:07.on that basis alone, that aspect of it is something to be taken
:50:08. > :50:11.seriously. But we deal with food and one of the big reasons why London is
:50:12. > :50:15.a global food capital is because of its ability to bring in the very
:50:16. > :50:20.best produce from all over the world. And these mangoes are just
:50:21. > :50:25.one of these things, it is such a short season and so wonderfully
:50:26. > :50:30.appreciated everywhere. And we have gotten used to those mangoes for so
:50:31. > :50:37.many years. So you want the ban to be lifted immediately? I would like
:50:38. > :50:41.to be, subject to certain things being met. If we can get assurances
:50:42. > :50:48.that certain processes can be put into place, where pest dangers could
:50:49. > :50:55.be minimised, I would like to see off on so mangoes on the menu. Do
:50:56. > :51:03.think that the ban is to do cranny in the smack -- draconian? I do. I
:51:04. > :51:09.know that there is a trade in contraband mangoes taking place at
:51:10. > :51:14.the moment! Are they so popular? They are popular in the Indian
:51:15. > :51:20.community, usually popular as well in the foodie community mainly
:51:21. > :51:26.because the season is so short. They cannot be replicated anywhere else.
:51:27. > :51:34.You have got a supporter here, clearly. How much damage with the
:51:35. > :51:40.band do to the industry here? Well I do not want to trivialise the issue
:51:41. > :51:45.by saying we would lose out on six weeks of Mango deserts on the menu.
:51:46. > :51:51.But it is a big industry, there are so many farmers. The business is
:51:52. > :51:56.worth millions and it has been seriously affected. The only upside
:51:57. > :52:01.is that my Indian friends back in India have plenty of mangoes to try
:52:02. > :52:04.this season. If there is a risk and we have got a problem with fruit
:52:05. > :52:09.flies coming in on the imports and that could affect British produce,
:52:10. > :52:16.is that not a serious enough issue to be taken to task with Mac it
:52:17. > :52:20.cannot be ignored by the Indian authorities are saying that they
:52:21. > :52:26.have tackled that issue. If you try other varieties of Mango they're not
:52:27. > :52:33.nearly as nice. Tell us what these are. This is Mango and cardamom. But
:52:34. > :52:40.it has been made with tinned Mango puree. You just have to use your
:52:41. > :52:46.imagination a little bit. The Indian mangoes, mangoes generally are
:52:47. > :52:57.considered the king of all fruit but the Indian varieties are the king of
:52:58. > :53:00.all. Unbelievably delicious. But if the authorities said they have to
:53:01. > :53:05.look into these things then surely it has to be taken seriously. If it
:53:06. > :53:09.is short-term, and they said they are working closely with their
:53:10. > :53:14.Indian partners, if it is short-term, with it do any lasting
:53:15. > :53:19.damage? Not really except that the season itself is very short, the
:53:20. > :53:27.window is just a few weeks. So I hope it does not take too long to
:53:28. > :53:38.have get it resolved. Perhaps we should not have the desert first!
:53:39. > :53:46.This is a Mango chutney knee. This is a savoury application. You can
:53:47. > :53:53.lean across so I do not drop it. And I will give you another spoon to
:53:54. > :53:59.try. It is amazing. The only thing I have a problem with is how to cut
:54:00. > :54:11.the mangoes in the first place. They are messy. I will try it after the
:54:12. > :54:15.programme! Thank you very much for bringing in this amazing food. And
:54:16. > :54:20.we will move on. Tony Gallagher, as well as being a high-profile
:54:21. > :54:25.newspaper editor is also a dab hand in the kitchen. In between editorial
:54:26. > :54:31.jobs he recently spent a few weeks working as a chef in a London
:54:32. > :54:37.restaurant. There has always been a close link between politicians and
:54:38. > :54:43.fine dining. He is Charles still not with the rundown of the top five
:54:44. > :54:53.eligible restaurants. -- political restaurants. At five the Hungarian
:54:54. > :55:01.hang-out in Soho. The social scene for socialists who want to be seen
:55:02. > :55:10.dining out. The Gay Hussaar. At number four, Kennington tandoori.
:55:11. > :55:17.Ken Clarke pops down regularly and has his own table.
:55:18. > :55:22.At number three and within smelling distance of the House of Commons is
:55:23. > :55:27.the Cinnamon Club. This posh with Mr Indian is the place for hush-hush
:55:28. > :55:36.chats. Great food and make sure that someone else's pain. At number two,
:55:37. > :55:45.the heart of culinary Tory land, in Belgravia. Opposed brand you'll
:55:46. > :56:03.visit to the cigar terrace is de rigueur. Granita at number one.
:56:04. > :56:13.Gordon Brown opted for the humble pie that took ten years to digests.
:56:14. > :56:18.Vivek, York favourite political customer at the Cinnamon Club was
:56:19. > :56:24.Mac who has not been to the Cinnamon Club was Mac we are very lucky. We
:56:25. > :56:30.are talking about famous political characters. Is it a fun being a
:56:31. > :56:34.restaurant in the heart of Westminster? Do you see and hear
:56:35. > :56:41.things that are juicy? Personally not, I'm down in the kitchen. But we
:56:42. > :56:47.do get a lot of people coming to the restaurant expecting to bump into
:56:48. > :56:55.politicians and famous people. Your favourite lunch? In terms of
:56:56. > :57:00.political restaurants it would be none of the above, none of those
:57:01. > :57:05.five. Mainly because your worst nightmare having lunch with a
:57:06. > :57:09.politician is that there is a newspaper hack at another table. And
:57:10. > :57:14.when your story emerges later they can trace it back to that
:57:15. > :57:19.politician. So I try to find places that are off the beaten track where
:57:20. > :57:28.I will never run into other members of the political and media class. So
:57:29. > :57:33.is that the secret? I'm danger of being unkind but the political class
:57:34. > :57:39.do like traditional places. A lot of red meat. If you want to fine dining
:57:40. > :57:45.you have to go off the beaten track. You go out of Westminster these
:57:46. > :57:49.days? I do. I tend to go to places where the food will be brilliant,
:57:50. > :57:55.hopefully we will learn something interesting and no one will overhear
:57:56. > :58:04.a conversation. Who is the most entertaining to take out? I had
:58:05. > :58:07.dinner with Boris Johnson last year and the entire restaurant stood up
:58:08. > :58:11.to applaud him on the way out the door which was a revelation. Last
:58:12. > :58:15.year in one restaurant they had locked Tony Blair and Peter
:58:16. > :58:22.Mandelson in a private easement area and cleared the restaurant until
:58:23. > :58:27.they had left. What it is to be famous! Boris has caused the most
:58:28. > :58:35.drama, people stop eating when they see him. This is the one thing we
:58:36. > :58:43.find with the Cinnamon Club, no one stops! That's all for today. Thanks
:58:44. > :58:47.to our guests. Andrew may have left me today, but he will be on BBC One
:58:48. > :58:50.tonight for This Week with Ruby Wax, Dan Hodges, James Landale, Diane
:58:51. > :58:54.Abbott, Miranda Green and Michael Portillo at 11:35pm. And he will be
:58:55. > :58:55.here again at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the
:58:56. > :59:07.day. Goodbye. It's shocking it'd happen
:59:08. > :59:13.in a public place. I don't find it funny,
:59:14. > :59:15.but I don't find it offensive. It really is vile.
:59:16. > :59:18.Shock value sells.