25/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


The jury in the phone-hacking trial has returned this morning to


consider further charges against the former editor of the


Mr Coulson, who became David Cameron's Director


of Communications, was found guilty yesterday


of conspiracy to hack phones while at the News of the World.


The Prime Minister has apologised for his decision to hire him.


No doubt Ed Miliband will be keen to capitalise on an awkward time


We'll have all the action from PMQs live at midday.


Jean Claude Juncker looks set to be anointed as the next President


of the European Commission, much to the annoyance of David Cameron.


But what will it mean for Britain's relationship with the EU?


And, with young Britons heading to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside


extremists, are we fighting the wrong battle


Yes, an action-packed 90 minutes ahead of us which promises to be


at least as exciting as England's 0-0 draw with Costa Rica.


And we won't even pause for oranges at half time.


With us today are two midfield generals of the political world:


Owen Smith, Shadow Wales Secretary and


First this morning let's turn our attention to


The jury in the trial has returned to court this morning to consider


more charges against former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson.


Mr Coulson was found guilty yesterday


The Prime Minister issued a profound apology for having hired Mr Coulson


The former Chief Executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, was


For the latest let's speak to our correspondent, Robin Brant,


who has been following the trial at the Old Bailey.


He has been outside that Old Bailey court most of his life. Explain, the


jury is coming back to consider what charges? Yes, they're in the room


right now on the ninth day of deliberations. There are two remain


counts on which they could not reach unanimous or majority verdicts


yesterday. They're allegations of what is known as misconduct in a


public office that is claims that Andy Coulson and Mr Goodman were


involved in corrupt payments to police officers to buy numbers of


people in the royal household. The prosecution said that happened in


2003 and 2005. The jury couldn't reach a verdict yesterday and are


continuing their deliberations today. Before they came back in,


there was some legal argument. I'm restricted in what I can tell you


about that. But I can tell you what the judge said to the jury as they


sat in their seats. He apologise for keeping them waiting and reminded


them he had talked about a wave of publicity that was about to hit them


when they went home. You must ignore it, he said. Anything you saw or


read does not matter who said it, but you must entirely ignore it. Now


the Prime Minister made an apology yesterday, referring to Andy Coulson


lying to him. Ed Milliband referred to Andy Coulson ooze a criminal. And


the judge at some point in the day did urge restraint on anyone


reacting to the verdicts here. These are partial verdicts. The trial is


not over. And the judge is reminding the jury that whoever said


something, whatever it is, they should ignore it. We will see, the


jury will have to be superhuman to do that. Am I right in thinking the


jury is divided orn these issues that have yet to be resolved, they


could take some time before they come out with their verdict if they


do come out with one, on the other charges? Yes. Speculating about the


jury is not a sensible thing for somebody like me to do. But this


trial will not be sitting tomorrow or the day after, because of a


commitment of one of the jurors. If not today, they find themselves


going into Monday and there may be some reluctance to do that. But they


couldn't reach a unanimous verdict yesterday and couldn't reach a


majority verdict either. So the deliberations continue today and we


have been here for eight months and I don't think the judge or anyone


will be in a hurry. Am I right anying when this is done and dusted,


12 more trials on related matters are scheduled? The fact is this


barely the start. This has been eight months here. The culmination


of a police inquiry that began three and a half years ago looking at


events that started in 1999. The first recorded hack by somebody


working for the News of the World. What I can tell you this is just the


start. There are two further sets of trials in relation to the hacking


investigation which are scheduled to start after these proceedings and


there are ongoing police investigations into further claims


of hacking at the News of the World and at the Sunday Mirror and


investigations into claims of computer hacking. So there are


numerous people awaiting decisions from the Crown Prosecution Service


about whether they will face any charges and people who didn't just


work at the News of the World, but other organisations are involved as


well. So the reality is and this is the reality, this is just the start.


I hope that is a bed sit they're building behind you, it sounds like


you will need it! Now we will talk more about the political


significance of this with Nick Robinson before Prime Minister's


questions. Now, David Cameron would probably


not have chosen the city of Ypres in Belgium as the venue for the start


of this week's European summit. 100 years ago it was the scene


of fierce fighting between Allied In 2014 it appears David Cameron has


been dealt a diplomatic blow by the German Chancellor Angela


Merkel in his attempt to thwart the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker


for the EU's top job. The summit will move to Brussels


on Friday and David Cameron is determined to


make other EU leaders vote on whether Mr Juncker should be the


next president of the Commission. But what does this whole episode


mean for Britain's relationship with the EU and Mr Cameron's much


hyped renegotiation strategy? On Friday David Cameron will try to


force a vote on the appointment of Mr Juncker


which he says would politicise That's a fight he's unlikely to win


and the European Parliament is expected to vote on Juncker's


nomination in mid-July. In August each member state will


put forward their nomination for Commissioner, but their portfolios


won't be confirmed until the European Parliament votes on the


Commission as a whole in October. If Cameron doesn't get his way


on Juncker, Britain might expect concessions elsewhere on other big


European issues - jobs for example, The Prime Minister will have to do


better according to one The Polish foreign minister,


Radoslaw Sikorski was secretly recorded this week slating the Prime


Minister over incompetence in his And by the looks of it Mr Cameron's


got a tough job. Details of the EU's strategic agenda


were leaked this week and it doesn't make comfortable


reading for those who want to Phrases such as developing


"the freedom of movement of EU his case for staying in the


European Union if there's Let's speak now to Peter Spiegel


who's the Brussels bureau chief Welcome to the programme. What is


going to happen at this summit in Brussels? It is a mystery a week or


so ago. But now we know there will be a vote and Britain is going to go


down in flames. They may have one ally in the Hungarian Prime


Minister. But even he is is a controversial figure. There have


been overtures from other countries from the Jean-Claude Juncker camp


and from Herman van Rompuy, the European council president, to see


if there is room for a bargain with Downing Street. They have been told


that there is no room to bargain. David Cameron wants a vote and he


wants it on record either for or against Jean-Claude Juncker and he


is probably going to lose. So it is over for David Cameron, but what


about Jean-Claude Juncker? What is he like? I think he has been


mischaracterised by Downing Street as an old school federalist. He is


very pragmatic and does want for Med Rallsism within the -- federalism


within the eurozone, but Downing Street have pushed for that and


George Osborne said about the logic of the eurozone coming together. I


think that had Britain played their cards better with junk. He is from a


-- better with junk. He is -- with Jean-Claude Juncker. Even ten years


ago he was seen as a British ally. But as playing the card against him


and briefing against him, they have created a political enemy and a man


who will take the position at the top of a powerful institution has


influence on legislation that will affect wherein and -- Britain and


turned him into an enemy. What about the reports about Jean-Claude


Juncker's drinking, are they fair? Well, look, his successor as head of


the euro group of the Dutch finance minister, has said that he drinks


heavily in meetings. I have talked to many other officials who have


been in meetings from mid level officials to former finance


ministers and they acknowledge this. Jean-Claude Juncker has said that he


does haven't a drinking problem. But it has come up in conversations that


this is an issue and has led to some meetings lasting well into the


night. That said, again people I have talked to I have asked have you


ever seen sit affect his judgment, they all claim no. So it is an


issue. It is something that has come up in conversations I have had


unprompted. But everyone I hearsay it is not an issue that has affected


his judgment. So the question wlis other states will feel this is


important. Let's look to the consequences. You have spelled out


that David Cameron didn't play his hard well in terms of negotiations.


What will that mean in his campaign to renegotiate powers back from


Brussels to London and in terms of calling the shots on who might be


commissioner? I think those are two different issues. On the


commissioner, that could be trouble. That what is Jean-Claude Juncker has


power to do. If Britain nominates the commissioner, but Jean-Claude


Juncker can decide the portfolio. There are some states that get good


portfolios and Britain has always got a top one. It would be a self


inflicted one if Jean-Claude Juncker gave the British commissioner the


multilingual portfolio. On renegotiation it is more complicated


the commission does not have a role in that, it is the member states and


the pivotal figure is Angela Merkel. And does Merkel owe Cameron for


having turned on her? Thank you. We mope to speak to to Charles


Kennedy soon. Priti Patel would it be too Machiavellian to describe


euro sceptics might relish junk as head of O'-- Jean-Claude Juncker as


head of commission. No, David Cameron said it was a matter of


principle and that is the right to have the choice and the vote. But


the important thing is it sends out a message to the public. We have had


the European elections and it is ensuring the European institutions,


the commission, the relative individuals that will be occupying


the important positions, understand the sentiment in the United Kingdom


now on all matters associated with the EU. Does it suggest the European


elite will ignore public opinion. It lice your party have gone down in


flames with Michael Foot deciding to choose Tony Benn. It is another


example of poor judgment by the Prime Minister. He is isolated in


Europe and will go down in flames. That doesn't mean he is wrong. Well,


he is wrong to pick a fight that he won't win if the result for that is


that we are less able to influence reform of the EU. It is for the


British government to make its views known... I'm not going to tell you


if Juncker would be a good president because I don't know him. Our view


would be it for the commission to determine and for the member states


to vote. The crucial thing is, we need a reforming commission. We need


a commission in which Britain's voices heard... Does Labour have no


opinion? You have no opinion, correct? It is European reform. Al


Rapinier and is straightforward. We need a reformed European Union,


Britain to be at the heart of that union... But you can't tell us who


you think should be president of the commission? You are absolutely not,


you are denying the public the chance to have a referendum. I


didn't ask you of the Prime Minister's opinion, I was asking the


opinion of your Eurosceptic backbenchers. I was suggesting they


may be happy with Mr Juncker because they can depict him. That's a


sweeping generalisation. You don't speak on behalf of myself or on the


behalf of the Conservative Party. Excuse me, I asked the question, I'd


like an answer. The point about the Conservative Party is that


effectively, we want to make sure that Britain's voice is heard in the


reform agenda and also off the back of the European elections. The


public have spoken out. To the credit of the prime minister, he is


calling for less Europe and more Britain, and that is where he has


taken his principle stands. I think we have established contact with


Charles Kennedy. Can you hear me all right? Just. My mother was half deaf


so I've got a loud voice as a result of that! Why shouldn't Jean-Claude


Juncker be president of the commission? Well, I think that the


Juncker be president of the commission? Well, I think that issue


that the British government are putting forward, both conservatives


and ourselves as Liberal Democrats, although there are different views


on Europe, it's that the ultimate decision on this position should be


with the Council of decision on this position should be


with the ministers or the heads of government, whilst taking into


account the sentiment as expressed by the European Parliament. Although


David Cameron has made a big thing about being anti this particular


candidate, I think the thing that unites us more, the two parties, is


the principal, leaving aside the individual candidacy, of the way you


go about the actionable choice. What does John Claude Juncker stand for


in go about the actionable choice. What


does John Claude Juncker Europe that the Liberal Democrats don't stand


for in Europe? -- Jean-Claude Juncker. I don't think there's


anything particularly fundamental. Certainly if you take it from my


vantage point, I'm here at the Council of Europe, a different


European institution, we won't confuse the viewers with that one.


We've just been debating European federalism in the Council of Europe


this morning. The classic British dilemma is encapsulated in this


debate, it could equally be the European Union. Federalism over here


means power decentralised, devolved, closer to communities. In British


politics and the British media, federalism means some kind of super


centralised Europe superstate based on Brussels. The two are like ships


passing in the night. This candidate, in standing for


federalism, stands for continental federalism, he doesn't stand for the


caricature of it that unfortunately disfigures British reporting and


British politics. All that may be true, so I ask you again. What is


the difference in the Lib Dem approach to Europe and Mr Juncker's


approach? I think there is not a fundamental difference in terms of


the long-term objective that he would subscribe to. I think the


short-term obstacle, obviously, not dissimilar to other EU member states


at the moment, if you look at the composition of the new European


Parliament that is divided, it's got a very Eurosceptic presents now.


We've got to be alert to taking people with us, which has been the


big criticism not just of recent years but, frankly, the 30 years


I've been in the House of Commons, that the elite, the pro-European


elite politicians, civil servants, academics, industrialists and


others, happened spent enough time explaining and persuading and have


just assumed that it is a fringe element which Eurosceptics have or


anti-Europe. That has come, to put it crudely, to buy this on the


proverbial bomb. Sorry, let me interrupt you. Mr Juncker is part of


the European elite. Your leader is part of the European elite. Mr


Juncker believes in an ever closer union. The Lib Dems believe in an


ever closer union. Mr Juncker believes in a particular kind of


federalism that you've just said is the Lib Dem's kind of federalism.


I'm struggling to find out what he stands for that you don't. I think


Nick Clegg has made clear, and you are right that Nick is


quintessential European elite in the Thameside been outlining, without


doubt, family wise as well as political wise. I would have to


plead guilty to that in a Celtic sense as well. The point that Nick


has been at pains to stress is the methodology by which the candidate


gains acceptance and he's not happy with that. I think the end


objectives longer term that we espouse as British Liberal Democrats


are pro-European, as this candidate would espouse and aspire towards,


you are quite right. But I think we are a long way from that in


Britain, and more time has got to be spent from the top of the European


Commission on the persuasion elements, rather than just the big


picture element. I think the worry is that this juncture, on the back


of the European results we just had, on the back of all the difficulties


that Europe is facing, particularly Britain's role within Europe, with a


possible referendum on a couple of years time, that this would be


trying to run before we could walk, in terms of the argument in domestic


British politics. I think that is the difference in a nutshell. We


will leave it there. Thanks for struggling through, I know it's been


a bad audio connection. That may be popular or unpopular with the


British people but it has the benefit of honesty. You know where


the Lib Dems stand on this. We don't know where you stand on these


matters. I don't think that's true at all. We don't think there is any


point of us bellowing fruitlessly from the sidelines of Europe in


particular playing to the gallery of Eurosceptics in the Tory party, if


what we want, and we agree with the Conservatives, if what we want is


reform of the European Union. If we want focus on jobs... Who would be


the best reforming president? I don't think there is any point in my


suggesting names. People will be amazed because you are pretty good


at giving names for everybody else. I'm not asking you to speak for


Wales. You are here to represent Labour. I'm asking for their view


but you won't. Juncker might be a man who could give us reform, maybe


somebody else. But at the moment, we are going to be further isolated and


less able to implement a reform agenda. Doesn't get as far. What I


want to ask you is, is there any chance you think you could convince


the Lib Dems to agree with you on an in-out referendum? That I don't


know, to be perfectly frank and honest. There's been talk Mr Clegg


might be moving that way. Possibly discussions are taking place on


that, I'm sure that the something they will be discussing. The reality


is, irrespective of our political parties, is that the British public


at large are taking place on that, I'm sure that the something they


will be discussing. The reality is, irrespective of our political


parties, is that the British public at large I think they do look to


politicians now to get a backbone and say, enough is enough, and stand


up for Britain in Europe. The problem we have had over the last


decade, over a decade, is that they have seen the British political


elite say, actually, we know best, we will make all the decisions and


not pick the rounds with the European Union. It is an important


voice, an important principle in terms of the point we making. Ikea


what you are saying. Is there any chance that Labour, before the


election, may come out for an in-out referendum on membership? No, I


think our position is clear. I don't see why we should change that. That


was on behalf of the Labour Party, Wales and the Labour Party.


Synonymous, as you know. Now, if you're an England football


fan you may be feeling slightly dejected this morning


as you watch Roy Hodgson and his bunch of losers board their plane in


Rio ready for the long flight home. Try as they might, they couldn't


get their hands on the Cup that Still, at least they'll have plenty


of time to watch the Daily Politics. And no one told them they didn't


have to go all the way to Brazil to get the cup


everyone wants - they just had to know their political history and


have access to an email address. Yes, I'm talking about our very own


Jules Rimet, the Daily Politics mug, which you can raise above your head


in celebration, knowing you've We'll remind you how to enter


in a minute, but let's see if you # I'm just a soul whose intentions


are good. I do solemnly swear that you will


faithfully execute. # People try to put us down, talking


about my generation. # I'm a man of means by no means.


# King of the road. # The minute you're gone I cried.


# The minute you're gone I die. # Keep on running.


# Keep on hiding. # One fine day I'm going to be the


# One fine day I'm going to be the one to make you understand.


# Oh, yeah, I'm going to be To be in with a chance of winning


a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz email


address - that's [email protected] And you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website - that's


bbc.co.uk/ dailypolitics. It's coming up to midday here,


just take a look at Big Ben, Yes, Prime Minister's


Questions is on its way. Nick Robinson is already here. The


Prime Minister said he would have to make a full apology if Mr Coulson


went down on the hacking charge, he's been found guilty of that. He


did it, but it's not the end of the story. It isn't. It will be


interesting to see whether he repeats that and where Ed Miliband


pushes him. There is speculation about whether they would be allowed


to, because the speaker has been taking legal advice on what can and


can't be said. The court case is still ongoing, there are still


charges on which the jury had not decided on their verdict. A few


minutes ago, we got the speaker's advice on that. People are allowed


to reflect calls and has been convicted, they are not allowed to


speculate on what the sentence might be and they certainly can't refer to


the cases that I yet unsettled. I think Ed Miliband can pretty much


ask everything he wanted to ask because his target is not Andy


Coulson, his target is David Cameron. The target there is, why


did you appoint this man, didn't you know at the time that they could be


problems going down the road? People have seen it is significant that he


didn't go what is called a developed vetting process that others had gone


through. Why did he not go down that road, why was he not given that


betting? Secondly, would it have found out anything? Good question.


The Prime Minister has repeated the line that the decision on what level


of vetting, and people do get different levels, was taken up by


the politicians and by the civil servants. Labour have always


regarded it and the Bardi Anne have always regarded it as pretty


suspicious because other people did have the top level of vetting but


Coulson did not. Gus O'Donnell used to be the top civil servant in the


land and he told the inquiry that this was basically his decision. He


argued he was avoiding wasting money, it was time-consuming. The


civil servants don't want to block somebody an incoming Prime Minister


is going to happen if they've got a good reason to do so. It was known


that Andy Coulson was involved in controversy, this was not something


that required some spook to discover, it was out there in the


public domain. So why go through a process that is going to produce an


answer that the Prime Minister might not like? Would it have got the


answer... It couldn't have revealed the hacking, because it took a


police investigation to do that. It might have revealed other questions


about Mr Coulson. Labour's argument is likely to be, at least it would


have given you the opportunity to investigate some of these things.


The Prime Minister has said he gave someone a second chance and it


didn't work out. Isn't the weakest part of his argument is that there


were a number of people at the time who warned him this was not a


sensible road to go down? One moment is hiring him in the first place. He


could then say, whether you think it's wise or not, look, there was


one case, one rogue reporter, I gave him a second chance. I don't think


Cameron is in real difficulty on that. Where he is in difficulty is


giving a taxpayer-funded job... After the front page of the


Guardian, after the front page of the New York Times, after it has


been revealed it is clearly not one rogue reporter, this is widespread


hacking going on. It's at that point that people are entitled to say, and


senior Conservatives at the time did, the people who went into the


coalition with David Cameron did and clearly, the Labour Party did, to


say, you know, we can't prove his guilt, we don't know that, but this


is not a sensible appointment. Underlining all this, and I'm sure


Ed Miliband will want to get onto this, is motive. Was this because


Andy Coulson was a friend, was it because he was good at his job? Both


things are true, or was because he was scared of falling out with the


Murdoch empire. There was a sense that this was a link that had been


formed with the most powerful media organisation the land, you don't


want to let it go. He was appointed in the summer of 2007, but it looked


like Gordon Brown could walk on water and the primacy panicked. The


leader of the opposition. He had panicked. He had said to begin with


you wouldn't touch the Murdoch press. He then didn't even have any


friends in the Tory press. He panicked and went for Mr Coulson and


began to suck up to Mr Murdoch. Exactly that. He took one view, it


wasn't working for him, he feared defeat. We were talking about a snap


election. At that stage exactly right, Andrew. It's all right this


principle of not being in with the press, but you need them. He hired


Andy Coulson like a shot when he became available, having resigned


from the News of the World. He then did take the view that he performed


his job well, he was trustworthy, he was a friend, the civil servants


regarded him and were much more comfortable with than Alistair


Campbell. I shall have further such meetings


today. Andy Coulson 's conviction shows that the Parliamentary inquiry


today. Andy Coulson 's conviction shows that the Parliamentary into


phone hacking was consistently misled by him and others. Does the


Prime Minister agree with me that our first concern should be to see


redress for the victims of phone hacking and to uphold the democratic


principle of a free press? I think my honourable friend is right, the


first thing is we should remember the victims. People whoed that their


privacy wrecked and ensure that cannot happen again. And we must


cherish a free and vibrant press. I said yesterday and I say again, I


take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did so on


the basis of assurances that I received, but also the Select


Committee received. I said if the assurances were wrong, I would


apologise fully and frankly to this House and I do so again today from


this dispatch box. I am sorry. This was the wrong decision. But I can it


-- but I think it is right we have had a public inquiry and proper


investigations. Yesterday showed that no one is above the law in our


country. THE SPEAKER: Ed Milliband. Today we know that for four year the


Prime Minister's hand picked closest adviceor was a criminal. And brought


disgrace to Downing Street. We now also know that the Prime Minister


willfully ignored multiple warnings about him. On the 8th July 2009, the


Guardian published evidence of phone hacking on an industrial scale while


Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World. At that time, Andy


Coulson was his director or of communication. What action did he


take? As I said, the assurances I sought and received were the same


assurances received by the Press Complaints Commission, by the Select


Committee and the police. They were all gone into by the Leveson inquiry


and an inquiry he supported. He talks about warnings. On the warning


from the Guardian, Leveson said this, the editor of the Guardian did


not raise the issue with David Cameron at meetings in the month


after the article was published and the following year. He says this,


there can be no criticism of David Cameron for not raising the issue.


We had an exhaustive inquiry. I know he didn't like the result


We had an exhaustive inquiry. I know inquiry, but he should accept it. Mr


Speaker, that is a long-winded of saying when it came to Andy Coulson


he just didn't want to know the evidence. The first warning ignored.


Let's move on the to May 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister warned him in


person about his deep concerns about Andy Coulson. So he was warned by


his deputy. What action did he take? Every single one of these issues was


dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. THE SPEAKER: Order. Mr Lucas, calm


yourself. I'm trying to offer you on a weekly basis their pew tick


guidance. But there is a long way to go. -- therapeutic. Every issue was


dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. The terms of reference of the


inquiry were agreed by the honourable gentleman and they


included, the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous


warnings about media misconduct. That is what Leveson looked into. He


looked into all of these questions about the warnings I was given and


the response I gave and he made no criticism of my conduct. I know that


the honourable gentleman was disappointed by the Leveson inquiry,


but he called for it and it took place and he should heed what it


said. No, Mr Speaker. This is about his character, his judgment, and the


warnings he ignored, including from the Deputy Prime Minister. Warning


two ignored. In September 2010, the New York Times published a


front-page investigation detailing Andy Coulson's knowledge of phone


hacking, including one former editor who said I have been to dozens of


meetings with Andy when the subject came up. What action did he take?


All of these issues, every warning, was dealt with by Leveson. An


inquiry he called for. And I know he can't bear it, but Leveson made no


criticism of my conduct in this regard whatsoever. You cannot call


for a judge-led inquiry, participate in a judge-led inquiry, write the


terms of reference of the inquiry and then ignore what it has to say.


I have to say, all of the questions he is rising are not new. They're


the questions dealt with by the Leveson I inquiry. THE SPEAKER: The


Prime Minister is offering an answer and it must be heard. Order. It must


be heard by the House. Both sides must be heard by the House and that


will happen, as it always does, however long this has to be run.


About that let us be clear. The Prime Minister. I can understand why


he doesn't want to listen to an eight-month long inquiry that cost


?5 million that interviewed people under oath that was led by a judge,


but that what is he asked for and that is what is delivered and did


not criticise my conduct. So he should accept the inquiry that he


supported. No answer... No answer on any of the questions. No answer why


he didn't act on the Guardian or on the Deputy Prime Minister no, answer


why he didn't act on the New York Times. Let's come back to issue of


vetting. Amidst the warnings, the least he should... THE SPEAKER:


Order. There is the usual ranting from the usual suspects. Be quiet or


if you can't be quiet, leave the chamber. We can manage without you.


Ed Milliband. Let's come to vetting. Amid the warnings the least he


should have done is insisted that Andy Coulson should have the highest


level of security vetting, as his six predecessors over 14 years had


had. Why tint he -- why didn't he insist on it. Leveson looked into


this issue. This what is he found. This is what he found. Leveson


conclubtded -- concluded this, the level of security clearance was not


the decision of Mr Cameron or Mr Cowlson, but the decision of the


civil service. Those are the correct procedures. Those are the correct


procedures. But if the leader of the opposition's contention is that


direct vetting would have got to the bottom of Andy Coulson's conduct at


the News of the World, then he should be clear about what Leveson


found. He found this. The process of considering Andy Coulson for DV


status would not have involved a detailed investigation of phone


hacking at the News of the World. That undermined the entire case that


Labour have been trying to make today. I know you don't agree with


it. I know he is so desperate not to talk about the economy, not to talk


about unemployment, not to talk about the deficit, but you can't


rerun an inquiry that has already taken place. Now it is clear from


the Prime Minister, I will tell tell them what is weak, it is failing to


stand up for the Rhining things -- the right things. We know the rule


of the Prime Minister is the buck doesn't stop here and he blames the


civil service. Now, on the civil service, can he assure... THE


SPEAKER: Sometimes one has to repeat a thing. If there is quiet. We will


continue. If people try to shout other people down, against the


principles of British democracy, they will be stopped in their


tracks. It is very simple and I would have thought pretty clear. Ed


Milliband. On the civil service can he assure the House at no time does


Sir Gus O'Donnell or any senior servant raise concerns about hiring


Andy Coulson. Gus O'Donnell has made that clear in the evidence to the


inquiry and on the issue of vetting, he was clear that the decision about


vetting is for permanent Secretary at No 10, sur Jeremy Haywood, who


served Labour governments as well as coalition governments led by a


Conservative Prime Minister. What the honourable gentleman is trying


to do is go through all of the old questions that were answered by the


Leveson inquiry, he didn't like the answer, because he wanted to prove


some cooked up conspiracy between the Conservatives and News of the


World. He cannot manage to do it because the Leveson inquiry cannot


find it. He asked what is weak. I will tell you what is weak,


attacking Murdoch and standing up with a copy of the Sun, only to


apologise a dpu hours later -- a few hours later. Mr Speaker, the Prime


Minister said that Sir Gus O'Donnell was asked whether he raised concerns


with him or his office about Andy Coulson. He was not asked that


question at the Leveson inquiry. There is an important question which


the country will won't answered whether senior civil servants raised


concerns about Andy Coulson. The truth is the charge against the


Prime Minister is not one of ignorance, but wilful negligence. At


the heart of this are the thousands of innocent victims of phone hacking


he didn't stand up. He will be remembered as the first occupant of


his office who brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street. He


brought up the issue of the warning from the Guardian. I disproved him


using the evidence. He brought up the idea of direct vetting, I have


disproved him by using the evidence. He cannot bear the the fact that the


inquiry he hoped would pin the blame on me found that I had behaved


correctly. That is the case. All of the issues were examined, all the


issues were examined by Leveson. If he wants to debate the calls we make


and the leadership we give, it is that that I'm happy to do. It is


leadership that has got the economy moving and is putting Britain back


to work. And it is the total absence of leadership from the Labour Party


that shows they have nothing to say about


After many months of vehement anti-Iranian rhetoric from the


government and now the sudden change of heart, does the Prime Minister


believed that the maxim, my enemy's enemy is my friend, trumps all else?


I don't believe that. We should judge every regime and organisation


on its commitment to human rights, the rule of law and building a


realistic societies. We should engage with the Iranians but, as


I've said, with a very clear eye and a hard heart. We shouldn't forget


what happened to our embassy, we shouldn't forget the things they are


responsible for around the world, but we should start to build a


dialogue with them in the way the Foreign Secretary has set out. On


Friday, my honourable friend the member for South Basildon, East


Thurrock and myself jumped from a plane, 13,000 feet over the


Yorkshire countryside. Fortunately we had a parachute. And training


from the Tiger Army parachute display team. As we approach Armed


Forces Day, will the Prime Minister paid tribute to our Armed Forces and


those charities and the generosity of the British people, who do so


much to support those who give such commitment to Queen and country, and


will he reinforce the fact that this Parliament will never ever under


estimate the contribution of the Armed Forces of this country? I


absolutely support what he has said and commend him for jumping out of


an aeroplane with a parachute. Not only should we commend our Armed


Forces, but it's right that we put the Armed Forces common and --


covenant, the military covenant, into the law of the land. I think


Armed Forces Day is an important part of our calendar. On remembrance


Sunday we remember those who have served and fallen. In Armed Forces


Day it is an opportunity to celebrate all of those who served


today, thank them and their families, to celebrate the values


they live by and all that they bring to our country. Does the Prime


Minister realise he has made history by employing a crook at Number Ten?


I've given a very full answer to this. Obviously, I regret the


decision to employ Andy Coulson on the basis of the assurances I was


given. But what I would say is no one made any complaints about the


conduct of Andy Coulson why'd he was at Number Ten. And that does stand


in quite a contrast to the conduct of Damian McBride, the conduct of


Joe Moore, to the conduct of Alistair Campbell. What we had from


the previous government was dodgy dossiers, burying bad news and


smearing Members of Parliament. The firefighters dispute continues with


some worrying consequences and no sign at present of a resolution. But


back before Easter, DC LG ministers got the government actuaries to cost


a set of proposals that the Fire Brigades Union was ready to put to


its members. Will the Prime Minister look at that proposal even now and


consider whether it might still have some useful part to play in bringing


an end to this dispute? I'm very happy to look at what he suggests. I


know that the minister in the local government department, the


honourable member for great Yarmouth, has been working extremely


hard on this issue. It's important we listen to what the firefighters


say but, at the same time, recognise that the pensions they have access


to would actually require the building of a ?500,000 pot for


anyone else in our country. We should bear that in mind and the


contribution of the taxpayer at the same time. Does the prime Minister


accept that his death at 60 proves that Gerry Conlon lost more than 15


terrible years in prison and the anguish of his father's torment, due


to the injustice from this state? As well as his wider campaigning


against injustice, there were two particular issues that matter to him


in recent years. One is the need for proper quality mental health


services for those who suffered miscarriages of justice. Secondly,


which in particular I would like the Prime Minister to address,


notwithstanding the egregious subdivide your seal that has been


put on the Guildford and other papers, he was recently promised


access to the archives. It was his dying wish that that would be


honoured through the people he wanted... Will he ensure that the


dying wish of an innocent man is honoured? I'm grateful to him for


raising wish and the way in which he does it, it's hard to think what 15


years in prison when you are innocent of a crime that you've been


convicted for would do to somebody. I think it is absolutely right that


the previous prime Minister apologises fulsome, as he did when


this came to pass. I'm very happy to look at the specific request about


the records at the specific request about the record that queue, which


hasn't been put to me before, and contact the honourable gentleman


about that issue. And employment in North Northamptonshire is down by a


third. Last week, this conservative led government approved the Rushden


Lakes development. 2000 new jobs, major retail park and a fantastic


leisure facility. Could the prime Minister explain how we have that


success? Could be down to his long-term economic plan? I'm


grateful to him for detailing what is happening in Northamptonshire, in


terms of the extra jobs and development. I think what it proves


is we do have an entrepreneurial economy, particularly in


Northamptonshire, but we do need key developments to go ahead to help


unlock the jobs, growth and investment we need for our country.


The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was just giving Andy calls


and a second chance. That means that he knew there was a first offence.


He knew from the very beginning that he was taking a criminal into


Downing Street. Then he refused to sack him and yesterday, and again


today, he was busy praising Andy Coulson. What message does that send


to the victims? Isn't the truth of the matter that he is only sorry


because he got caught? The honourable gentleman has got it


wrong time and time again. What I said about giving someone a second


chance is because the individual in question had resigned as the editor


of the News of the World because of what had happened. He said in this


House of Commons, there was no doubt there was a deal secured between the


Conservative Party and News International before the general


election. That is what he said, after eight months of an inquiry,


that was found to be complete and utter rubbish. And yet have we ever


heard one word of reduction from the honourable gentleman? Not a word!


May I congratulate my right honourable friend on his judgment


and resolution in standing up for Britain's national interest over the


question of the presidency of the EU commission. And can I put it to him


that he is in June with the concerns of the public right across Europe,


unlike so many of our continental partners? It's important to stand up


and speak for what you believe in. I believe that the European Commission


president should be chosen by the elected heads of government and


state on the European Council. That is the right approach. It is wrong


to sign up to this power grab by the parties of Europe and the European


Parliament. I also think it's important that the people involved


understand that we need reform in Europe. It doesn't matter how hard I


have to push this case, I will take it all the way to the end. Mr


Speaker, they have been to breakfast with Boris, had tea at Number Ten


and are dancing with the Business Secretary, but still businesses in


Shoreditch and the city cannot get superfast broadband. This is now a


national embarrassment. What is the prime minister going to do? We have


put a huge amount of money into expanding superfast broadband. We


are now doing better than other European countries in terms of the


roll-out of our network and the speeds that are available. The


culture secretary is working very hard to deal with those areas of the


country that don't have superfast broadband. I will make sure he puts


Hackney firmly on his list. The Prime Minister recruited Andy


Coulson in 2007. In 2009, Nick Davies from the Guardian came to the


select committee and said, I have never seen a piece of paper that


directly links Andy Coulson to any of the activity we are discussing.


In February 2010, the select committee on which I serve concluded


with all party support, we have seen no evidence that Andy Coulson you


that phone hacking was taking place. Would the Prime Minister agree with


me that those who now claim they knew he was in 2007, which seems to


include the leader of the opposition, should explain why they


didn't pass that information on to the police or the select committee,


or are they trying to rewrite history to deflect attention from


their own chronic leadership shortcomings? I think my honourable


friend put it rather better than I did! Thank you. I'm sure the Prime


Minister and the whole house will join with me in welcoming a very


successful visit by Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to


Northern Ireland this week. Will the Prime Minister also join with me in


condemning Sinn Fein's foolish approach to welfare reform, which is


not protecting the vulnerable in Northern Ireland, but is costing the


Northern Ireland executive ?5 million per month in fines. I agree


with the honourable gentleman on both counts. As ever, the Queen Roz


visit to Northern Ireland has been a huge success and has highlighted the


economic renaissance that is taking place, with over 800 foreign


investors, Northern Ireland is now one of the top UK destinations for


investment. I'm extremely jealous of her Majesty being able to step on


the iron Throne and meet cast of Game Of Thrones, one of the most


successful productions anywhere in the world, hosted in Northern


Ireland. He's also right about welfare reform. The point of welfare


reform is to help people get back to work, rather than just cut budgets.


We need to explain to all the parties in Northern Ireland that we


should be engaging in welfare reform to help people get back to work. On


this side of the House we have a long-term economic plan. With


education funding at its heart, which was seen in the enhanced 206


to ?9 per pupil funding that all schools in Northumberland will


receive next April. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we need


to continue that progress on education funding, so that as the


plan takes effect we will get fairer funding for all the schools in this


country? I Honourable friend is right. Education and better schools


and skills are absolutely at the heart of our long-term economic


plan. You should note that we are spending ?18 billion on school


buildings in this Parliament, which is more than Labour spent in their


first two terms combined, but specifically on the issue of a fair


national funding formula, we have made some progress by allocating


?350 million to the least fairly funded Local Authorities, and that


will make a real difference in the coming year. On Monday morning,


getting the train to London, I joined a picket line with the PCS


trade union, protesting against closures of HMRC offices in Dundee


and protecting our terms and conditions. But their main concern


was they felt there was eight Government plan for privatisation of


HMRC. Could the Prime Minister assure those members that they are


no such plans under his watch? The plan we have four HMRC is to make it


more efficient and more effective, at collecting taxes from people who


should be paying them. That's the plan. On Sunday, 17-year-old James


good ship tragically drowned at a lake in my constituency. His death


has left his family, friends and the local community in shock. As this


week is drowning prevention week, what can the Prime Minister do to


raise awareness of the dangers of open water and improve water


safety, particularly during such a warm summer that we are having at


the moment? My heart goes out to the family that he mentions. He is right


to raise this issue. For anyone to lose a son, and blues won in such a


tragic way as this, is heartbreaking. We do need to spread


better in the nation about the dangers of swimming in open water.


We need to do more to teach swimming in schools and life-saving skills. I


also think the heroism bill we are bringing forward, that will help


people who want to do good and rescue people, will also, in a small


way, helped as well. Hundreds of young British men and some women are


now fighting in Syria and now with ISIS in Iraq. Some of them will come


back to the UK trained, radicalised and ready to attack. Our prevent


programme has been cut by ?70 million and the funding for local


authorities to do the essential long-term community work is all but


disappeared. We'll be Prime Minister undertake an urgent review of the


strategy to make sure we have the plans and the resources to protect


our young people from the extremists? I have great respect for


the right honourable lady on this issue because she has always spoken


clearly about the need to confront not just violent extremism but all


forms of extremism. What we have done in this Government is to make


sure the Prevent Programmers properly focused and works in a way


that you are targeting those most at risk of being radicalised. We need


to make sure we shift resources in our intelligence, security and


policing services, to target those who are potentially returning from


Syria or Iraq. We have made a large tub of arrests, we have confiscated


passports, we have taken all the action necessary to keep our country


safe. Julius House, a wonderful hospice in my constituency, is


currently carrying out research with Bournemouth University into the


impact of short breaks on family relationships. We'll be Prime


Minister give higher priority to the funding of short breaks as an invest


to save measure? I agree on this issue. Anyone bringing up a severely


disabled child knows that when you find one of these hospices, and I


will never forget finding Helen house in Oxford, which was the first


children's hospice anywhere in the country, that it was a complete


life-saver for families and carries out brilliant work. That is why we


have committed over 800 million for local authorities to invest in short


breaks for disabled children. I'm sure that this research from


Bournemouth University will help inform our work in the future. I


wonder if the Prime Minister is aware of the alleged mis-selling of


cashback warranties by ScottishPower? I wonder if it


concerns him as much as it does me that one of the UK's largest


utilities companies has allegedly tried to eBay paying back money to


thousands of people, many of whom are the poorest in our society. I


cross-party delegation to get to the cross-party delegation to get to the


truth of the matter. This took place over a decade ago. It was looked at


at the time by the then Department of trade and industry. In light of


the concerns that exist from members of the public about the outcome of


the liquidation, I would like to encourage the honourable gentleman


to give the business department all the new information that has come to


light. I will fix a meeting for him with the Business Secretary and


members of the all-party group, so we can try to get to the bottom of


this issue. My constituent Michael Butcher installed CCTV in his


mother's flat because she was a dementia sufferer. He recorded on


this a brutal assault on her by her carer. Unbelievably to me, the CPS


has refused to prosecute her because they say this not in the public


interest. Would my right honourable friend agree with me that as a


society, we should be totally intolerant of all attacks vulnerable


people with dementia? On the specific case, it wouldn't be right


for me to comment on the CPS decision. But on a general point


about, is it right that we are intolerant of breaches of care


against elderly people, particularly those with dementia who are reliant


on others, guess, we should be intolerant of that. Our dementia


strategy is all about not just increasing the research into trying


to tackle dementia, but making sure our care homes and hospitals and


communities become more dementia friendly. Mr Speaker, did Gus or


Donnell raise any concern they may have had... A number of senior civil


servants gave evidence to the leaves an inquiry and were closely


questioned. -- lead the singing it. The whole process of Andy Coulson,


his arrival in Number Ten Downing Street, the betting of Andy Coulson,


the warnings that were given, each and every single one were dealt with


by the investigation that the right honourable gentleman supported from


the position of leader of the opposition. But he cannot bear the


fact that an independent, judge-led enquiry came to that conclusion. He


is the first leader of the opposition not able to ask for an


independent judicial enquiry because he's already had one. Although the


World Cup football results they have not been quite what we wanted in


England, we have got the 2015 World Cup rugby to look forward to. My


right honourable friend knows there will be four foreign teams playing


at Kingsholm on my constituency. Would he agree with me that this is


a great opportunity to use the Chancellor's new Brownfield site


fund, plus perhaps a new city 's deal from DC LG, to make sure that


the regeneration of our small cities is ready for the World Cup 2015? My


honourable friend is right, that after the disappointment of the


football and also the disappointment of that stunning Test match where we


lost on the second last ball, I think it is time perhaps to look to


rugby to provide us with something to lift our spirits. Last but not


least, Caroline Lucas. In my constituency of Brighton Pavilion,


fully one third of homes in the private rented sector, where tenants


are often ripped off, forced to move at a month's notice and the average


rent for a two-bedroom home is ?1200 a month. Will the Prime Minister


back my call for a living rent commission, to explore ways of


bringing rents back into line with the basic cost living? There's a


debate shortly on the private rented sector and how we get more houses


and more competitive rents. Of course we want to see more


competitive rents, but when I look at the policies of her party, it


looks like you never build any houses anywhere for anyone and as a


result, rents would go up. it was dominated by Andy Coulson and


the Prime Minister's judgment in employing him as director of


communications. In opposition and taking him into government in 2010.


A lot of disagreement between the Prime Minister and the leader of the


opposition. Some of them fabbing #k4u8. -- factual. The Prime


Minister wrapped himself in the Leveson report. Almost every reply


was Leveson had answered that question and the Prime Minister


hadn't done anything wrong. While we have been on air. I can tell you


there is some news from the trial. The jury has been discharged in the


hacking trial. It has come to a verdict on the hacking yesterday. It


had two other charges to look at, basically about per version of the


course of justice and misuse, Mus conduct -- - misconduct of public


office and the jury has been unable to come to a decision on these


matters involving Andy Coulson and Clive Goodman, so it has been


discharged. The judge will decide on Monday if there will be a retrial.


So it is a long saga, with 12 other trials to come. The jury has been


discharged, unable to come to a verdict on the other issues. We will


bring you more on that. Jo, what are the viewers saying about PMQs. They


were split. Even said it was an easy win for Ed Milliband. We didn't


learn anything new though. The Martin said David Cameron used


eleven sop as a shield -- Leveson as a shield. But Andy Coulson was found


guilty of hacking and David Cameron ignored concerns about him. Joss


said Ed Milliband's fixation with David Cameron having employed Andy


Coulson is of no interest to voters. This is the sort of Westminster


in-fighting that makes the public sick of politics. And Matthew said


the rhetoric of the Labour team about David Cameron's employment of


Andy Coulson ring hollow. No one believes that Blair and Brown


behaved any differently during their time at No 10. And Jacqueline said


it is a predictable line of questioning. Both Labour and Tories


were wining and dining the press, the Murdoch press in particular, it


is hypocritical. So breaking news, the phone hacking trial jury has


been discharged after failing to reach verdicts on two further


charges against Andy Coulson. A decision on the a retrial we won't


know until Monday. In the general response of the Prime Minister, I


did think it was interesting how he wrapped himself in the Leveson


report. It is what I call the Hutton/Blair defence. When ever Tony


Blair was asked about the death of Mr Hutton, he said, read the report.


David Cameron was doing the same. Holding it up, saying there it is,


it cost five million quid. That may not clear up the voters, but


declaring not guilty. But he could do that about front-pages in The


Guardian. When Ed Milliband asked him twice about whether there was


civil service advice that it was unwise to appoint Andy Coulson, then


David Cameron insisted that too had been raised in the Leveson inquiry


and raised with the man who had been head of the civil service at the


time. Then Gus O'Donnell. I have checked and I can find no evidence


that was raised. I have of course had to speed read the transcript and


looked at the newspaper reports, Ed Milliband himself said that he


didn't think it had been raised in the Leveson inquiry and when it was


raised by a third time by a Labour backbencher, the Prime Minister was


more evasive. Saying all sorts of civil servants have been asked all


sorts of things. It seems likely, my memory is it was said at the time,


but I haven't got evidence, that civil servants said you do know


there is questions about this guy, are you sure? Do you think it is


wise. It seems likely that happened. Was it advice or a warning, or a


quizzical Yes minister question? I don't know. What was unwise of the


Prime Minister is to claim that elevenson cleared him of this. --


Leveson. I have been through this transcript as well, or as much as we


can can get. Two things seem hard to establish. First it is hard to see


Leveson asking Gus O'Donnell asking if he expressed concerns about Andy


Coulson. He asked about deep vetting. Whether reservations were


expressed by the permanent bureaucracy, that is not clear that


was raised in the Leveson inquiry. So I think that puts David Cameron


in the spot. What Ed Milliband has to do is find some way of trying to


prove that the civil servants raised this. To prove it and find somebody


willing to say they raised it and to prove that there were not just


public warnings that we knew about from newspapers and Nick Clegg. But


private warnings. In the end David Cameron can say, I didn't have any


evidence. The evidence I had was that he was not guilty. But it is


another interesting tactic he uses. He often says look, I got the same


assurances as the police got. I got the same assurances the Press


Complaints Commission. He muddling his times. At the times the


allegations were made, the police and the Press Complaints Commission


had not looked into this. At the time he was making a decision to


stand by his man, it wasn't case he could say these organisations such


as the police had backed him. Do I think they're fatal? No, they cast


further questions and doubt on the judgment of appointing him. You have


been deep vetted you were telling us. I was a special advisor in


Northern Ireland and when I was appointed the first thing you were


asked to do is undergo what is called developed vetting. It was


called positive vetting. It is the most intrusive form of viting to


determine -- vetting to determine whether you're trust worthy and they


asked you some horrible questions about your sex life and your


financial background. Mine was depressingly plain! I find it


implausible that that process wasn't imposed on a man who is going to be


director of communications at the heart of No 10. It is not just my


experience, all of his predecessor, his deputy and his successor went


through that level of security. The reason you have got to go through


it, is if you can't undertake that, you can't read the most top secret


documents and offer advice to the Prime Minister of the country. If he


didn't undergo thastret vet -- vetting, somebody took a decision.


Him being the Prime Minister? Mr Andy Coulson may have chosen not to


undergo that degree of vetting. Or the Prime Minister, or civil


servants. But it is undoubtedly out of the ordinary for a director of


communications in the No 10 department not to undergo that. They


have failed to answer why it was he wasn't subject to that degree of


scrutiny. I think we can craw con-- draw conclusions. Would there have


been a chance if Andy Coulson had gone through this, it is developed


vetting it is called. Is there a chance that could have found out


that he had been involved in the whole hacking business? Yes, there


is every prospect. Why? Because what you do in these tests, you are


submitted to two interviews and asked to provide examples of


individuals you, who have known you during your life so, they can be


cross-examinationed to -- cross-examined to see what you have


said and look into your work experience and past history. It is


possible that that might have turned up. In fact it is implausible it


wouldn't have turned up all of the questions that were in the public


domain. You didn't need somebody to do a check to know this was a bloke


about whom there were questions. Priti Patel, by the May of 2010 when


he was moving from being an advisor to the opposition to becoming a


proper director of communications at the heart of government,


proper director of communications at the heart of we had had the Guardian


study. It wasn't until September 2010 we got the New York Times


report. But there was a lot of information in the public domain you


would expect that guys and women who do developed vetting would have got


involved in? I can't speak for that time and we can make all sorts of


comments with hind sight. But it seems from me even from Owen's


comments, there is a process and the civil service took the edecision o'


- the decision it was for them to undertake the process. I don't know


what, why there were not triggers. Perhaps Leveson should have asked


the questions. Whether they came out in court we don't know. We are


getting an Executive versus judiciary spat. The hacking trial


judge has said he considered halting proceedings following criticism by


No 10 spin doctor's lawyer of the Prime Minister's ill advised


intervention in the case. Let's go to Robin who is in his favourite


position outside the court. Bring us up to speed. There is a lot


happening now? Yes, we knew this yesterday. We can now report,


because the jury has been discharged. In the final hours of


the trial yesterday, after the verdicts were returned, partial


verdicts which cleared Rebekah Brooks and others and found Andy


Coulson guilty of phone hacking, the judge was concerned that comments


from the Prime Minister and Ed Milliband may have scuppered the


whole thing. We didn't get everything yesterday. We still had


do remaining counts, which the jury were unable to reach a verdict on.


It looks like somebody is leaving court. But I will continue. They


were unable to reach a verdict yesterday and Timothy Langdale said


there has been a tidal wave of reporting both last night and today


and his concern and he did point the finger at the Prime Minister, that


comments from the Prime Minister who, had said that Andy Coulson had


lied to him and from Ed Milliband who referred to Andy Coulson as a


criminal, meant that this jury were unable to reach impartial verdicts.


I can also say the judge was in contact with the Prime Minister's


PPS yesterday and the Attorney General's office to understand how


the decision had been made for the Prime Minister to make that


statement. The judge wanted representations from the Prime


Minister's office and to know was the statement made at the particular


time deliberately or out of ignorance. He referred to


politicians trying to make capital out of those statements yesterday. I


think partially that point is moot now, because the


think partially that point is moot now, jury have been discharged.


There may be a retrial. But it is intriguing and in the final hours of


the trial there was the prospect and concern from this judge that


actually the politicians and the Prime Minister especially could have


scuppered the whole thing coming to an end and coming to an end in an


inappropriate way. All of that would be relevant to a jury in a retrial.


Everything you have said that could have contaminated this jury, these


arguments could be used in a retrial and Andy Coulson's lawyers may well


argue that he cannot get a fair trial. I think that's true. One of


the big issues in this trial has been what has been known by the


public at large and any potential juror 's before they come to this


court and take on the responsibility of being jurors. That was a huge


issue. Before this trial began last year, Rebekah Brooks' team submitted


applications for the judge, and it was impossible for her to get a fair


applications for the judge, and it trial because they said so much


negative publicity was out trial because they said so much


about her, so much in the way of personal attacks. In the end, she


sat here for eight months, got a fair trial and this jury returned an


unanimous verdict and acquitted on all four charges she faced. Andy


Coulson has a legal team that is being funded by News UK. He faces


the prospect of legal proceedings elsewhere after this. They would


quite rightly, you might say, use anything available to them to ensure


that if there is a risk he doesn't get a fair trial in the future, then


a court should hear about it and potential juror 's should hear about


it as well. There was a reference in Gus O'Donnell's testimony to the


inquiry about Mr Coulson, but it wasn't about him expressing any


concerns to the Prime Minister. He was asked about the Deputy Prime


Minister, the royal household raising the matter with him. He


said, neither Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, nor the Royal


household raised any concerns with me or officials either before or


during Mr Coulson's period of employment. That is a different


issue. I guess Buckingham Palace were involved because the News of


the World had been targeting some of the royal phones. That doesn't get


us any further forward on whether the civil service or Mr O'Donnell


himself raised the issue. It's pretty extraordinary that the


hacking trial judge considered stopping the trial will stop the


prime Minister's intervention was, quote, ill-advised and premature,


was what the judge said. What is even more intriguing was at the time


David Cameron was speaking to the cameras, the Government's principal


legal officer, the Attorney General, an independent legal figure, even


though he's a politician, he has independent status, he was in the


room advising him about what could and could not be said. He clearly


took legal advice from the top lawyer. The Curiosity rover this for


people who follow the law is the person you would actually prosecute


in the temp of contempt of court was the Attorney General.


person you would actually prosecute in the temp of We need to move on,


whether or not there is a retrial, we will hear that on Monday. There


are big concerns about whether now a jury, having heard all this come,


can do the trial proper. Let's see. Should the government focus on


tackling extremist mindsets, which some argue lead to a violent


conclusion? If you decide to challenge more conservative or


radical reforms of Islam, could you end up alienating those who need to


keep onside? That's an argument which is currently under way within


Whitehall and the security services, and an argument that this journalist


thinks is going in the wrong direction. Ear is her soapbox.


The horrific death and destruction in Tavistock Square nine years ago


was the work of violent extremists. But in the years since, the


accusation of extremism has been levelled wider and wider. Just last


week, Cameron called for tackling extremist rhetoric, not just violent


acts, stating, we don't tolerate fascists in this country so we


shouldn't tolerate that argument when it comes to Islamic extremism.


Except that we do tolerate fascists. The leader of the BNP appears on


flagship BBC programmes. Neither the EDL built Britain first had been


prescribed. The reason we tolerate fascists is because we value free


speech and freedom of conscience. The hysteria reached new heights


with recent events in Birmingham. The Muslim governors and parents


caught up in the so called Trojan horse row aren't the equivalent of


the BNP. They are simply old-fashioned, social conservatives


who don't approve of music or sex outside of marriage. You don't have


too agree with them, but you can't call them extreme in the sense of a


threat to national security. And it's not just our current Prime


Minister. Tony Blair compared Birmingham schools to the gun


toting, hand chopping Boko Haram terror arrests. This is precisely


where the strategy of targeting non-violent extremists is so


misguided. If opposing gay marriage makes you an un-British extremist,


then there are plenty of Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Jews and even


non-believers who could be lumped into that definition, starting with


the Archbishop of Canterbury. And if gender segregation is extreme, where


does that leave Eaton, Harrow or Cheltenham ladies College? In fact,


where does it leave those Cabinet ministers who are members of the


all-male Bullington club? And, no, it isn't extremist to use halal meet


in pizza express. Nor is it extremist to wear a headscarf or any


other form of conservative dress per se, or to pray in the mosque five


times a day. It is damaging to social cohesion and ultimately


self-defeating to go after the fine looking social conservatives, when


the evidence suggests that terrorists are more likely to be


cricket playing, club going political radicals. The threat of


violent extremism is too serious to risk alienating an entire community


because some may hold socially conservative views on gender or


disapprove of tombola. Let's focus our energies on those with the will


and capabilities to harness, rather than risk stigmatising those who may


hold illiberal views. Welcome to the programme. Isn't the point about


imposing social conservatism in schools, it's when you impose your


views, which not be extreme if you are using other comparisons, but you


are using them inappropriately in an educational sphere? According to


what? Academies have been given the power to reflect the ethos of the


community in which they are working. In that sense, if you want to open


up a debate on academies and free schools and whether or not they


should be given the freedom to do that, I think there is a debate to


be had. What about in taxpayer-funded state schools,


particularly coed, is it acceptable for boys and girls to be separated


in mainstream lessons? Many faith schools in this country Faith --


state funded. They are separating boys and girls with taxpayer money.


So it is acceptable? It is done. boys and girls with taxpayer money.


non-faith, taxpayer funded schools, some of these were in Birmingham?


When 90% of your student body is from a particular religion, is it


appropriate then to ask for that school to be turned into a faith


school? There's a broader debate to be had about schools, but the issue


is it's not an issue of radicalisation. Is Miriam Wright,


they are not extreme if you are imposing these sorts of things, it


might be socially conservative? I think this is about values in an


educational environment and institutions. It's not about the


imposition in the Draconian way we've heard about in the past. There


are plenty of faith schools where you see values and faith come into


play in the right kind of way, it's balanced, it's not imposed in the


very stringent and, I don't like using the term... Some of


very stringent and, I don't like Birmingham schools? They are being


investigated. There was an extremist ideology, that was what was


reported... What is extremist? ideology, that was what was


are the words they used. They felt things like banning tombola or a


raffle at the school fete seemed extreme. Segregation, extreme. A


preacher in a school, extended Islamic assembly, a preacher calling


on board to destroy the enemies of Islam, is that not extreme? If you


set up within the school grounds and the fact he was invited in the first


place is an absolute problem. He should have been vetted. Whether or


not banning tombola is extreme, I don't think we are going to agree


there. We've run out of time. I don't like tombola! The answer to


Guess the Year was 1965. I'll be back tomorrow at the earlier


time of 11am because it is Wimbledon. Goodbye!


Download Subtitles