25/06/2014 Daily Politics

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!