16/05/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

We know George Osborne likes to pull a rabbit out of the hat,

but today, he pulled out two to help his EU referendum case.

Yes, they haven't always seen eye-to-eye but the Chancellor

was the filling in a Vince Cable/Ed Balls sandwich this morning.

They all think we should stay in the EU but will the public be

The Government is to unveil new measures to tackle extremism

and plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles.

Campaigner Max Moseley takes to his soapbox to argue for greater

But does the internet and social media make a mockery of such laws?

And Cornwall, famous for its coastline, can sometimes

But could this beauty spot soon become the gateway

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

of the programme today, we have Norman Lamont,

a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer,

and Charles Clarke, one-time Labour Education Secretary

First today - George Osborne has been joined by two blasts

from the past this morning, in the latest salvo

The Chancellor's old adversary Ed Balls and his old coalition

colleague Vince Cable joined him on a platform in Essex

to argue for Britain to remain in the EU.

Let's have a listen to what they had to say.

And there is a reason that the three of us

are standing here today, putting aside our very

It's not a conspiracy, it's called a consensus.

The interventions of the last couple of weeks, from the IMF

to the Bank of England, make very clear that the economic

As someone who fought hard to stop Britain joining the euro,

because it would have been economically really damaging

for our country to join the euro, believe me when I say for us

to leave the EU single market would be even more

It is a risk that none of us, literally, can afford to take.

The economic case is settled, it's clear, that British

business and British workers have benefited,

overall, from EU membership and stand to lose

Well, also today, some of Britain's leading business figures are making

300 businessmen and women have signed a joint letter

to the Daily Telegraph saying the UK's competitiveness

"Britain's competitiveness is being undermined

Charles Clarke, it is not just of the remaining camp that how the

leading business figures supporting the case. -- be Remain. Speech at

not at all, the British Chambers of Commerce had a survey of all small

businesses and it runs about two to one of small businesses in favour of

Remain and about a third against and those 300 in the Telegraph are part

of the third, many of them very well-known names. As your report

said, 5-.4 million small businesses in Britain, over which just over a

million employ somebody and that 300 is again a pretty small number, so

there isn't any real news in that. Of course, the big reality is the

major economic interests in this country strongly favour our

continued membership of the EU and that is what you saw George Osborne

with Vince Cable and Ed Balls, arguing that so very, very strongly

with their different experiences. No one will have a different view, I

know, but the consensus view is the strong economic interests for the UK

is to be part of the UK. It is difficult, isn't it, for the league

campaign on the economics now, as they lead up all of these

institutions that seemed to back Leave -- for the Leave Campaign. You

have the IMF, the CBI, the Bank of England and this political

consensus, George Osborne called it, saying the economic argument is

without doubt and is settled. It is certainly not settled and beyond

doubt. The Chancellor may call it a consensus, others may call it a

certain amount of groupthink and there are people who think

differently -- entirely differently, many entrepreneurs take a different

view, many well-known professional investors in the city who take a

different view and there are many individual private sector economists

working in institutions who take a different view as well. But isn't it

the case that that is not enough to counter the weight of economic

argument? I am putting it to you that people watching this, when they

see endless lines of people but they may or may not be familiar with, but

they sound impressive, that you can pick out your odd 100

businesspersons here and there but it won't be enough? That is for the

voter to decide, we are not going to decide by counting up the number of

organisations on one side or the other. It is going to be decided by

ordinary people, by voters, by the individual small business, whichever

way they voted in the chamber of commerce, one way or the other.

Where I think the economic analysis is wrong, if I mistake my view, is I

think they are overstating by a long way the value of the single market.

The single market is about standards and the facts are that many

countries worldwide sale into the single market without being part of

the EU, without having any say in the rules. Those include Australia,

Canada, Japan, America. They sell more than we do. Right, and it is a

fallacy, isn't it, Charles Clarke, to say, as George Osborne did, that

the EU would lose over ?200 billion overseas investment outside of the

EU by 2030? Difficult to project that far ahead but that would be if

we didn't have access to the single market, but we would have access? I

think there is confusion about what is meant by access. Norman is right,

everyone in the world trade is with the European Union. If we were

outside, we would continue to trade with the European Union and in that

sense, we would have access to the markets of the European Union

countries. The key question is how easy is that access and what kind of

trade issues, tariff issues, nontariff issues exist? What we do

know is that the single market has worked very hard and Norman Lamont

was a key member in part of this process, working to bring down those

barriers to trade, reduced the areas where the nontariff barriers were

there to increase trade and it has succeeded. And we would be

withdrawing from that if we decided to leave the single market. Charles

is absolutely right, the key is the meaning of the word access. The

external tariff of the EU, if you exclude things like agriculture, is

about 3%. Frankly, that is not a great obstacle. The 20 billion

gross, 10 billion net that we paid to the EU annually, is a equivalent

to a 7% tariff. We get the money back. We get half of it. So we would

face a higher tariff, based on the net contribution, we face a higher

tariff now than we would outside. One point, to agree with Norman,

there is a wide range of opinions, a group of business people here and a

group there, but the balance of opinion in all of these economic

areas is that our interest is to stay in. But if we look at the

governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who has made, in some

people's eyes, and unwise intervention but a powerful

intervention, whatever you think about what he said, predicting that

there would be slower growth in the short term, the risk of inflation,

how much of an impact would he have on the debate? I remember in 1982

when 365 economists, 365, wrote a letter to The Times saying the

Government's policies cannot work, we will be stuck in recession for

ever and what happened, from almost the day they wrote that letter? The

economy took off. We get a lot of consensus but it is not necessarily

going to be right. So you think it is all wrong? Of course I think the

people forecasting doom and disaster are all wrong. It is fair enough for

the Governor of the Bank of England to talk about the immediate impact

but when you start to make longer-term impacts and talk of

recession, they are paper darts in the air and nobody can... There will

be, whether we stay in or come out, there are uncertainties on both

sides. Do you agree that it is the duty of important institutions like

the Bank of England, the Treasury, the IMF, to make some sort of

assessment and inform the public of the likely impact of a Brexit

decision? You may contest their assessment and say they are wrong

but I think it is absolutely right that they make it and we should say

it serious -- taken seriously. I do take it seriously but I don't find

it convincing. The IMF forecast, frankly, was a bit of a disgrace

because what it actually said is there are a range of outcomes from

just under 1% decline in the economy up to 9%. That is a ridiculous range

of forecasting, that is more like a fan chart than forecast. Do you

agree with your colleague Iain Duncan Smith, who admitted yesterday

that it is unlikely that there will be any serious economic institution

that will back the Leave Campaign? The IMF, the OECD, the Bank of

England, the Treasury, they are very much the same people, they like the

landscape they are used to and dealing with the people they are

used to dealing with. They are probably against any radical change.

Look at the political leaders, the Prime Minister of Japan, the

president of the United States, the Prime Minister of Australia. They

are not part of some insidious plot, they are making a view based on the

experience. You are entitled to save their view is wrong, but I don't

think you are entitled to simply dismiss their view. I am not

dismissing it. When you talk about prime ministers of Australia, John

Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia, the former Prime Minister

and president of the Czech Republic, have said they would back a Brexit.

As has Donald Trump. Is that good news for the Remain or the Leave?

That is a Hitler point! I thought we would get through a whole programme

without mentioning Hitler. Newquay is famous for its sea

and beaches, but what exciting Government project is it also

being tipped for? Norman and Charles will give

us the correct answer. David Cameron has described the rise

of Islamist extremism as "the struggle of our generation"

and a new bill aimed at cracking down on extremism is expected

to form the centrepiece of his government's

legislative agenda Let's take a look at

what's being proposed. The Counter Terrorism Bill is set

to include new measures to ban extremists from working with young

people and vulnerable people. The proposals are designed to stop

people with radical views infiltrating schools, colleges,

charities or care homes. The bill will also include plans

to ban radical preachers And new powers to allow Ofcom

to block broadcasts of "unacceptable These reforms form part

of the Prime Minister's strategy to combat the "poisionous

ideology" of extremism. But there are concerns that the bill

could alienate Muslims and contain too broad a definition

of extremist activity. Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem

spokesperson for home affairs, said the proposals could "drive

extremists into the shadows" and threaten the "very fabric

of our multicultural society Charles Clarke, you were Home

Secretary at the time of 7/7. What do you make of these proposals in

the round? In the red, I support them but they are very difficult. It

is hard to define extremism very, very clearly and it certainly is a

problem in the legislation I took through Parliament to deal with

these issues, both before and after 7/7. There are always difficult

points of definition. If you take for example the role of hate

preachers, I absolutely believe it is right to attack, focus,

identified on the role but they play and how they try and destabilise

society. And I agree that measuring back and putting it into effect than

getting it right is not straightforward and the proof of the

pudding will be in the actual legislation, I haven't seen the

detailed proposals, but the direction of what the Government is

trying to do I think is correct. But the problem is, as Charles Clarke

has identified, what actually constitutes an extremist view and

who would be making those judgments? In your opinion, Norman Lamont, what

is extremism if you are looking at hate preachers? I think it is

extremely difficult to define. Like Charles, I am in favour of laws that

would prevent incitement of islands at -- violence and race hate. But

where it gets very tricky is a concept like non-violent extremism.

It is, for example, a person who does not advocate violence but says

"I don't believe in democracy, I believe in consultation with chut

Rudd Government, which applies in parts of the Middle East"? Is that

something you are going to ban? You can imagine all sorts of

philosophers, like the teaching of Plato, who in many ways is regarded

as anti-democratic, these are very difficult issues. There was a note I

saw by a Government adviser who identified the teachings of one of

the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Are we going to say

they will be completely banned in this country? They already have an

office in Cricklewood. We do have laws that cover incitement to

violence and racial hatred, so where is the gap? Is it where Norman

Lamont has just said, in these rather vague grey areas on the

fringes? We do have laws. I put a number of

those through parliament myself. I am aware of the criticisms that the

Muslim community would be alienated and so on, which I don't think is

actually right. But I think Norman is right that the actual definition

is key. In the case of the examples he gives, it is not so much the

question, what is the ultimate destination of a society? But what

is the path by which you want to get there? If you both say, there is a

society which behaves in a certain way, and we think it is acceptable

to take violent action to get to that form of society, I would call

that extremist action. And indeed, some hate preachers and some

websites or about exciting action in those areas. It is an excellent

question, whether the current law would catch that, and whether a new

law is needed to do that. I think that depends on the precise wording

of the law. So how worried are you that it could and probably would

alienate parts of the Muslim community, if they feel that they

are under threat for expressing philosophies, as you use that word?

I think it has to be narrowly defined and it has to concentrate...

We already have laws relating to the security service and monitoring

people. This has to concentrate on hate, racial hatred and incitement

to violence. I remember once, I happened to share a platform in the

East End of London, I did not know quite what was coming, and there

were a number of Muslims there who did not support democracy but were

very firmly arguing against violence. Was it wrong that that

meeting took place? I'm afraid I don't really think it was wrong. I

think to suppress a meeting like that would cause more dangers than

you would gain from panning it. So let's talk about how workable some

of these things are. If you take the threat that it could destabilise a

community, other include Barnicle banning radical preachers from

posting material online, as such proposals workable? I think they can

be done but it depends, and I am sorry to be agreeing with Norman on

this, it depends precisely on the exact form of legislation, which it

says what should be blocked and what should not. Technically I think

these things can be blocked, but it's perfectly true, and some

legislation has fallen into this trap, but if you do it in a

cack-handed kind of way, you create an negative effects which were not

intended. Who you trust the Government to do that only generally

speaking, yes, actually. Let's talk about the Conservative Party, split

on Europe, as we know. This is another of attempt by David Cameron

to unite him party - will it succeed? I think there is a lot of

support for the legislation. I have my own reservations. I think in the

House of Lords, there will be very critical examination on this sort of

issue. It is the sort of issue which the House of Lords likes to get its

teeth into. We have a lot of law lords, a lot of lawyers. I think

they will raise issues which have to be addressed. I think it is very,

very important to realise one major division in the Conservative Party

which took place some years ago, where you had the traditional

Conservative view, worldly speaking, pro law and order and so on, ante-

extremism, undermined by a substantial group of people who were

civil libertarians, led often by David Davies. This was a big issue

when I was in parliament. Even on big issues which in the past one

would have expected the Conservatives to be united on, this

civil liberties element of the Conservative Party was not. And I

think it will be very interesting to see how that plays out. And of

course there is already a division on issues of counter-terrorism and

the risk of terrorism, within the EU debate. Do you agree with Iain

Duncan Smith who says that staying in the EU exposes the UK to a

terrorism risk? I am not an expert on that, but I did notice that Mr

Noble, the former director of Interpol, actually said that he

thought being in the EU actually increased... I think he described

Schengen as a zone in which terrorists could operate. Did you

agree with that? I also noticed one thing, that Mr Hayward, a former

director of the CIA, said that actually, the real intelligence

co-operation was between the United States and the UK, and to some

extent France, but that one of the conditions of that sharing of

intelligence was that it was not shared with other countries in the

EU. You said ridiculous? I did because the suggestion that staying

in the EU makes us more vulnerable to terrorism is a ridiculous

argument. One, a former police officer, made the criticism that the

EU does not do enough, and aspects of the Schengen system make

terrorism more difficult to detect. I don't think he made the argument

that the UK should be outside the EU. What he argued is that the UK

should operate in these areas, the EU, far more effectively.

Intelligence sharing has developed a lot in the last 10-15 years.

Countries like Holland and Germany are now part of that intelligence

sharing operation. Which used to be just the five countries and it

gradually got wide to include more of the EU countries.

The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has announced

that she will stand down this August after four years in charge.

We'll talk to Natalie in a moment but, first,

let's look at some of the Green Party's highlights

Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.

I'm pleased to say that Heathrow's third runway, "Boris

Island", and all short-haul flights are, just like

Do you also accept that Ukip consistently

attracts more support than you in the opinion polls?

It shouldn't be a crime to be a member

Exactly - what we want to do is to make sure we're not punishing

?1 million on the table that you will not form the

I'm afraid my underwriting doesn't quite stretch that far!

You want to control the BBC schedules so that we

broadcast educational programmes in prime time - does The Sunday

Politics count as an educational programme in prime time?

I think I'll leave the viewewrs to decide that for themselves.

If you'd said yes, you'd have had our vote.

Natalie Bennett joins us now. Happy memories? Mostly, pull it has been a

great four years and no regrets. When did you to step down? We had a

chat, I cannot remember when exactly, but you said you had not

decided. I thought you had made your mind up then that you were going to

step down but you did not want to make it public? No, basically I

thought the elections a couple of weeks ago and then I created some

time after that. So it was literally a few days ago that I made my

decision. What made up your mind? I went back to my proposal is that I

put forward when I stood for leader four years ago and I said I wanted

to grow the party, to make it a truly national party, to win our

place in the national debates, and I thought, I've achieved those things.

1.1 million votes in the general election, being able to look David

Cameron in the eye in those leader debates and say, why are you so

failing to deal with the issue of Syrian refugees? King Barrett on the

lighter moments, with Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage in the debates. But

above all, the travelling around the country, visiting local Green

parties. There are scores more of them than there were. We have more

than quadrupled the membership. And the Green Party leadership is not

like it is in other parties, it is not a greasy poll, with people

scrambling to the top. I am opening up the space for other people to

come forward. I am not going away, I am planning to be involved full-time

in politics, but there's a space now for other people to come forward. So

what are you going to do, then? I will continue doing a lot of what I

am doing now. I am very passionate about education. I have spent a lot

of time speaking to young people and they are very angry and fed up about

the way education has done real damage to their lives, the level of

mental health issues. I first degree was agricultural science, going back

to that and looking at issues of sustainable food. As leader, I have

had to cover everything. This will be a chance to focus a bit more. Do

you think that was your difficulty? You yourself admitted that there

were times when it was bruising to be leader, particularly from a media

pass. Was that in part having to cover so many areas, perhaps some of

which you did not feel confident with? One of the problems is the

resources that the Green Party has, even though we now have 60,000

members, four times the size we were when I was elected. We do not have

billionaire hedge fund owners finding a few spare millions. We

have a fraction of the resources of the parties have. And so as I said

in my message of farewell, I was saying thank you to all the Green

Party members who volunteered around the country. There have been days

when I have shoved my mobile phone into the hand of a sensible person

and said, media manage me for the day. I suppose it is not always down

to expensive backers, it is about the person as well - did you never

feel entirely comfortable in your media role, would that be felt? No,

it's interesting. I am not a lifelong, spin trained politician,

and people sometimes said I look nervous, and I wasn't. I don't get

nervous about these things. I simply speak in that moment. But maybe I

haven't got some of the smooth mannerisms, the kind of smoothness

which comes from decades of doing, training from a very young age, from

the kind of background which produces that look. And do you think

you need that to be a successful leader of a political party? I think

what we need to see is, we need to see politics changing. That

addresses broader issues about the nature of the media and the way in

which politics is covered. This isn't a football game, it is not

about points scoring. We need to see exploration of ideas and issues and

policies, and it needs to be not about personalities. Natalie Bennett

has put it in that sense, not being spin trained. I say to you that

Jeremy Corbyn is not spin trained either, so do you think it is time

for politics to reflect that? I do, basically. I don't criticise people

for not being spin trained at all. I never thought I was particularly,

either. But do you not have to deal with the media? You have to be able

to prepare yourself in offering a physically demanding process. I

don't think it is so much about being spin trained, it is about your

confidence in dealing with the argument as it comes through, having

a proper media management system so you can make your arguments in

detailed and clear ways. Natalie and I had a conversation in knowledge

about three -- in front of about 300 students, a few months ago, going

through all of her views and beliefs, and she came over extremely

powerfully to a wide audience. It was not about the spin and the

precise language that she used. The power of her convictions came across

very strongly, even to those who were not Green Party supporters. Do

you agree, can politicians succeed at the highest level without that

ability to deal with some intense questioning and scrutiny of their

policies on a constant basis? I think it is difficult. But I think

the keyword in your question is intense. I think some questioning in

the media, I am not against being questioned, I enjoy it, but

sometimes the interviews are so aggressive that what it produces in

politicians is a blandness. And interviewers, if you will forgive

me, are constantly looking for a gaffe, and that this can often be

when somebody just speaks an uncomfortable truth. And it is then

trivialised. The result is, are lot of politicians are very determined

not to mention this, not to get into this, it is too tricky, give a bland

answer, avoid the difficult times, even if it is the truth for one. Do

you agree, Natalie? Yes, I have often been accused of answering the

question too often. I think that has been my strength and my week less as

a politician. That is my first instinct, to answer the question.

And lots of politicians have been trained never to answer the

question, just to repeat the phrase which they have been told to repeat

endlessly. One ought to be able to answer every question, I agree. And

yet sometimes, I think with today's politics, people deliberately set

out not to answer the question, simply because of the way in which

it will be portrayed, even though what is being said is a valid answer

Allah book let me ask you a question which you might not want to answer -

who are you backing? If you look at the last 12 hours,

the amount of media coverage that who will succeed me has had, it was

scores more than the last two leadership races. I don't know, it

is a great opportunity. Anybody in mind? No, but if we had a fair

proportional system, the Green Party would have 25 MPs in the Commons,

and we don't have that so this is a real chance for somebody to come

forward and have a platform and speak for the 1.1 million voters

that the system has currently denied representation in Parliament. Thank

you very much and good luck. So, the Queen's Speech

is the big event this week. But what else is in store

for the next few days? Today, Jo Johnson,

the Universities Minister, which would make it possible

for tuition fees to increase above ?9,000 and make it easier to

open new universities. a second vote is expected

in the Welsh Parliament The last vote was a tie

between Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood All eyes will be on which way Ukip

Assembly members will vote. On Wednesday, it's

the Queen's Speech, As well as the bill

tackling extremism, and there are rumours there could be

a new British Bill of Rights. the EU referendum at least once

in this item, and on Thursday, it's the deadline for EU referendum

campaigners to register donations and loans with the

Electoral Commission. the full list of candidates

in the Tooting by-election to replace new London

Mayor, Sadiq Khan. We're joined now by Paul Waugh

from the Huffington Post and James Forsyth from

The Spectator. Welcome to both of you. Paul Waugh,

Donald Trump's intervention in the EU debate, what do you make of it?

Well, there is an American T-shirt which says "I'm with stupid" and I

think lots of remain as were thinking that was the perfect

T-shirt today, that you have Donald Trump on the side of Brexit along

with possibly Vladimir Putin and marine Le Pen, it is a gift to those

in Number Ten who think the best painting could be slightly fringe

and extreme. It is very unfair, but there is no question Donald Trump's

words will be used against the Leave Campaign. In terms of other sources

being drawn on, we have seen George Osborne flanked by Ed Balls and

Vince Cable, do you think that helps, James Forsyth? All about

trying to get the turnout on the Labour side, certainly. With the

Tory vote divided, they need left-wing members to decide the

referendum and ways to get to those voters. I think the photo Op this

morning was slightly undercut by the fact that Ed Balls and Vince Cable

both lost their seats at the last election. It didn't look like three

great economic figures coming together, it looked like two guys

who were vanquished by George Osborne coming back on board for him

in the hopes of being thrown some scraps from the table. They will be

delighted by that analysis, but yes, you are right. Paul Waugh, in terms

of who the bedfellows are for everybody, does that help the

campaign? The cross-party consensus idea or the 300 businesses that have

written in the Telegraph? Does this change people's minds? Don't forget,

George Osborne wants to scare the heck out of people, to say if you

leave Europe, the cost of living and the average income is going to be

hit directly and that is the economic message today, and it is

Project Fear again. It is ironic that as James says, both Ed Balls

and Vince Cable were bashed very hard last year by Project Fear from

George Osborne when it came to the economy. The curious thing is, and

it relates to the Queen's Speech, we are in a holding pattern in politics

this week because everybody is waiting for the EU referendum. The

only constant will be the Queen herself, so she will deliver the

Queen's Speech but come June the 24th, she will be the only person we

are sure will be there. David Cameron may not be there, we may not

be in the EU and as a result, today, the launch with George Osborne in

the RyanAir factory, with Ryanair plane behind him, the holding

pattern applies to politics as well. Let's take this analogy further,

James Forsyth, that is how it is going to be. The Queen's Speech, in

a way, in your view, is it going to mean anything ahead the EU debate?

There is a divide in the Government about when they can do it. Someone

to use it after the referendum and reunite the Tory party and others

are saying they have to show they are getting on with Government. But

normally June the Queen's Speech, the Government cleared the decks, it

doesn't do anything else to give as much publicity as possible. There is

no ceasefire in the campaign. The Government will devote Wednesday to

it and that is it. What about the substance? Even if that is the

backdrop, what about the substance? Things were promised, like Michael

Gove's British Bill of Rights? Again, the referendum casts a long

Shadow because the Bill of Rights, Michael Gove quite clearly thinks it

has been watered down, and Theresa May, as it happens, clearly think we

should leave the European Convention on human rights and have a bold

legislative step within the new bill of rights and that is not going to

happen, for a variety of reasons. Number Ten didn't like the idea, it

would may be scared too many people during the referendum campaign,

despite the PM himself promising this six years ago and despite the

rhetoric about Abu Qatada, the only person the British public are really

worried about, cases like that. Not so much worried about Europe, more

about this bill of rights issue getting in a way of cases like Abu

Qatada, so the Government has been undermined by its own rhetoric in

the last few years and this is one of the real problems with the list

of bills you are going to see, it is a bit like John Major's Hotline, you

have the idea of lists for prisons and performance league tables, you

have got an expansion of the idea that you can have a few more garden

cities. It doesn't seem to add up to much. Does it add up to anything,

James Forsyth? There is a social reform agenda in there that is quite

interesting but it is a soft launch by Number Ten, because they know

nothing is going to get that much attention now because we are all,

including them, talking about the EU referendum all the time. Gentlemen,

thank you very much. Only another few days to go.

How much privacy can and should celebrities expect? It is the debate

over press and privacy that keeps coming back. Someone who has

experienced this at first hand is Max Mosley.

In 2008, he became the subject of pages of newspaper allegations

over his private life, which he denied and eventually

won ?60,000 in damages from the News of the World.

Since then, he has been campaigning to reform celebrity privacy laws,

Privacy is a fundamental human right. So often, the media crosses

the line and shines a light into areas of our lives when it

shouldn't. The arguments that the editors offer our about as concrete

as the papers they produce. Whether it's the recent threesome case, or

my case back in 2008, they have absolutely no basis on which to

publish anything. When I appeared in front of a parliamentary committee

in 2009, the assumption seems to be that because I was known, I was fair

game and they could publish anything they liked. You suggested that you

got a phone call out of the blue at ten o'clock on a Sunday morning,

saying have you seen the News of the World? And you were horrorstruck to

discover it. You also said that you had been attending parties of that

kind for 45 years. You are a public figure. You know the British press,

you know the appetite of the British press. Is of this kind. Had you not

always felt that this was a time bomb that sooner or later was going

to go off? I have to confess, I didn't.

As Prince Harry said the other day, everyone is entitled to a private

life and the media have destroyed their own defence by crossing the

line into areas of no public interest so many times and

ironically, when the newspapers themselves have something to lose,

by exposing John Whittingdale's relationship, they chickened out.

That is why I believe injunctions still do have a valuable role to

play in maintaining privacy. Once something is published, no judge on

earth can make it private again. An injunction is the only safeguard. Of

course, there are problems with the Internet, because it is all over the

world. But the technology companies must take responsibility for

protecting privacy in cases where it should be protected. There are cases

of hypocrisy, of misleading the public, which must be exposed. I

accept that. But exposing people's Private lives for no better reason

than increasing circulation is completely unacceptable.

You politely glossed over your feelings on John Whittingdale,

giving his robust questioning of you on the cultural select committee.

How did you feel about the story on him coming out, was a public

interest or did you feel sympathy for him? I felt sympathy for him as

far as the story is concerned and the public interest is not the story

but the fact that the newspapers had the story and didn't reveal it,

which of course normally they would. I mean, anything slightly untoward

with an MP, they would reveal. But in his case they didn't. Why didn't

they? Well, the obvious inference is they had this, he knew they had it

and it was hanging over him like the sort of Damocles. As you know, the

press have robustly defended themselves, saying it wasn't

interesting enough to publish and print at the time. Tell me another.

If you think of the famous celebrity threesome, I mean, what could be

less of interest, less significant than a celebrity having a threesome?

So they had a threesome? Yet that, they are fighting tooth and nail all

the way to the Supreme Court to try and publish something massively

trivial. Back in 2011, you put in a bid in the European Court of human

rights to force newspapers to warn public figures before exposing their

private lives but the court refused, saying a private life was already

protected by self-regulation in the press in UK and access to civil

courts to seek damages. Do you see the reason for the decision? I can

understand what they said but it is of course completely wrong. If you

know about the story that is coming out, which most people do, because

they have do put the story to you, then you will have an opportunity to

go for an injunction. If they are going to publish something which

they know is illegal, as they did in my case, what they do is they keep

it secret. They even published a spoof first edition of the News of

the World so I had no chance of finding out until it was in every

home in the UK. So what is really important is in those minority of

cases where it is completely illegal and they do ambush you, they should

be forced to tell you. The court also said that newspapers could opt

to pay a fine instead of notifying people if pre-notification became

law, and I suppose they might just think, we will bung the money over

because of the story is that good, it is worth paying. I think the

courts that would probably impose a fine that would make their eyes

water if they deliberately broke an injunction and quite rightly so. Do

you think the future of the injunction looks fragile as it

stands, Charles Clarke? I think it is fragile and the keyword is what

you said in the introduction, I am very sympathetic to what Max is

arguing, it is public interest and it is difficult to analyse, there

are all courts matter that it sorts of issues that have to be tested in

court the public interest is not the same interest of the public, nor is

it the same as selling newspapers, and I don't think it is clear in

many of these cases that there is a public interest in publishing in a

way that people think. I am very sceptical about the self-regulation

of the media, even after the Levenson changes. I am not convinced

they create a stable regime and I think we will have do see how it

evolves in the next period. At the newspapers, having rebounded on the

hacking case, are beginning to be a bit more careful, but how long it

will last is a major question. Do you think injunctions are needed to

protect people's Private lives? I think there is a huge amount of

humbug about public interest, newspapers have fun pub and write

pompous editorials about public interest when often there is

absolutely zero interest in it -- newspapers half and puff. When there

are issues of hypocrisy or conflict with people's jobs, these things are

right but I do think it is very difficult to have injunctions in the

age of the Internet, I don't see how it is going to work. That is the

point, how can you put an injunction into effect if globally there are

not rules that are applied, or because the Internet and social

media are printing it anyway? That is where the arguments for the

newspapers has a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Take the famous

threesome. I don't actually know who the person was because I don't want

to know. So you didn't look it up to find out? I didn't hunt for it. The

differences, if there is no injunction, it is all over the

place, you can't help but see it and no. If there is an injunction, even

if you could find it on the Internet, you have to be a peeping

Tom Orrock curtain twitching before you will luck, because if you know

for example that your neighbours get up to something interesting every

morning at ten o'clock, unless you are a peeping Tom, you don't go and

watch. Nobody needs to look for it on the Internet, you have do hunt

for it, so the people who are the people Toms -- peeping Toms will

find it but ordinary people who couldn't care less about it will not

see it. What do you say to that? People may not care, in a moral

sense, but I think the whole world are peeping Toms these days. I did

not actually look up the threesome case, but you do not have to look

very hard, I don't think. I think you underestimate, Norman, the

extent to which injunctions inhibit lawyers. I remember when I was

working with Neil Kinnock a whole series of battles with newspapers,

including before the 1992 general election, publishing complete

untruths about Neil Kinnock's alleged use of private health, which

was completely false. We battered them and battered them with lawyers,

and finally they caved in. I remember going to see Kelvin

MacKenzie, then editor of the Sun, and he said, I have got these BLEEP

Ritz, why are you sending us these Ritz?! The reason was, because he

was telling lies and kicking people's doors in, to do it. You can

argue about, that but I do not think it is right that even very

aggressive media corporations, to say that they would not be affect

did by the legal process and the legal regime. Which is why

fundamentally I am sympathetic to what Max is trying to achieve. One

basic thing is that someone has to decide, should this be published, or

shouldn't it? If I think it shouldn't and the newspaper thinks

it should, the right person to decide is a judge, not an editor. It

is really that simple. Shami Chabrabarti has been giving a

briefing to journalists this morning. Alex Forsyth was there.

What did she say? She said effectively this was a opportunity

to consult with Labour Party members and representatives from ethnic

minority groups and where necessary to make recommendations about

changes which are needed in the Labour Party to try and stop such

allegations from coming to the fore again. Shami Chabrabarti said she

was hoping that this inquiry would report back by the end of June, and

she's actively seeking submissions from party members and supporters,

including the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. As she launched the terms of

reference for this inquiry, she made the point that while it was

triggered by those allegations of anti-Semitism, it will look at all

aspects of racism, including Islamophobia. Shami Chabrabarti said

it would be a nonsense just to focus on one area, given this opportunity.

She did say that she herself had joined the Labour Party on the very

day she was appointed to lead this inquiry inquiry. She stared that

this was an inquiry about the Labour Party and she wanted those who may

give evidence to know that she is viewing it in the parties best

interest. She made the point that she hopes that this will set the

standard for all democratic parties, especially in terms of equality.

I'm joined now by journalist and author Rachel Shabi.

She has written extensively on Israel and the Middle East. Is this

inquiry necessary into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I think

anti-Semitism is always bubbling underneath society. It is good to

see that the Labour Party is taking these accusations seriously. It

looks like a robust review, the review of a party which wants to

look at this issue and take it seriously. It is not just looking

into issues around compliance, changing the rules of conduct

potentially, and seeing what to do if they are breached, but it's also

looking at things like training, so people can spot what anti-Semitism

looks like, which I think is really important. Is there a problem with

anti-Semitism, in your view, in the Labour Party, when you look at the

tweets by Naz Shah, the comments by Ken Livingstone, and some other

Labour councillors? There is a problem with anti-Semitism in

society. About 9% of the population is considered to hold anti-Semitic

views. They are not all in the Labour Party. Do you think there is

a particular problem in the Labour Party? I think there is a particular

owners in the Labour Party because we tend to expect Progressive

parties not to be anti-Semitic, which is resume agree why we do not

have the same wait of expectation on the Conservative Party, who could

equally be accused of racism, but aren't. Do you think there has been

a robust enough response from the Labour leadership, an hour Lily

Jeremy Corbyn? There was also the inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism

at the Oxford Labour club. But the accusations about the leadership

dragging its feet and not wanting to do these enquiries, are they valid?

I don't think so. As I understand it, this review has been in

consideration for some time. It did not just appear when does a

accusations came into play. Rachel Shabi says the onus is on the Labour

Party, even though she says these things no doubt exist in the

Conservative Party as well, so is this about Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership? I think the word onus is absolutely correct. I am a proud

member of the Labour Party. I would hope the Labour Party would always

stand for values like anti-Semitism and antiracism. And so therefore if

there is a suspicion of it, there is an owners to root it out. I have no

doubt myself that Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. There are

political issues about his relationship with Hezbollah and

Hamas in the Middle East, which is a different question, and which raises

people's doubts about this. Myself, I think he did not react anything

like fast enough to these issues. But I do think it is quite right to

have an inquiry into these matters, like the one Shami Chabrabarti is

dealing with. But I thought the whole messaging Sadiq Khan was

dramatically different on this, in the process before he was elected

Mayor of London, and then as Mayor of London, in absolutely taking

every opportunity to broadcast the message that he in particular and

Labour in London in particular was not anti-Semitic. I don't think

Jeremy did that, and that was a leadership requirement which he did

not live up to, which in my opinion he should have done. Do you agree

with that, that Sadiq Khan captured it much more effectively than Jeremy

Corbyn? Yes, Sadiq Khan was excellent on that. The review is

also looking into whether there is a need to make the Labour Party more

welcoming to minorities. Anyone who is a minority in the UK will know

that that is something which organisations and employers say,

they talk the talk, you obviously need to see some action to ensure

that that is the case. But it is just the start of the review and we

need to see what it finds. What about the language wallet when we

interviewed Ken Livingstone, he said there is this problem between Andy

Zionism and anti-Semitism, criticism of the Israeli government, illegal

occupation of occupied territories, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and

anti-Jewish sentiment. Do you think there is evidence that people use

that as proxy for anti-Semitism, is there a problem with that now? I do.

I don't think that anti-Semitism is the same as anti-Zionism. But two

things. Firstly, people who are Jewish... There's going to be things

said about the Israeli DuPage and which are not pleasant to hear. That

is one thing. Secondly, if we are trying to build a progressive

movement for peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians, then yes,

we do need to examine the language we use, because we want to include

people and not alienate them. These are very, very difficult issues to

handle, and therefore, conduct and language is extremely important.

People have to be very, very careful about how they address these

important and difficult issues in a way which is not provocative and

inflammatory. I think there have been occasions, like the tweet from

Naz Shah was an example, where they went beyond a line of acceptable

conduct and language. Cause she spoke about deporting Israelis. What

was great about that, though, you could see that it was an issue of a

lack of awareness, and getting carried away. What was great was

that she did realise and she did apologise. That is what we want to

see happening. Precisely, I was moved by her apology and response.

Should she have been suspended? Certainly, she should, but beyond

that, that is another issue. Personally, I was moved by her

apology, I felt it was genuine. Obviously, that is something the

party will explore. But I emphasise this point of conduct. Ken

Livingstone is a classic example of somebody who seeks to shock, seeks

to dramatise rather than seeking to conduct a proper debate. Should he

be expelled? I have argued that many times but unfortunately his saviour

was Tony Blair, who brought him back into party membership and changed

all of that, against my advice, I may say. Well, you have got that on

record! Now if you remember earlier,

we asked you, what exciting government project is being tipped

for seaside town Newquay? Lord Lamont and Charles Clarke,

what's the correct answer? I do know, it is a spaceport, and

not just because Charles told me! I did know that! And that is the

correct answer. I thought it might be something to do with Boris

Johnson, if it is a Cornish pasty museum. He seems to get his face in

everywhere these days! Yes, this is the news that seaside

town of Newquay could become It's just one of the proposals

in the Government's new Modern Transport Bill,

to be outlined in the Queen's Six sites have been tipped

for the ?150 million base - But Newquay in Cornwall

is the hot favourite. With me now is Dr Robert Massey

from the Royal Astronomical Society. So, when Newquay? Actually,

different sites have been identified, on existing airfields.

That is almost a prerequisite for this kind of thing, establishing a

spaceport. Is there a solid business case for it? I think that is an open

question. We put evidence into this elect committee inquiry a couple of

months ago and we were a bit ambivalent about it. I think if it

is just going to operate on a commercial basis, it has to prove

itself. If we need, for example, a booming space tourism industry,

there is not actually much of a space tourism industry at all at the

moment, except for wealthy Americans paying the Russians to go to the

space station. With this be the beginning of seeing Britain and the

UK as a world commercial space power? Well, if it does work, it

will rely on a new engine being developed by a company called

Reaction Engines. Rather than relying on vertical lift capacity,

they are trying to have a space plane. That is being supported

partly by the Government, which is a good thing. The idea is that it

would be almost entirely a reusable system, returning the system to

Earth. You could then envisage, say, someone like virgin Galactic coming

in and delivering people on short trips. But there are an awful lot of

but more along the way. It is not the ideal location in the world. You

really want to be close to the equator, for reasons connected with

the physics. And I'm not sure, commercially. If it gets built, I'm

sure scientists will use it, we are happy to exploit these things. What

about surfers, they're going to get a fright, aren't they?! I am sure my

guests here are keen surfers! A lot of politics is involved in surfing!

How would that look? I think you would have a shock if you did not

know what was happening. One would assume it would be once a day at

most, rather than every half an hour. I'm extremely sceptical about

the business case. And you? It might increase the tourism. On the other

hand, it might not! I'll be here at noon tomorrow,

and I'll be joined by former Conservative

leader Michael Howard.