Lord Prescott - Deputy Prime Minister, 1997-2007 HARDtalk

updated on out breaking news coming from Toulouse. But now it is time

for HARDtalk. Politics is a rough business. My guest has the scars to

prove it. John Prescott, now Lord Prescott, was Deputy Prime Minister

during the prime ministership of Tony Blair. During his time in that

Labour government, his phone was hacked by an investigator working

for the News of the World. The hacking scandal has prompted a

fierce debate on the press, the police and the practice of politics.

When the talk is done, what will John Prescott, welcome to HARDtalk.

Are you confident that the media culture that led to the widespread

phone hacking that we now know about has been banished for good?

wish I could say yes to that. I don't think the media is going to

change. The social network system has taken readers away from them

and they are desperate to keep that up front. They want to keep the

influence on politicians. Murdoch has not changed this for some he

want favours from politicians. It is absolutely crucial that the

Leveson committee recommends fundamental change and politicians

have got the guts to implement it. We should explain - the Leveson

committee sees a senior judge leading an inquiry into the

practices of the press and considering how it could change.

Does there have to be fundamental change? There needs to be greater

transparency and accountability. The press took the view that

whatever they did, they were the ones to make the judgement.

Unfortunately my own government in 1997 did not bring in an

independent press complaints procedure. They have had a separate

one which they control as editors and it has led to this. Nothing

like this would have happened if that was implemented. That is what

is so curious. There were criminal acts and when they first found out

they said it was one reporter, one paper. The law is there to prevent

that happening. You can implement the law. In many cases I wanted to

sue the press against something said about me as a liar. They said,

"Well, sue us". They have all the money and the resources. To be able

to do that and not pay the bill. The press have been lying and have

had content with influence over politicians and within the police.

You keep referring to the press. These are allegations that centre

on the News of the World from the years 2000 to 2007. I do not think

it is just the News of the World. It was the Times that said they

misled the judge, did not give the full information. Other newspapers,

sometimes the television as well. I hope they will open that up so we

can get a clear and transparent idea of what has happened. The fact

is that the News of the World is dead, finished and gone. If people

like Rupert Murdoch learn lessons, surely that is more powerful as a

motivator. He has the Sun on Sunday, a newspaper in place of it, run by

the same people. You have had an apology. It was difficult to get an

apology, I was able to pursue them without having to cover the cost.

On the judicial inquiries I brought about, the first was opposed by the

police and then... We will get to the police in a moment. They all

lied! Why did you settle with the Murdoch empire in the end? Why did

you agree? I went through judicial review. I wanted the police to

admit they were wrong, hiding the evidence. The civic case, a group

of people and they settled and found they had to make an apology.

That was after lying, hiding evidence, denying everything. It

did not come freely. When we got to the stage of them settling damages,

they knew they were breaking the law day and night, in contempt of

it and trying to hide it. Mr Murdoch is still there. Some of the

allegations you have made are being investigated by the police. They

have to make major investigations. Until they have published their

findings we can't be sure exactly what is an allegation and what is

the truth. That is true. But all of the evidence came from the

newspapers themselves. The police forced them, they did not give the

information willingly. Even Mr Murdoch denied it to the

parliamentary committee. These are not people who are really sorry.

Your passion is obvious. How far do you believe the change has to go?

You talk about ending voluntary codes of conduct. Do you want to

see a statutory body with very tough rules and a register for

journalists, like doctors and other professionals, so if they misbehave

they are passed up, struck off? you are talking about the Press

Complaints Commission, that was totally... Everybody accepts that

now. They did not before. We have to change it. We made the mistake

not making them independent. The press argued for, they wanted

control of the body. Now we must go back to a regulated framework where

the Press Complaints Commission can take up action against the press

themselves. These are the frameworks being considered at the

moment. It has to be independent, it has to have sanctions. Maybe

people watching this around the world would wish that their own

media culture was as free as that of Britain. They wonder if there is

a danger that the very essence of the British press, that it is free

to ask difficult questions and difficult investigations, that the

spirit could be lost. In Bristol they found a person and said they

are guilty and stuck them on the front of the papers... I can quote

you many of the triumphs of investigative journalism...

they accountable for what they put on their pages? No, they are not.

If they get an apology they put it on page 22. We need to get an

understanding of fairness. The press have shown themselves to be

utterly contemptuous of law and regulation. We want an independent

body to give an independent assessment. Those with a complaint

should be able to go to a body that they can have confidence in. Do you

except that Michael Gove said the danger is? He says the cure could

be worse than the disease. In the end we undermine our freedom of the

press by trying to control it. do you decide, who is the one that

says "That is a breach of that person's privacy?" The press argue

it should be the editors. Our law says it should be a judge. What do

you prefer? I prefer a judge. mention privacy and it is a grey

area. I imagine thinking of your own case - you have been open that

you had an affair, a sexual relationship with another member of

staff in your department when you were a minister, going back to 2002.

In the end it was a splash story in the newspapers in 2006. Under your

new institutions, guarantees of privacy, are you saying it should

privacy, are you saying it should have been kept out? I have to face

have been kept out? I have to face up to the consequences, have to be

accountable, I don't have a problem. When there is a clear breach of

someone's rights... You had no problem... I had an affair, if you

like, with this person which the press found out about and then sold

the story. You talk about private rights - they buy those stories,

they sell them every day of the week. It takes eight willing seller.

== a. In this case the woman you had an affair with was a willing

seller. I did not complain about that. I did not object. What I say

when there is a breach, there should be an independent assessment

if you are complaining against it. The present Press Complaints

Commission accepted all of the arguments of the media, this was a

rogue story and a rogue paper. talk about the cosy relationship

newspapers and politicians have had. Would you agree that Tony Blair was

one of the prime examples of politicians too close to media

barons? Yes. Are used to tell him that. -- buy. -- I. The same for

Gordon Brown as well. These people - I will have nothing to do with

them. They are seeking influence for their own interest. Politicians

tend to believe... I believe it gets too close. When you learnt in

2010 that Tony Blair went to Jordan to participate in a christening

ceremony for one of Rupert Murdoch's daughters and was

nominated as godfather, at the same time you were digging into the

Murdoch papers intercepting your phone calls, what did you feel?

kept saying the same to all people I had close contact with. I even

said to David Cameron that he was too close to Murdoch. You work with

Tony Blair. How do you feel about I would rather tease out your

feelings. I told them time and time again. For example, in the

relationship between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, it was a sensitive

one. Tony Blair used to tell me something that Brown was really

saying because he had met someone who had dinner with him. Rebekah

Brooks used to play these two off each other. I used to say to them,

why do you take any notice of her for? It was the relationship of

feeling that Murdoch was powerful and producing the possibility of

They took more notice of her than they did have you. You're asking me

about the Murdoch influence. I was wondering about the sense of

betrayal you probably now have? have spent 40 years in politics. I

call the issue as I see it. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose,

but I never give up saying what I believe. You also believe that the

Met Police lied to you for years. That is what is going out in the

Leveson Inquiry. They used to say that there was no tapping, then the

police came along saying, we have a new inquiry and you have had your

phone tapped 44 times. What do you say to that? There is one aspect

that intrigues me. A senior Scotland Yard officer told the Home

Secretary at the time that you and a few other Cabinet ministers were

under surveillance from private investigators working for News of

the World. You never knew that. I did not. You read the papers, he

denied it. It is not just a question of him, but notes were

sent to the cabinet officers and MI5. Mr Clarke said it was more

important to pursue terrorism. Nobody could be killed by listening

to a message on a phone. He said his problem was security. So the

judge said, why did you not tell us that Prescott was a name on the

inquiry? The inspector said, we'd better investigate. Somebody said

no. Clarkson said, it is not my job to tell Prescott so he told the

government. He sent me e-mails that he sent to the government. He was

looking into it. But did your government cover this

up because they wanted to retain a warm relationship with Murdoch?

do not think for a second. What do you think about that one? I don't

act without evidence. Everything I've given you, I quote the

evidence for you. In this case, Mr Clarke is said that, Mr Reid said

no, if they did know it was a Cabinet member, his job would be to

tell the Prime Minister. Mr Levison said has now asked for the emails.

He will no doubt get to the bottom of it. A final thought on the

police. You have decided to run as a police Commissioner, one of the

newly elected ones come November. In the past, you have expressed

grave doubts about politicising the police by putting elected officials

into the system. So why on earth do you now want the job? Look at it

this way. I have seen what I have seen between the met police and

politicians there may well be a framework of corruption. I do not

think that should happen. putting a partisan politician on

top of the police will solve the problem? Isn't the Home Secretary a

partisan and politician? But he does not get involved in day-to-day

police activities. We will see how far police are involved in this

process. The chief commissioner was having lunch with the people he was

investigating. That is quite unusual. They have now decided they

will be an election. We as a party and have decided we will contest

this. We will fight the elections and to try to make that new

framework between the police and community and to become the voice

of the community. I will have a go at that. Your own constituency

might be quite confused because not long ago, you said you opposed the

idea of bettering the operational independence with an elected

official, and now you say, the police argue that what they do is

operational and politicians should not be involved. You are confused.

Let me explain. Give me a chance to explain. The police have the right

of operational functions. Here are committees, should they have

everything or do you want someone responsible for the community, do

you not negotiate would you think the priorities are? Secondly, in my

judicial review, the judge told the police that they should always

inform anybody they had evidence of criminal acts against them. The

judge has now intervened with that. That is between the Chief of Police

and the man who is the elected Commissioner. Between them, they

have reduced the plan. That will be the new police policy. You will run

on a Labour ticket for the police Commissioner job. But you are seen

as one of the most tribal Labour warriors of the last 20 years.

Labour is in a mess. Why are they behind the Tories in the polls?

is not unusual to be behind in the polls at this present stage. And

please let me answer. Give me the courtesy of having a reply. I am

saying first of all, it is not unusual for a new leader to be

behind. It is up to them to begin to establish their personality, he

is right to say, let us see that new framework and he is working on

it. It is a big challenge at this point. David Miliband, brother of

Ed Miliband, says Labour can't go back to its old ideas of the big

state. He says it has to be a party which appeals to business. Right

now, business is not backing Labour. Ed Miliband said that first. There

were all surprised when he said that at the conference. Now David

is coming along when all this was done. He should get a bit more

behind the party. But to do you think that analysis is right? There

seems to be debate in the party. There are some people calling it

class war. It is all about class. Is it? Reducing the benefits of

people who are the poorest in society, letting the bankers go

free, reducing 50p, it sounds like class warfare to me. The rich are

better off, the poor are worse off. Are you saying that Britain is as

class-based as it was when you enter politics? Yes! Don't you

understand that? Let me give you an example. Look at our education

system. 7% of our children go into private schools. They get into the

top universities, and all the top jobs in the banks and in insurance

from that very small base of 7%. Why do think that comes about? Are

those 7% just better educated or is it the old school tie? So what has

13 years of Labour actually achieved? Will you settle for 2

million more jobs? More money into hospitals and education? That is

what I came into politics for. Now the opposite is happening. We're

back to 3 million unemployed. is suggesting to me that New Labour

did not change the fundamentals of British economics and society.

was beginning to change it. Look of the differential between the north

and the south economically. We improved it but if you are asking