:07:50. > :07:57.We are saying that in the circumstances, with the prospect of
:07:57. > :08:03.the economic recovery we are seeing with jobs being created, in a time
:08:03. > :08:10.when the economy is relatively flat, but nonetheless, 1.3 or 1.4 million
:08:10. > :08:14.jobs are being created in the private sector, we ought to be
:08:14. > :08:22.saying it is all right not to provide the opportunity and the
:08:22. > :08:30.necessary action... How much is it going to cost? It depends on the
:08:30. > :08:36.months between the earning and e-learning. A rough estimate? I will
:08:36. > :08:42.not give you a rough estimate. Do you know? This is the exact thing
:08:42. > :08:50.you do. We do not know the exact balance between those who will get
:08:50. > :08:56.jobs and move from people on benefit who owners who pay taxes, which is a
:08:56. > :08:59.net gain. We do not know how many of these will need additional training
:08:59. > :09:05.opportunities. That is the work that now has to be done. What we are
:09:05. > :09:11.doing is setting out a direction... Does this apply to single parents?
:09:11. > :09:17.All of the details will be worked out. Work is already under way and
:09:17. > :09:23.this has to be done properly. You do not know whether it will apply to
:09:23. > :09:29.single parents? We are not going to be bounced into announcing every
:09:29. > :09:35.single detail... Be Prime Minister... He set out a direction.
:09:35. > :09:41.If you are 16-year-olds living with abusive parents or alcoholic parents
:09:41. > :09:47.or whatever it is, in those circumstances, even if you were not
:09:47. > :09:53.in education, employment or training, you would have your
:09:53. > :09:55.benefits cut, correct? We will have to... So this is another detail you
:09:55. > :10:02.benefits cut, correct? We will have have not fought through? We are
:10:02. > :10:08.saying when people do not have a family home they can properly live
:10:08. > :10:13.in, there will need to be provision made for them. Do you think you
:10:13. > :10:17.should have worked out some of these details before the Prime Minister
:10:17. > :10:23.announced the policy? That is absurd. That is where so many
:10:23. > :10:28.projects go wrong and have gone wrong in the past, that you actually
:10:28. > :10:32.try to announce all of the detail at the outset. So here is the
:10:32. > :10:35.direction, he is the strategic approach, which I think most people
:10:35. > :10:39.watching this will say it is right to provide this sort of support to
:10:39. > :10:43.young people, and then we will work through in great detail and
:10:43. > :10:48.announced as that detail emerges. That is the right way to do this.
:10:48. > :10:52.Can I ask you about the Daily Mail and Ed Miliband? Use it on this
:10:52. > :10:58.subcommittee of the Privy Council that will be considering the
:10:58. > :11:02.question of press regulation. Has this spat made it easier or more
:11:02. > :11:06.difficult for you to reach a conclusion? I do not know whether it
:11:06. > :11:11.has made any difference to how you work through what is a really
:11:11. > :11:16.complicated issue, and there lots of difficulties around it, which we
:11:16. > :11:20.will resolve into course. I would just say, though, that as someone
:11:20. > :11:26.who like Ed Miliband, I had a father who was in the public eye, and I
:11:26. > :11:36.think it is quite unattractive to seek to ascribe to the children what
:11:36. > :11:41.the father has stood for. I think that is very unattractive and
:11:41. > :11:46.especially when that person is dead and cannot reply for themselves. But
:11:46. > :11:49.actually, I think it probably will have done the Daily Mail some
:11:49. > :11:53.damage, because it does look very unattractive and I think a lot of
:11:53. > :11:59.people will be pretty revolted by that approach. You do not think it
:11:59. > :12:02.should be somehow stopped? I do not think everything that is
:12:02. > :12:06.unattractive should be made illegal, no. That is almost it for the
:12:06. > :12:12.conference season. Let's not forget the Scottish Nationalists party and
:12:12. > :12:23.Plaid Cymru. So how are the speeches and policy changes in the political
:12:23. > :12:26.weather? We are joined by our guests for their verdict on the
:12:26. > :12:33.conferences. David Cameron 's speech today, what did you think? I thought
:12:33. > :12:38.it was an attempt by David Cameron Tobais himself firmly in his party.
:12:38. > :12:42.He has had trouble over much of the Parliament since the formation of
:12:42. > :12:46.the coalition, the leakage of supporters to UKIP, and I think the
:12:46. > :12:50.message was very Thatcherite in many respects. It was back to the 1980s
:12:50. > :12:57.in terms of the emphasis on wealth creation and job creation. There was
:12:57. > :12:58.also a moral assault on Labour, attacking Labour for its failure to
:12:58. > :13:01.also a moral assault on Labour, bring debts under control, that
:13:01. > :13:05.youth and implement rose steadily under Labour, and so it was this
:13:05. > :13:10.combination of a traditional pouring message on jobs and prosperity...
:13:10. > :13:14.Most elections, we, of course, want something new every time to would in
:13:14. > :13:18.our newspapers and on your programmes, but most people out
:13:18. > :13:21.there want the focus on the bread-and-butter issues like deficit
:13:21. > :13:28.reduction and job creation. That is where the prime minister is. Why are
:13:28. > :13:32.you frowning? It was spectacular that he spoke for 49 minutes without
:13:32. > :13:36.saying anything whatsoever. It was predictable stuff. It was the
:13:36. > :13:42.speech... It was not particularly bad. It had some terrible jokes. It
:13:43. > :13:46.had very few memorable phrases. I thought the improbability of history
:13:46. > :13:50.was very good. The jokes were appalling. The one about the mini
:13:50. > :13:54.factory was very ineffective and it did not tell us anything new.
:13:54. > :13:58.Cameron made the ludicrous and unforgivable decision as a graduate
:13:58. > :14:03.to put his education to use by becoming a PR and this seemed to me
:14:03. > :14:09.the speech of a very effective PR rather than APM. What you think? It
:14:09. > :14:15.was defiantly dull and I think that was probably deliberate. It was as a
:14:15. > :14:19.piece of the whole conference. The Tories wanted to be seen as the
:14:19. > :14:25.grown-ups and they might not even but you can trust them with the
:14:25. > :14:30.money. That seems to be... Has it been a dull conference season? It
:14:30. > :14:33.has been really dull. If you look at the beginning of the party
:14:33. > :14:37.conference season, particularly before the Syria vote, Ed Miliband
:14:37. > :14:42.had had a terrible summer. Actually he had a very good party conference.
:14:42. > :14:49.He's the one who has made the weather. He has. The cost of
:14:49. > :14:52.living, not cuts. There is a lot of focus on the cuts. It is the price
:14:52. > :14:59.of the electricity and gas bill etc, that is what worries people. What Ed
:14:59. > :15:04.Miliband poses as the solution to energy prices is crazy and will
:15:04. > :15:09.unravel that a lot of people have heard him talk about issues they
:15:09. > :15:13.care about. Ed Miliband is trying to frame the question is, this is about
:15:13. > :15:17.the cost of living. Do you feel better off than you did several
:15:17. > :15:20.years ago? The Tories are trying to say, the job is not finished yet. So
:15:20. > :15:23.Ed Miliband was quite effective in changing the question from has
:15:23. > :15:27.Ed Miliband was quite effective in planned a plan B worked to argue
:15:27. > :15:33.feeling better? And most people would still say no. What about the
:15:33. > :15:37.proposal today that Cameron made about not giving benefits to young
:15:37. > :15:42.people not in education or training. How will that do with the public? I
:15:42. > :15:48.think his speech was managerial because he knows he cannot do the
:15:48. > :15:52.common touch. This new policy is really difficult for him because
:15:52. > :15:56.people will immediately go back to the, it is all right for you. The
:15:56. > :16:04.sort of bracing and self starting and again I'm a as the party message
:16:04. > :16:09.-- again as the party message, but we do know that that those lives are
:16:09. > :16:14.chaotic and difficult and not at all like those of the Camerons. They
:16:14. > :16:18.need a lot of support. We have had a lot of apprentices at the Evening
:16:18. > :16:24.Standard newspaper and they need back-up. If you just give them the
:16:24. > :16:28.money they will not eat. That is true but it is also true that if we
:16:28. > :16:32.do not really sent a message to society, to young people, that the
:16:32. > :16:42.most important way to ever get out of poverty is to work... They need
:16:42. > :16:45.help. Absolutely. It is correct that the detail is not worked out but he
:16:45. > :16:49.was correct to say that as a principle this is something that
:16:49. > :16:56.will be quite popular. Of course it will be popular. The public really
:16:56. > :17:02.want to people -- people to go hard at welfare. No thinking has gone
:17:02. > :17:05.into this whatsoever. I agree with you completely, Tim, you have to
:17:05. > :17:09.make work attractive. The way to do you completely, Tim, you have to
:17:09. > :17:12.that is first to create the jobs, which the Government has had some
:17:12. > :17:16.success doing, 1.4 million jobs in the private sector, and there other
:17:16. > :17:21.ways to make jobs attractive. You could create a living wage which
:17:21. > :17:27.would not necessarily cost the governor anything, and you can take
:17:28. > :17:33.people out of... Job-seeker's allowance for the under 25 stock
:17:33. > :17:41.market it pleases the public, you really can see that? Of course. Does
:17:41. > :17:46.any of you have an idea of anything Nick Clegg has said this autumn? He
:17:46. > :17:51.has said trust me, not beans. And he has said he wants to lead Ott I
:17:51. > :18:02.think he had a decent conference. He cemented his position as leader.
:18:02. > :18:06.That is not a small thing. I would have thought that Nick Clegg's
:18:06. > :18:11.leadership would have been in more trouble than it is now. He killed
:18:11. > :18:16.off Vince in that conference. He has a simple message for the next
:18:16. > :18:19.election. If you vote Liberal Democrat it will humanise the
:18:19. > :18:23.Conservatives and make the Labour Party a bit more responsible. They
:18:23. > :18:28.are well dug into the seats they hold, but it is still likely we can
:18:28. > :18:35.have a hung Parliament a game next time and Nick Clegg will hold the
:18:36. > :18:39.balance of power. And also that you do believe that the coalition will
:18:39. > :18:44.probably continue to function up to the election. That was another
:18:44. > :18:49.message from this week. At what point do they all peel off? It did
:18:49. > :18:55.feel very disciplined, and I think whatever the unseen hand that is
:18:55. > :18:59.maybe even Boris Johnson, to start behaving like a team player, it is
:18:59. > :19:05.interesting. You felt that there was no one out of line. And UKIP was
:19:05. > :19:10.another element that I think if I heard anyone else say, they are fine
:19:10. > :19:16.as a comedy act but if you vote for them you will get Miliband, they are
:19:16. > :19:21.just hammering that message and it may be starting to get through. Now,
:19:21. > :19:24.if you were imagining the most awful parent in the world to have you
:19:24. > :19:38.might well conclude that having the man who -- the ramp who ran
:19:38. > :19:42.Auschwitz would be the worst man. man who -- the ramp who ran
:19:42. > :19:46.Our reporter tracked down his daughter. She is 80 and in the
:19:46. > :19:54.twilight of her lives feels a responsibility to tell her story.
:19:54. > :20:01.My great uncle, Hans Alexander, was a German Juhu fled to -- was a
:20:01. > :20:08.German Jew who fled to England to escape Nazi persecution. At the end
:20:08. > :20:13.of the Second World War, he captured the man responsible for creating the
:20:13. > :20:17.most infamous extermination camp and supervising the death of over 1
:20:17. > :20:24.million Jews and others. While researching my book, great uncle, I
:20:24. > :20:28.interviewed his daughter. She lives in a small house in Virginia just
:20:28. > :20:35.outside Washington, DC. The condition of my interview with
:20:35. > :20:41.Bridget was that we did not disclose her identity, for feel of reprise
:20:41. > :20:46.all is to the family. I loved it. It was like paradise. There were
:20:46. > :20:58.prisoners working in the house and begotten, correct? Yes. We did not
:20:58. > :21:04.know they were prisoners. They were always happy and wanting to play
:21:04. > :21:08.with us. From the age of seven to 11, Bridget lived with her parents
:21:08. > :21:14.and four siblings in a villa right next to the Auschwitz camp. Bridget
:21:14. > :21:16.went on boat rides with her father, had picnics with her mother and
:21:16. > :21:22.played in the sand, while prisoners in striped Jonathan worked behind.
:21:22. > :21:27.It was a normal childhood, only a few metres from misery and torment.
:21:27. > :21:33.But you did not know who they were all what happened in the camp? We
:21:33. > :21:40.did not know what else was there. My father never talked about things
:21:40. > :21:58.like this and there was no smoke, there was no smell of something. And
:21:58. > :22:07.what was he like, your father? He said my liebenkinder, did you
:22:07. > :22:17.have a nice day? Sometimes he was not very happy, but I mean, he was
:22:17. > :22:24.nice, but I could see things maybe bothered him also. But because I am
:22:24. > :22:31.sure he wanted to get away, but if you are in something you are in.
:22:31. > :22:36.By 1944, the commandant and his team were murdering up to 2,000 people
:22:36. > :22:42.each hour in the gas Chambers. Trains were arriving frequently,
:22:42. > :22:47.carrying Jew, gypsies and homosexuals from across Europe.
:22:47. > :22:53.After being arrested, Hoess was transferred to Nuremberg where the
:22:53. > :22:59.Americans put him on the witness stand.
:22:59. > :23:05.You said to he he was the nicest father in the world, nicest man in
:23:05. > :23:10.the world. Yes. How is it possible he is the nicest man in the world if
:23:10. > :23:15.he was the commandant of Auschwitz. How is that possible? That is what I
:23:15. > :23:22.don't know. There was not one flaw on him, one, nothing what was mean,
:23:22. > :23:26.or not nice. First, I didn't believe it.
:23:26. > :23:30.I said it couldn't be. Now you believe it. Now do you belief he
:23:30. > :23:40.was... ? Yes, I believe, but I don't believe he did it himself.
:23:40. > :23:45.Definitely not. There are, God knows all these people who pushed, you
:23:45. > :23:50.know, like somebody is above you and says look, you have to do this,
:23:50. > :24:01.this, this, I don't think it was his idea. I could not believe a man wow
:24:01. > :24:07.with some warm at home, could, er, do something. I believe bad things
:24:07. > :24:15.happen there. Terrible things. Not just bad. Terrible things. Over one
:24:15. > :24:18.million people were murdered. Yes.
:24:19. > :24:25.But you do believe that he, he created the camp Auschwitz, and he
:24:26. > :24:31.ran the camp, where so many... He managed it, but I think his
:24:32. > :24:37.didn't... Start it. He did start with it. He created it.
:24:37. > :24:42.He created it. Who told him to do this? Himmler Himmler told him to do
:24:42. > :24:48.it, and he built the cam, and over one million Jews were murdered, and
:24:48. > :24:51.your father -- in your father's gas Chambers.
:24:51. > :25:00.Yes. I don't know why things like this
:25:00. > :25:06.even can happen. If there is a God, why does God let things like this
:25:06. > :25:13.happen? You don't think the people involved are responsible? Oh, to a
:25:13. > :25:22.certain extent, definitely. But I think there was nothing
:25:22. > :25:30.else... To do. Rudolf Hoess was tried in Poland and
:25:30. > :25:34.in April 1947 hung on a gallows next to the old Auschwitz crematorium
:25:34. > :25:39.cram. From point forward the Hoess family had to reinvent themselves.
:25:39. > :25:43.And in the 1970s, Bridget moved with her American husband, to the suburbs
:25:43. > :25:47.of Washington DC. You have decided not to talk about it with your
:25:47. > :25:55.husband and your children. Why is that? I don't know. I just didn't
:25:55. > :26:04.feel to. I just, certain things there are my problem, or my special
:26:04. > :26:08.secrets, or whatever. Why are you talking to me about this now, after
:26:08. > :26:20.all these years? Maybe I am getting older, and I think different. Not
:26:21. > :26:26.different, but I believe it... Such horror -- such horrible things can
:26:26. > :26:35.be done, from somebody you have no idea. While talking with Bridget, I
:26:35. > :26:41.realised she is still struggling to reconcile the father she -- father
:26:41. > :26:46.she knew with the man whose monstrous acts history has recorded.
:26:46. > :26:51.So there are two sides to your father? Definitely. Couldn't be a
:26:51. > :27:00.person so gentle and so wonderful, and so family orientated, and he can
:27:00. > :27:04.do something like this. I just know the good side. I don't know the bad
:27:04. > :27:10.side. And I think I am glad about it.
:27:10. > :27:30.So if your father was here now, what you would you say to him? Oh... Why?
:27:30. > :27:34.So many questions and no answers. Now, abortion has been legally
:27:34. > :27:39.available in Britain for nearly 50 years. The grounds for allowing the
:27:39. > :27:44.termination of a pregnancy are in theory strictly controlled, but pro
:27:44. > :27:51.lifers claim a characteristically British his pop si shrouds the
:27:51. > :27:55.issue. A single organisation the British pregnancy advisory service
:27:55. > :28:00.ended 50,000 pregnancy. The Chief Executive believes the law is
:28:00. > :28:05.unnecessarily restrictive at times, for examlet on the question of
:28:05. > :28:08.whether officially it should be allowed because the mother doesn't
:28:08. > :28:16.like the sex of the prospective child. It is wrong agenda. Last year
:28:16. > :28:19.the Daily Telegraph sent undercover journalist to accompany young women
:28:19. > :28:23.on a sting operation. They wanted to see if they could persuade doctors
:28:23. > :28:28.to agree to an abortion, because the mother to be didn't want to unborn
:28:28. > :28:34.child, a decision based on their gender. In two cases, doctors were
:28:34. > :28:37.recorded appearing to want to help arrange terminations.
:28:37. > :28:42.No, no, I don't ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a
:28:42. > :28:47.termination. The idea anyone might allow an abortion on these glounds
:28:47. > :28:50.was roundly condemned I was shocked to read local authorities so clinics
:28:50. > :28:56.may have been behaving in this way. It is what is selecting by gender
:28:56. > :29:00.for termination of pregnancy is not only morn morally wrong it is
:29:01. > :29:04.illegal. The 1967 Abortion Act allowed abortion only with the
:29:04. > :29:07.signature of two doctors on the grounds that continuing the
:29:07. > :29:11.pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the physical or mental
:29:11. > :29:16.health of a pregnant woman or her family, than if the baby was born.
:29:16. > :29:21.Or there was a risk that the child would be disabled.
:29:21. > :29:26.Can we put down a different reason? I don't want to say. Last month
:29:26. > :29:28.following an investigation the Crown Prosecution Service said they
:29:28. > :29:31.wouldn't prosecute because it wouldn't be in the public interest.
:29:31. > :29:36.Following that decision, the Chief wouldn't be in the public interest.
:29:36. > :29:39.Executive of the British pregnancy advisory service said it is true
:29:39. > :29:45.that the sex of the foetus is not a legal ground for abortion, nor is
:29:45. > :29:49.rape, or incest or being 13-year-old. Yet they are all
:29:49. > :29:54.reasons why a doctor may believe a woman has met the legal grounds of
:29:54. > :29:57.abortion. And the Chief Executive of the
:29:57. > :30:04.British pregnancy advisory service is with us. We are joined by the
:30:04. > :30:09.former GP and current Conservative MP Sarah wools on the. Under what
:30:09. > :30:13.circumstances would it be legitimate to terminate a pregnancy on the
:30:13. > :30:18.gender of the child? Let us just say that the one thing I have never
:30:18. > :30:24.heard and I have been running the service for ten years now, and I
:30:24. > :30:28.have never heard of a woman walking into a clinic, and simply saying, I
:30:28. > :30:34.want to have an abortion because I don't want a girl or I don't want a
:30:34. > :30:40.boy. Women who come into the clinics have a whole complex set of reasons
:30:40. > :30:46.why they may want to end the pregnancy. It may very well be, that
:30:46. > :30:51.the circumstances of the pregnancy are very much part of that. But you
:30:51. > :30:56.do, defend the right of a woman who have a pregnancy terminated on the
:30:56. > :31:03.grounds of the gender of the future child? What I think is that the law
:31:03. > :31:09.at the moment works reasonably well. The law at the moment allows a
:31:09. > :31:14.doctor to recommend, to make a decision, in good faith, that a
:31:14. > :31:15.woman can have an abortion if he or she believes that it would be
:31:15. > :31:19.damaging, wait a second here, that she believes that it would be
:31:19. > :31:25.it would be damaging to the woman's mental health, for her to continue
:31:25. > :31:30.the pregnancy, so if a doctor believes that the woman's question
:31:30. > :31:32.for o request for the abortion is best for her, then the doctor can
:31:32. > :31:35.for o request for the abortion is make that referral. That to me makes
:31:35. > :31:39.sense. Even if that is on the grounds of the Jimi Hendrixer of the
:31:39. > :31:45.child? Because the doctor -- the gender of the child. The doctor
:31:45. > :31:50.believes she is perhaps so distraught, so strung out, so
:31:50. > :31:53.completely distressed it is better for her mental health, for the
:31:53. > :31:58.doctor to refer her for an abortion. That is a doctor's decision. In
:31:58. > :32:03.those circumstances, a doctor would be hard put to dom any other
:32:03. > :32:11.conclusion, wouldn't he or she? I I a think a doctor should be very much
:32:11. > :32:14.against condoning that sort of at attitude that allows to state that a
:32:14. > :32:20.son is more valuable than a daughter. It could be the other way
:32:20. > :32:26.round. Indeed. In countries where gender selection is practises, we
:32:26. > :32:31.see the harmful effect that has, in distorting the Jimi Hendrixle
:32:31. > :32:36.balance within societies, and again -- the gender balance.
:32:36. > :32:41.It is very harmful and we must be clear. Why you shaking your head?
:32:41. > :32:49.Can we be clear about what is going on here? You know, the Department of
:32:49. > :32:56.Health commissioned after the Telegraph did this scam set up, the
:32:56. > :33:00.Department of Health commissioned research into whether or not sex
:33:00. > :33:05.selection abortion was going on, to the point where girls and boys
:33:05. > :33:10.births were unbalanced. I found that they weren't. They sent the Care
:33:10. > :33:16.Quality Commission to inspect every single abortion clinic in the
:33:16. > :33:19.country, and found that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
:33:19. > :33:26.But you don't have an ethical problem with it. I don't see that
:33:26. > :33:28.there is a problem in the law, in Britain that needs to be resolved,
:33:28. > :33:33.there is a problem in the law, in except perhaps there is a problem
:33:33. > :33:39.with newspaper journalists being set up to entrap doctors, and create a
:33:39. > :33:45.climate where you know, you have to really wonder how doctors are
:33:45. > :33:48.expected to operate, when they are genuinely concerned about whether
:33:48. > :33:53.the person sitting in front of them is trying to set them up to make a
:33:53. > :33:57.statement, to make political capital. Why do people like you
:33:57. > :34:02.believe there is any need to change or clarify the law? Well, I think
:34:02. > :34:06.the point is that the wording of the act is am big use, and I think it
:34:06. > :34:11.would be a sensible thing now for us to look at that wording and put it
:34:11. > :34:15.beyond all doubt, that gender selection abortion is illegal, to
:34:15. > :34:19.make that crystal clear, to doctors who are operating within clinics. I
:34:19. > :34:25.am in favour of women having a choice about abortion, but I think
:34:25. > :34:29.that choice does have limits, and anything that condones these
:34:29. > :34:35.practises should not be allowed and that should be explicit. So what are
:34:35. > :34:38.we supposed to say? That a doctor can approve an abortion, if he
:34:38. > :34:43.thinks that the woman's mental health will be damaged, unless there
:34:43. > :34:48.is a gender element in there? Because that is what you are saying
:34:48. > :34:53.here. Not at all. What I am saying is we should not be colluding with
:34:53. > :34:57.an attitude that says that having a girl or indeed, in some
:34:57. > :35:01.circumstance, having a boy could in any way force someone to become
:35:01. > :35:05.mentally ill. Don't you think it is a problem to assume that doctors are
:35:05. > :35:10.colluding in any attitude, when I would imagine that you as a doctor
:35:10. > :35:15.understands, that when you see a patient, you are really supposed to
:35:15. > :35:24.be acting in their interests. Of course. That is the primary thing...
:35:24. > :35:28.If I was seeing a patient who was in a distressed state because they
:35:28. > :35:34.thought they were under pressure by their family to abort a female
:35:34. > :35:37.foetus. I would be concerned. I wouldn't be colluding for them to
:35:37. > :35:43.think it was the right thing to go ahead with it. We are look at it in
:35:43. > :35:50.the right way round. I think we are looking at it the wrong way round.
:35:51. > :35:54.We are allowing it to be set by the circumstances in which newspaper
:35:54. > :35:59.journalists think that abortion is wrong, now, you, I assume... I
:35:59. > :36:05.assume. It is not about that. How many women... I have consoled very
:36:05. > :36:09.many women who are making the most difficult decision of their lives.
:36:09. > :36:13.If you collude with family pressures that say that this should not
:36:13. > :36:19.continue, because this is an unwanted sex of a baby, that is the
:36:19. > :36:23.wrong thing to do. How many... To say I am going to aid you to go down
:36:23. > :36:26.that course. Joub talking to them about the kind of attitudes that are
:36:26. > :36:30.leading to those pressures and shouldn't be shying I from that. And
:36:30. > :36:35.I think of course, for you to suggest that somehow this is a
:36:35. > :36:40.problem with newspapers, not a problem with individuals, who are
:36:40. > :36:47.not acting within the spirit or indeed the law... How many women...
:36:47. > :36:52.? I would like to know whether you are colluding with these kinds of
:36:52. > :36:56.attitudes? I can tell you, in the 60,000 or so abortions we do every
:36:57. > :37:01.year, my staff tell me that the only people who walk into a clinic, and
:37:01. > :37:06.ask for an abortion because the foetus is the wrong sex are
:37:06. > :37:11.journalist, I would like to ask you. Come on... Sarah, how many women
:37:11. > :37:14.have walked into your surgery, and said they want to end their
:37:14. > :37:21.pregnancy because they are carrying a baby of the wrong sex? Of course I
:37:21. > :37:26.accept... None my surgeries I rest my case. Is It doesn't mean you
:37:26. > :37:30.should rest your case. That is complacent and worrying. OK, we will
:37:30. > :37:34.cut it there. Thank you both very much. It merged today that there
:37:34. > :37:37.have been nearly 400 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission
:37:37. > :37:41.about the Daily Mail's treatment of the Milibands father and son. The
:37:41. > :37:45.PCC of course is hanging on to its role by its finger nails as the
:37:45. > :37:49.great and good decide what should be done about the regulation of the
:37:49. > :37:53.press in Britain. The Mail's story about the man who hated Britain as
:37:53. > :38:00.they put it, has brought the friction between the political class
:38:00. > :38:06.and the newspapers to a new heat. Perhaps it was their intention all
:38:06. > :38:10.along, or perhaps the escalating row over Ed Miliband's Marxist dad gave
:38:10. > :38:13.the Daily Mail a convenient opportunity to remind its readers of
:38:13. > :38:17.the Daily Mail a convenient its bitter battle with the
:38:17. > :38:22.politician, an editorial was clear. If he crushes the freedom of the
:38:22. > :38:25.press, the Mail's thundered, no doubt his father will be proud of
:38:25. > :38:28.him from beyond the grave, where he lies 12 yards from the remains of
:38:29. > :38:35.Karl Marx. This is an early shot in a battle
:38:35. > :38:40.over press regulation, which looks set to flare up again next week. A
:38:40. > :38:44.snake trying to swallow a pig. It has taken a while nor the body
:38:44. > :38:47.snake trying to swallow a pig. It politic to digest the four volume
:38:47. > :38:52.heft of the Leveson report and despite evidence of straining,
:38:52. > :38:58.nothing has emerged from the other end. This is a very complex problem,
:38:59. > :39:05.in fact, it might be impossible. OK, so here is Parliament and here
:39:05. > :39:09.is the press. Now, nobody, including Lord Leveson thought it was a good
:39:09. > :39:15.idea for the politicians to directly regulate the press. Scrub that what,
:39:15. > :39:18.what was suggested instead the newspapers set up their own board
:39:18. > :39:22.diand the Parliament would pass a law recognising that body.
:39:22. > :39:25.Membership of the recognised body would attract newspapers to sign up
:39:25. > :39:30.because it would protect them from being sued for example.
:39:30. > :39:34.But there are a couple of problem, the Prime Minister didn't want
:39:34. > :39:38.Parliament passing a law. He said it was crossing a rubicon. Labour and
:39:38. > :39:40.the Liberal Democrats wanted a law, just as Leveson himself recommended.
:39:40. > :39:44.the Liberal Democrats wanted a law, So how do you have a law that is not
:39:44. > :39:53.law? A law that is not a law. I know, a Royal Charter.
:39:53. > :39:59.And thus with great fanfare the parties agreed they would use this
:39:59. > :40:04.medieval instrument to create a recognition pod that would approve a
:40:04. > :40:09.self regulation body. Royal cha ters are set up be I the Privy Council.
:40:09. > :40:15.The intention was they would approve it in May. It is now October and
:40:15. > :40:20.still nothing. So what has gone wrong? Well, some of the newspapers
:40:20. > :40:25.didn't like the all party version of the Royal Charter, so they came up
:40:25. > :40:32.with their own, and petitions the Privy Council to accept theirs
:40:32. > :40:38.instead. It's a convention that the privacy council isn't brought into
:40:38. > :40:42.such matter, so a council was set up to decide whether to recommend it.
:40:42. > :40:45.If they decided not the other version would go forward
:40:45. > :40:46.automatically. Here is what the Prime Minister said about it last
:40:47. > :40:52.month. We have to follow the correct
:40:52. > :40:57.processes, listen to legal advice and they have said we have to
:40:57. > :41:02.consider the press drafted charter first, so that is under way at the
:41:02. > :41:05.moment, obviously, I am not sitting on that committee, so I have to be
:41:05. > :41:07.careful what I say but I have said in the House of Commons, I think the
:41:07. > :41:10.careful what I say but I have said press charter has sop things to
:41:10. > :41:15.recommend it but it is deficient in key respect, and I think that is a
:41:15. > :41:17.problem. In case you are not getting the Prime Minister's carefully
:41:17. > :41:21.worded hint, here he is being clearer. Look, to be clear, I remain
:41:21. > :41:27.committed to the cross-party charter. Next week, the Privy
:41:27. > :41:30.Council meets. If it were to approve the press version, that would mean
:41:30. > :41:37.re-opening the all party negotiations which in any case
:41:37. > :41:43.Labour say is a no-no. The Prime Minister is worried the press won't
:41:43. > :41:47.sign up, and it could get really really messy. Perhaps Lord Leveson
:41:47. > :41:51.himself who wrote this report can help us out. He is due to give
:41:51. > :41:56.evidence to MPs next Thursday, the day after the Privy Council meets.
:41:56. > :42:01.Ideas please. The simpler the better.
:42:01. > :42:05.There we are. Clear as mud. Steve Hewlett is here. Apart from
:42:05. > :42:09.correcting him on the question of will he is Lord Leveson or Lord
:42:09. > :42:15.Justice Leveson, can you explain? OK. If you go back to the beginning
:42:15. > :42:17.of this, Leveson said there should be a new self re-regulatory body
:42:17. > :42:22.able to fine up to £1 million, would be a new self re-regulatory body
:42:22. > :42:27.be more independent and so on. If you like that was the big idea. He
:42:27. > :42:31.said he observed I should say, that whenever there had been inquiries
:42:31. > :42:37.into the press before, and proposals has emerged for what to do about it,
:42:37. > :42:40.at some point after this had been agreed the press would backslide,
:42:40. > :42:47.wouldn't do it at all or stop doing it so he said a key part of his
:42:47. > :42:50.proposal was that there be new self-regulate tribody or more than
:42:50. > :42:55.one, there would be a recognition body that would give the regulator
:42:55. > :43:01.an occasional once over, an MoT, a kite mark to give the public
:43:01. > :43:05.confidence that the press was still doing what it was that everybody
:43:05. > :43:10.agreed they should. This is what is at issue. The Royal Charter is about
:43:10. > :43:16.establishing the recognition body. And the recognition body is a guard
:43:16. > :43:19.dog for the guard dog. Correct. It gives a periodic MoT. It is the
:43:19. > :43:23.linchpin of the Leveson system. He said every time we have been here
:43:23. > :43:27.before, sooner or later, in many cases sooner, the press have said
:43:27. > :43:30.what they needed to say to get out of the room and then back slid, so
:43:30. > :43:35.this is the key to stopping that from happening. How close is that to
:43:35. > :43:39.resolution? Well, as the piece pointed out, because of the way the
:43:39. > :43:42.privacy council works they have decided to do it through a royal
:43:42. > :43:45.chart e there were two. The cross-party one and the press one.
:43:45. > :43:48.They have to dispense with one of them before the other can go
:43:48. > :43:51.through, because they say if there is more than one charter for the
:43:51. > :43:57.same issue Knight Kerr go through because it invites the Queen, in
:43:57. > :44:02.whose name this is enacted to get involved. So my understanding is
:44:02. > :44:06.that the concern sis is the press charter will be rejected. It hasn't
:44:06. > :44:10.been rejected yet, I believe papers were sent out today, to a
:44:10. > :44:15.sub-committee of the Privy Council, they are meeting on Monday, they are
:44:15. > :44:19.petrified or highly sensitive, if they are not very careful, you saw a
:44:19. > :44:24.bit of it in what David Cameron said there, that the press will seek some
:44:24. > :44:28.kind of process review, judicial review or otherwise and stuff up the
:44:28. > :44:32.process inducing further delay. If they do it properly the expectation
:44:32. > :44:37.is, the press version will be rejected, which leafs just the
:44:37. > :44:40.cross-party version. The next thing that happens of course is if that
:44:40. > :44:47.gets implemented, in its current form, there is every chance that the
:44:47. > :44:56.press, who are meanwhile setting up a self regulator called IPSO, they
:44:56. > :45:01.may not seek recognition. If that were to happen... Try and keep up
:45:01. > :45:06.viewers! You have a real problem, because the backstop in the Leveson
:45:06. > :45:11.system would cease to function. Very important. Now the influence of
:45:11. > :45:16.the Mail quickly on this? David Cameron, part of that process was
:45:16. > :45:19.asking the other party leader, Nick Clegg and Miliband, to consider
:45:20. > :45:23.negotiating further, to see if there was a position, a consensual
:45:23. > :45:30.position that could be reached to avoid the impasse that will occur,
:45:30. > :45:34.if the recognition body is up but the regulator chooses not the seek
:45:34. > :45:39.recognition. Let us see if we can find a charter about which even can
:45:39. > :45:43.agree. If Miliband was at any point tempted and there is no indication
:45:44. > :45:46.he was, if he was ever top story the suggestion it might be something to
:45:46. > :45:51.negotiate on after the events of this week I would say it was a
:45:51. > :45:55.guaranteed certainty he won't be going there now. Thank you. Well,
:45:55. > :45:57.that is it for tonight, good night.