:00:08. > :00:13.This week, the phone hacking scandal took a new turn, not
:00:13. > :00:16.celebrity this time, but murder victims, bereaved families being
:00:16. > :00:26.targeted and now the newspaper responsible closing. Tonight, our
:00:26. > :00:31.
:00:31. > :00:35.audience here have their say. With me here in Basingstoke, Chris
:00:35. > :00:40.Grayling, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, the
:00:40. > :00:44.Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams, the radio presenter and
:00:44. > :00:54.former Sun columnist Jon Gaunt and the actor himself a victim of phone
:00:54. > :01:01.
:01:01. > :01:06.hacking and a vocal critic of the tabloids, Hugh Grant. APPLAUSE
:01:06. > :01:10.Thank you very much. Our first question from David Johnson. Is the
:01:10. > :01:14.closure of the News of the World a cynical attempt to insulate the
:01:14. > :01:18.rest of News Corporation from the fallout over phone hacking? Is it a
:01:18. > :01:28.cynical attempt to insulate the rest of the business? Hugh Grant?
:01:28. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:31.Yes. Will that do? No, definitely. Clearly, the News of the World was
:01:31. > :01:36.going out of business anyway. People were not going to buy it on
:01:36. > :01:41.Sunday. Advertisers were falling out in their droves and all credit
:01:41. > :01:46.to them. All those companies should be applauded. It keeps Murdoch's
:01:47. > :01:51.costs down, it was a losing company. I strongly suspect that we shall
:01:51. > :01:59.presently be seeing the Sunday Sun. I heard on the radio that someone's
:01:59. > :02:05.spotted that only a few days ago Sunday Sun.com was booked as a
:02:05. > :02:09.domain name. I think we should see it for what it is. It is a cynical
:02:09. > :02:14.managerial manoeuvre which has put several hundred not evil people,
:02:14. > :02:19.there were a lot of evil people there, but non-editorial staff out
:02:19. > :02:29.of work and has kept in particular one woman who was the editor while
:02:29. > :02:31.
:02:31. > :02:35.Milly Dowler was being hacked in a highly paid job. APPLAUSE Douglas
:02:35. > :02:38.Alexander? I don't think the end of the News of the World is the end of
:02:38. > :02:43.this story. What people want and demand after the revelations this
:02:43. > :02:47.week is surely not the change of a title but the change of a culture.
:02:47. > :02:50.It is simply beneath contempt what we have discovered seemed to be
:02:51. > :02:53.happening in the newsrooms of the News of the World in the course of
:02:53. > :02:56.the last few days. I deal with service personnel and their
:02:56. > :03:00.families in my constituency, I have travelled to Afghanistan. The idea
:03:00. > :03:03.that after somebody gets the knock on the door in the morning that
:03:03. > :03:08.they most fear or the telephone call late at night that they were
:03:08. > :03:11.having their phones hacked by journalists for profits and for
:03:11. > :03:16.stories is obscene. That is why I think there has been resullion from
:03:16. > :03:19.the British public, from some of the most trusted brands in Britain,
:03:19. > :03:23.which forced the News of the World to act today. I don't think this is
:03:23. > :03:26.the end of the story. There needs to be responsibility from the most
:03:26. > :03:30.senior leadership of the News of the World and I think frankly many
:03:30. > :03:33.in the public are concerned as to whether politicians themselves now
:03:33. > :03:37.have the capability of dealing with this on their own and that is why I
:03:37. > :03:41.supported the call that Ed Miliband has made for a full public inquiry
:03:41. > :03:45.led by a judge, with the ability to compel even the most senior
:03:46. > :03:49.witnesses to appear before them so that we can get answers about the
:03:49. > :03:59.ethics and practices that were happening, I fear not just in one
:03:59. > :04:05.newsroom but potentially in other newspapers as well. APPLAUSE A
:04:05. > :04:09.number of points there. The question was whether it is a
:04:09. > :04:13.cynical attempt to insulate News Corporation. Do you think that is
:04:13. > :04:17.what it was? Quite possibly. It needs to be the first step in a
:04:17. > :04:26.fundamental change. If they are not prepared to change, a public
:04:26. > :04:33.inquiry is needed. Jon Gaunt? simply, Rupert Murdoch has sacked
:04:33. > :04:41.or closed down the wrong red-top. Which red-top? Rebekah should go.
:04:41. > :04:45.APPLAUSE Am I going to have to explain every joke tonight, David?!
:04:45. > :04:50.Get ready for the next one. Depends how good they are? Have a listen to
:04:50. > :04:53.this one! It is like the captain of the Titanic rushing towards the
:04:53. > :04:58.lifeboat and pushing women and children out of the way to jump on
:04:58. > :05:02.it. I have worked for the Sun for five years, and I didn't see these
:05:02. > :05:07.practices happening. However, I'm the father of two girls, 18 and 16,
:05:07. > :05:11.the worst thing that could ever happen would be losing one of my
:05:11. > :05:16.daughters. To hack Milly Dowler's phone was an act of grave
:05:16. > :05:21.irresponsibility, it was immoral, it was illegal, not only that they
:05:21. > :05:26.deleted messages and hampered the investigation. Heads must roll. I'm
:05:26. > :05:31.sorry, the book stops with Rebekah. I like her. She gave me a job. She
:05:31. > :05:34.gave me a big break. I'm sorry, she has to go. This is a cynical
:05:34. > :05:40.attempt to save it. There will be a Sunday Sun, which will be great
:05:40. > :05:45.because the Sun is a great paper. A lot of people today are out of work.
:05:45. > :05:49.200 journalists. People like David Wood, the political correspondent
:05:49. > :05:54.of the News of the World, an honest man who has been thrown out of work
:05:54. > :05:59.today and that is wrong. One person should go. She was left in power, I
:05:59. > :06:03.said this yesterday, to draw fire from James Murdoch, both her and
:06:03. > :06:13.James Murdoch should be leaving their desks and that I say as a
:06:13. > :06:14.
:06:14. > :06:18.former Sun columnist, I'm disgusted. APPLAUSE The man in the checked
:06:18. > :06:22.shirt? It's hard not to be cynical about the move by Murdoch today and
:06:22. > :06:25.News International when their shares have risen today. Clearly,
:06:26. > :06:31.there's strong anticipation it will be replaced by another Sunday
:06:31. > :06:35.newspaper, the Sunday Sun is around. I think that is outrageous. It will
:06:35. > :06:40.be the same thing revamped. The sooner the politicians get hold of
:06:40. > :06:44.the political system again, the better. Murdoch has had a pervasive
:06:44. > :06:54.influence on politics here for the last 25 years. It's got to stop.
:06:54. > :06:57.APPLAUSE The closure of the News of the World is nothing to do
:06:57. > :07:05.withethics. What Rupert Murdoch is scared of is losing out on the
:07:05. > :07:10.BSkyB bid. Shirley Williams? Well, first, let me comment on what Jon
:07:10. > :07:15.Gaunt said. The top is not Rebekah Wade, or Rebekah Brooks, who ought
:07:15. > :07:20.to consider her position as they say. In particular, the amazing
:07:20. > :07:23.situation which Rupert Murdoch named her as head of the
:07:23. > :07:27.investigation into his own News International. Talk about getting
:07:27. > :07:32.the person who is in prison to decide whether or not he should be
:07:32. > :07:35.there, amazing. It is deeper than that. It is about the whole Murdoch
:07:35. > :07:39.empire and it goes through the United States, Australia and the
:07:39. > :07:43.United Kingdom. It is terribly worrying. You said, quite rightly,
:07:43. > :07:49.that politicians should get on top of it. Let's be blunt. I think my
:07:49. > :07:54.party is the only one that is positively loathed by Rupert
:07:54. > :07:58.Murdoch. I saw him coming into every single 10 Downing Street
:07:58. > :08:02.after 1997 election, the 2001 election, the 2010 election, there
:08:02. > :08:05.he was waiting for the next Prime Minister to be told he wouldn't get
:08:05. > :08:09.elected again unless he managed to square himself with Murdoch. That
:08:09. > :08:12.is a desperately dangerous situation. In my view, the second
:08:12. > :08:16.investigation, not only the first one, but the second one about the
:08:16. > :08:20.whole relationship between politicians and the media is
:08:20. > :08:24.crucial. The so-called Press Complaints Commission is a joke. It
:08:24. > :08:30.ought to be replaced by some powerful element otherwise we will
:08:30. > :08:36.get the press dominated by the law. They should be controlled on their
:08:36. > :08:41.own side. Finally, the involvement of the police. We have to look into
:08:41. > :08:45.that as well. There is no doubt the trust in the police after the first
:08:45. > :08:51.2006 investigation when as we all know we came up with two pathetic
:08:51. > :08:54.characters as being responsible for the whole damn mess we are in, it
:08:54. > :08:59.won't do. The Metropolitan Police have got to clean themselves up. We
:08:59. > :09:05.have to get our trust back in their ability to investigate. All right.
:09:05. > :09:10.We have questions on... We've got questions on all these things so
:09:10. > :09:14.let's take them one by one. Chris Grayling, is the closure of the
:09:14. > :09:18.News of the World a cynical attempt to stave off greater problems for
:09:18. > :09:22.News Corp? Frankly, today's decision to my mind is almost
:09:22. > :09:26.immaterial to the key goal right now. That is to understand who is
:09:26. > :09:30.responsible for what's happened, for them to be properly
:09:30. > :09:33.investigated and put before the courts. I think on Monday, when we
:09:33. > :09:37.learnt about Milly Dowler, and since then the revelations about
:09:37. > :09:41.victims of the London bombings, about the families of soldiers in
:09:41. > :09:45.Afghanistan, this whole affair went to a level that's beyond anything
:09:45. > :09:48.else. It is appalling. The people responsible have to be investigated,
:09:48. > :09:58.they have to be charged, they have to be brought before the courts.
:09:58. > :10:05.This was a crime that has revolted the whole country. APPLAUSE What
:10:06. > :10:09.kind of inquiry would you think was the right inquiry? I think...
:10:09. > :10:12.People are sceptical about inquiries? We will end up with
:10:12. > :10:18.several inquiries. We have one today through the IPCC into the
:10:18. > :10:22.conduct of the police. There will be - and we have agreed with the
:10:22. > :10:25.opposition - there should be a public inquiry. Chris, you haven't.
:10:25. > :10:29.Would you accept tonight that because of the relationship between
:10:29. > :10:32.politicians and the journalists there needs to be a judge heading
:10:32. > :10:39.that inquiry that has the capacity to compel witnesses to appear
:10:39. > :10:42.before the inquiry? It is a simple question, "yes" or "no"? Including
:10:42. > :10:47.politicians. David Cameron has said he will sit down with Ed Miliband
:10:47. > :10:54.and agree what form that inquiry will take. We have a question...
:10:54. > :10:59.may be a judge-led inquiry. Let us sit down and decide what the best
:10:59. > :11:03.way to carry it out is. Shirley is right. Ever since, will the last
:11:03. > :11:08.person out of Britain, the Sun front-page when Neil Kinnock was
:11:08. > :11:11.there, everyone said The Sun won their election. I don't think they
:11:11. > :11:15.did. What happened then was Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair
:11:15. > :11:18.created this relationship with Murdoch. It wasn't just Murdoch as
:11:18. > :11:22.Darth Vader, the evil emperor, that is not what he is. It was both of
:11:22. > :11:27.them together. The Conservatives have continued - I sat in the
:11:27. > :11:32.office and saw it happen. That is why I agree with you Shirley, I put
:11:32. > :11:36.it in my diary, we need a full public inquiry. Rupert Murdoch
:11:36. > :11:46.should be called if that is at all possible. That is what should
:11:46. > :11:47.
:11:47. > :11:51.happen. APPLAUSE Hugh Grant? Yes, the question that Chris can't
:11:51. > :11:56.answer, will the inquiry be headed by a judge, will it be able to call
:11:56. > :11:59.witnesss who have to give evidence under oath, will it have access to
:12:00. > :12:05.all material? It is scary that you can't answer it. Without that, it
:12:05. > :12:09.is completely meaningless. What it says to me, I smell a rat. I think
:12:09. > :12:14.Cameron is still thinking do I stay in bed with Murdoch, or do I cut
:12:14. > :12:18.him loose now and become my own man and stop being Murdoch's helper? I
:12:19. > :12:24.think he's squirming on the edge of that dilemma right now. You are
:12:24. > :12:28.squirming slightly because he's squirming. Any kind of Government
:12:28. > :12:34.that I would respect would right now say we have a full judicial
:12:34. > :12:41.inquiry, with statutory powers. There is going to be a full...
:12:41. > :12:44.APPLAUSE There is going to be a proper public inquiry. Wait a
:12:45. > :12:51.moment. Can you answer? The Prime Minister will sit down and agree
:12:51. > :12:56.what form Shah should -- what form that should take. What we must not
:12:56. > :12:59.do is take steps to dive into calling non-police inquiries that
:12:59. > :13:03.may compromise the real task and the important task of bringing the
:13:03. > :13:09.people responsible not before judges but before the courts.
:13:09. > :13:13.does it compromise to appoint a judge? How does it compromise the
:13:13. > :13:16.police? If we start the inquiry now, there is a risk that we end up
:13:16. > :13:20.compromising the police inquiry. Hang on... That is not true. I
:13:20. > :13:26.spoke to the ex-Attorney General and he said that is not true. Those
:13:26. > :13:30.two things can run concurrently. My suspicion when you or David Cameron
:13:31. > :13:34.says let's wait, what you are trying to do is push it into the
:13:34. > :13:44.long grass, get it down the road and hope some other big news event
:13:44. > :13:51.comes along. APPLAUSE It is this prevarication by Chris and by David
:13:51. > :13:56.Cameron which makes people diseffective with mainstream
:13:56. > :13:59.politics in this country. Just speak the truth. Let's find out
:13:59. > :14:03.what's happened. Both of you have been in bed with Rupert Murdoch and
:14:03. > :14:07.other newspaper editors. It has to stop now. Douglas, you made the
:14:07. > :14:11.point that the whole thing was obscene and you sounded terrific.
:14:11. > :14:21.Was it not the fact you were at Rupert Murdoch's party three weeks'
:14:21. > :14:24.
:14:24. > :14:29.ago? Yes. Let me... APPLAUSE Along with Ed Miliband, your Shadow Home
:14:29. > :14:39.Secretary, or are you the Shadow Home Secretary - I'm lost. Who is
:14:39. > :14:41.
:14:41. > :14:47.that guy that gives Miliband his advice? His PR guy? I would artpwue
:14:47. > :14:51.a politician's job -- argue, it is a politician's job to speak to
:14:51. > :14:55.editors... There is a difference between speaking... The test is in
:14:55. > :14:57.the face of events like this week, are those politicians going to
:14:57. > :15:02.prioritise relationships with the press or their responsibility to
:15:02. > :15:05.the public? I was sitting with Ed Miliband yesterday at Prime
:15:05. > :15:10.Minister's Questions, when he said we need a judge-led inquiry, where
:15:10. > :15:15.we can compel witnesses, we want to see responsibility to the very top
:15:15. > :15:25.of News International. He cut Rebekah Wade loose which is an
:15:25. > :15:27.
:15:27. > :15:34.amazing thing for a politician to Would you accept an invitation
:15:34. > :15:37.tomorrow from Rupert Murdoch? is a serious point. There are some
:15:37. > :15:41.honourable and decent journalists at News International. The
:15:41. > :15:44.suggestion they were all involved in criminal activity is nonsense.
:15:44. > :15:49.We have a responsibility not to pretend all journalists are bad,
:15:49. > :15:54.but to work to do what we can to get better journalism in this
:15:54. > :16:01.country. That's what Ed Miliband's trying to do. You didn't do it in
:16:01. > :16:09.14 years while you were in power. Chris, you have refused despite
:16:09. > :16:13.what Hugh asked you and Douglas and Jon say is because there is going
:16:13. > :16:23.to be a police inquiry. Are you saying there is no inquiry until
:16:23. > :16:33.the police inquiry is done, and could be postponed for years? When
:16:33. > :16:37.can it start? I don't think you can start -- Any?? We are very clear.
:16:37. > :16:41.There is going to be one as soon as possible, without compromising the
:16:41. > :16:46.police investigation. I happen to believe it is important to bring
:16:46. > :16:49.the people responsible -- Can I get a chance among the men, David?
:16:49. > :16:54.Shirley, you always get a chance, but there is a woman there. Just to
:16:55. > :16:59.prove the point. The woman there in the third row from the back.
:16:59. > :17:06.think that any sort of action that Rupert Murdoch takes now we can't
:17:06. > :17:11.really take as sort of non-cynical. I think everything he does is
:17:11. > :17:15.pretty cynical, but there are a good amount of good journalists and
:17:15. > :17:22.in foresight it's good for the journalists because they have been
:17:22. > :17:28.given a clean break and unless he finds a credible alternative of
:17:28. > :17:33.Rebekah Brooks, but I think she will stay, but they can move on to
:17:33. > :17:38.more moral organisations. It's a luck kwhri break for them. -- lucky
:17:38. > :17:44.break for them. Shirley Williams. Thank you. There are two bits to
:17:44. > :17:47.this answer. First, that it seems to me quite - I agreed with Chris
:17:47. > :17:52.Grayling that I thought was probably right to wait. I've
:17:52. > :17:56.changed my mind for two reasons. We know there are 4,000 notes which
:17:56. > :17:59.indicate hacking into people's phones. It's going to take weeks
:18:00. > :18:04.and maybe months for the police to complete those investigations.
:18:04. > :18:08.Years I was told. Maybe years, but any way, months. Given how corrupt
:18:08. > :18:12.the whole thing is, how probable is it that some of the crucial
:18:12. > :18:14.evidence will simply disappear in that time and we won't be able to
:18:14. > :18:17.reach it? APPLAUSE
:18:17. > :18:22.Hugh Grant is trying to say that we cannot wait that long. I don't
:18:22. > :18:25.think the public will want us to wait. Although I have to say
:18:25. > :18:29.proudly I've never had an irritation to do with anything with
:18:29. > :18:32.Rupert Murdoch in my life, I think it would be better to get on with
:18:32. > :18:41.the inquiry because there are real worries about waiting. Another
:18:41. > :18:44.question on this, which goes into the wider political impact. With
:18:44. > :18:52.the fall of the News of the World, has Rupert Murdoch's role at king
:18:52. > :18:57.maker ended? We have been talking about Murdoch and the Murdoch press
:18:57. > :19:03.was cosying up to Labour and then the Tories. Has his role come to an
:19:03. > :19:08.end as king maker? Jon Gaunt? one thing to say about Murdoch,
:19:08. > :19:13.couple of things first. The Times newspaper wouldn't be here if it
:19:13. > :19:17.wasn't for Rupert Murdoch. He has subsidised the Times and what
:19:17. > :19:21.people call the quality journalism by the News of the World and the
:19:21. > :19:27.Sun. He has invested -- With great respect, that's not an answer. Come
:19:27. > :19:31.to the question. It's important to say what his contribution is if we
:19:31. > :19:35.are criticising him too. He revolutionised football and 24-hour
:19:35. > :19:39.news in this country. There have been positives in the so-called
:19:39. > :19:45.Murdoch empire. Is he the king maker? I have been invited to one
:19:46. > :19:50.of his parties. It was at the Oxo Tower. When I went three years ago
:19:50. > :19:54.there were 200 people and it was the so-called great and good, or
:19:54. > :19:57.maybe bad of British politics and British business. All the major
:19:57. > :20:02.parties, not so much the Liberal Democrats, but certainly all of the
:20:02. > :20:09.Labour Cabinet were there and all of the Shadow Cabinet. It was like
:20:09. > :20:18.being in the court of the Sun king, if you don't mind the Met foreand
:20:19. > :20:21.it was like that. -- metaphore. It was like being in one of his
:20:21. > :20:27.movies! It was incredible and these people do control the country and
:20:27. > :20:31.what we need in this country is a separate judiciary and independent
:20:31. > :20:36.police force. We need an independent press. We don't need it
:20:36. > :20:41.to be as shackled as Hugh wants and we need the press and the
:20:41. > :20:45.politicians to be separate as well. That's where it has gone wrong and
:20:45. > :20:55.both Labour and the Tories are to blame as much as Rupert Murdoch.
:20:55. > :20:55.
:20:55. > :21:00.Don't paint him as just the villain on his own, that's a cliche. Jon is
:21:00. > :21:04.right, that after repeated election defeats in the early 1990's and
:21:04. > :21:08.Tony Blair became the leader, a decision was made to change our
:21:08. > :21:11.relationship with the media because there had been huge bias against
:21:12. > :21:14.the party and there had been huge damage done for many years, but I
:21:14. > :21:19.think, as in many other things, politicians have been behind the
:21:19. > :21:23.public on this and I think it's a time when politicians need to show
:21:23. > :21:27.humility, because the truth is the Sun endorsed the Conservatives and
:21:27. > :21:30.Britain decided not to give a majority to David Cameron. I
:21:30. > :21:33.actually think there were times when we were in government when we
:21:33. > :21:37.overestimated the power of the press and we frankly underestimated
:21:37. > :21:40.the common sense of the British people. One of the reasons that
:21:40. > :21:44.Murdoch has been so powerful, but also we have seen some of the
:21:44. > :21:48.practises that have taken hold in the news of the wofrld, is because
:21:48. > :21:52.newspapers are declining -- News of the World, is because newspapers
:21:52. > :21:54.are declining because of the rise of a whole range of different new
:21:54. > :21:57.media I think there is a very different future for the
:21:57. > :22:02.relationship between politicians and the press, but frankly for some
:22:02. > :22:05.of the reasons that Jon has explained, I don't think the public
:22:05. > :22:09.can look to any politician to sort this problem out on their own,
:22:09. > :22:13.which is why I think there does need to be a judicial-led inquiry
:22:13. > :22:17.that looks at the ethics and practises not just of one newspaper
:22:17. > :22:21.or one organisation, but actually the custom and practice right
:22:22. > :22:25.across the British media. Coming to the Labour Party, you have clearly
:22:25. > :22:27.burnt your boats with News International. Ed Miliband and what
:22:27. > :22:33.he said in the House of Commons yesterday, but then you suddenly
:22:33. > :22:38.say but it doesn't matter because it's new media that count. You have
:22:38. > :22:41.burnt your boats when you think Murdoch is going under? There are
:22:41. > :22:43.several points when something changes and I think this week Ed
:22:43. > :22:47.Miliband understood that frankly better than David Cameron. I think
:22:47. > :22:50.what we have seen from the Prime Minister this week has been
:22:50. > :22:53.genuinely disappointing, because I think the British public were
:22:54. > :22:57.revolted by what they have read and seen this week and it wasn't a
:22:57. > :23:02.desire to take on Murdoch or take on News International. It was a
:23:02. > :23:06.genuine recognition, I think, by people that things have gone badly,
:23:06. > :23:09.badly wrong. How did David Cameron fail to match up? For reasons of
:23:09. > :23:15.personal relationships or for fear of what are very powerful
:23:16. > :23:20.individuals and powerful forces. What should he have done? One thing,
:23:20. > :23:24.concede there needs to be an inquiry to compel witnesses. Chris
:23:24. > :23:29.Grayling? There is going to be a public inquiry. What about the
:23:29. > :23:34.thrust of the argument? That David Cameron wasn't up to it this week.
:23:34. > :23:40.I don't agree with that at all. There's a surprise! Look, the key
:23:40. > :23:43.is I don't accept that any newspaper proprietor today is a
:23:43. > :23:47.king maker than perhaps they were 20rbgs30 or 40 years ago. The
:23:47. > :23:51.reality is that people get their news from the television, or from
:23:51. > :23:55.new media and it's been a challenge for newspapers that they've seen a
:23:55. > :24:00.lot of their traditional position eroded. People do not take the
:24:00. > :24:02.morning paper for the news of the day to the degree they once did and
:24:02. > :24:07.the reality is ownership of a newspaper does not convey the
:24:07. > :24:15.political power that it perhaps did decades ago. Why did he choose Andy
:24:15. > :24:21.Coulson as his press adviser? don't think - Andy was recruited --
:24:22. > :24:25.What is the answer? He was recruited as an adviser. From the
:24:25. > :24:30.heart of News International? have had a communications assistant
:24:30. > :24:34.from the BBC who is a broadcasting expert. You want somebody who is
:24:34. > :24:38.working to have a good understanding of the media.
:24:38. > :24:43.would do yourself a favour and your party and Government if you had the
:24:43. > :24:47.humility to say when Andy Coulson, who was the editor of the News of
:24:47. > :24:54.the World when many of these things were happening, he was brought in
:24:54. > :24:57.and David Cameron made a terrible mistake, and just got it wrong.
:24:57. > :25:02.Shirley Williams. APPLAUSE
:25:02. > :25:06.I agree with that, but what I must add, I think, on behalf of David
:25:06. > :25:12.Cameron, is that Andy Coulson was a brilliant liar. If one looks back
:25:12. > :25:15.to some of the things he said, for example, in the Select Committee of
:25:15. > :25:22.the House of Commons, the capacity to look someone in the eye and just
:25:22. > :25:27.say the opposite of the truth was simply phenomenal. Sadly he wasn't
:25:27. > :25:32.under oath. This guy had �100,000 in five years to the Metropolitan
:25:32. > :25:36.Police. He denies all of this. he doesn't. The documents don't
:25:37. > :25:45.seem to deny it. I think he denies it. I don't want to get tied one
:25:45. > :25:55.that. I think also that one of the things, if we believe what has been
:25:55. > :25:56.
:25:56. > :26:02.said by both Jon and Douglas, then we are looking at a sing ar crisis
:26:02. > :26:08.in a new media -- singular crisis in a new area, which is BSkyB and
:26:08. > :26:12.it raises very big questions in relation to the Broadcasting Act of
:26:12. > :26:15.1990 which said to have a licence you need to be a fit and proper
:26:15. > :26:20.person and it's about time we looked very closely at the meaning
:26:21. > :26:24.of that. APPLAUSE
:26:24. > :26:29.Maybe we can come to that, but before that, do you think the
:26:29. > :26:33.unfluence of Murdoch now as a result of all the events is in
:26:33. > :26:38.terminal decline on the British political system and on politicians
:26:38. > :26:42.who believe they have to win his favour? It's in decline and most
:26:42. > :26:51.politicians will be cautious in future, but I don't think it's
:26:51. > :26:55.necessarily in terminal decline. It will take longer to get there.
:26:55. > :27:01.the previous Government do more to take more preventive measures on
:27:01. > :27:05.this? In what way? Back in 2006 there was a perfect opportunity to
:27:05. > :27:11.take more preventive measures. didn't they do anything about it?
:27:11. > :27:16.Exactly. I think there are good reasons and not so good. Let's have
:27:16. > :27:18.the not so good! I think politicians should be cautious
:27:18. > :27:22.about regulating the media, because they are certainly not popular
:27:22. > :27:27.tonight, but they do an important job in holding often powerful
:27:27. > :27:30.people to account and we shouldn't lose sight of that, notwithstanding
:27:30. > :27:35.the horrors that have emerged in the last week. I think the less
:27:35. > :27:43.attractive reason is that we got close to a situation where there
:27:43. > :27:47.was a culture of freedom -- fear among politicians and contempt
:27:47. > :27:52.among journalists. It was very bad for politicians and journalists.
:27:52. > :27:57.is said in 2006 the Cabinet was -- the idea was proposed to the
:27:57. > :28:02.Cabinet that there should be an inquiry into the sandal, but the
:28:02. > :28:06.Cabinet, of which you were a member, decided not to launch that. Is it
:28:06. > :28:10.that true? I honestly cannot recollect that conversation. In
:28:10. > :28:14.that sense I think all of us this evening should be careful with our
:28:14. > :28:17.words. You are accusing me. what I'm saying is at that time we
:28:17. > :28:19.were being advised by the police that there were two individuals
:28:19. > :28:22.involved in this. That was the evidence that the police gave to
:28:22. > :28:26.the Government. That was what was said before select committees. News
:28:26. > :28:30.International was given a clean bill of health by the Press
:28:30. > :28:35.Complaints Commission. Have all of those undertakings been proved to
:28:35. > :28:38.be nonsense, I'm afraid they have. You can't have it both ways. You
:28:38. > :28:43.were talking about Andy Coulson, but when you had the ability to do
:28:43. > :28:49.something you chose not to do something. The right people to deal
:28:49. > :28:52.with Andy Coulson are the police. Hugh Grant. You are quarrelling
:28:52. > :29:02.among yourselves about who was more in bed than Murdoch and I would
:29:02. > :29:02.
:29:02. > :29:05.have said it was a pretty even match. You did have - as far as I
:29:05. > :29:10.can see - new Labour Party had 14 years to do something. It wasn't
:29:10. > :29:14.just that you were told some lies by News International and the PCC
:29:14. > :29:21.didn't get it right because they are useless, there was the
:29:21. > :29:25.Information Commissioner in 2003 when the first scandal blue up and
:29:25. > :29:30.the Commissioner said, "Look, all the British papers effectively have
:29:30. > :29:35.been using the scumbag who has been hacking phones and blagging PIN
:29:35. > :29:38.numbers and bribing people at Vodafone." It was clearly endemic
:29:38. > :29:45.in the British press at that time. You did nothing, but I with will
:29:45. > :29:49.give you this credit, but it's not credit, but semi-sympathy, I think
:29:49. > :29:53.you were frightened of falling out with for instance Murdoch, because
:29:54. > :29:58.at that time you still probably thought he would get you elected,
:29:58. > :30:03.but there is an individual threat going on and MPs were terrified
:30:03. > :30:07.individually of taking on any of the tabloids, but especially
:30:07. > :30:14.anything from News International. The prime example being when there
:30:14. > :30:21.was the culture and whatever it is Select Committee in 2003, not the
:30:21. > :30:24.later one, 2009, when they tried to bring Rebekah Brooks into them and
:30:24. > :30:29.she refused and they asked again and she kept asking and finally the
:30:29. > :30:34.message got through if you make me come I will destroy your personal
:30:34. > :30:44.lives. They backed off. They were terrified. That's what MPs have
:30:44. > :30:46.
:30:46. > :30:51.been, on an individual basis This is a protection racket and it
:30:51. > :31:01.should not be called anything else. These are supposed to be our
:31:01. > :31:02.
:31:02. > :31:05.lawmakers. APPLAUSE Yes? Going back to what Shirley said, given the
:31:05. > :31:09.fact that the Metropolitan Police has been sitting on this
:31:09. > :31:14.information since 2006, given the bribe allegations, can we trust the
:31:14. > :31:19.Met to run this investigation or should an external police force be
:31:19. > :31:23.called in? That's a question - we had it from Geraldine Hutchison,
:31:23. > :31:28.which is the same. The police are implicated in the phone hacking
:31:28. > :31:34.saga, are they to be trusted to continue the investigation? Can I
:31:34. > :31:41.start? Yes. Being as they have been to see me... When did they come to
:31:41. > :31:45.see you? I'm innocent this in this one! LAUGHTER You sure? So far, I'm
:31:45. > :31:49.innocent. They have been to see me twice. The original people came to
:31:49. > :31:57.see me in 2004 and then disappeared and nothing ever happened. Those
:31:57. > :32:00.were the bad cops. We know it was a shameful, feeble investigation...
:32:00. > :32:08.This was Yates. And they covered it up and they said there have only
:32:08. > :32:13.been a couple of cases. When people asked for, like John Prescott, "Are
:32:13. > :32:21.you sure my phone hasn't been hacked?" Absolutely not. It turns
:32:21. > :32:25.out he has been hacked to death! LAUGHTER OK. Yeah. The new cops
:32:25. > :32:31.have been to see me, they asked to see me because they wanted to show
:32:31. > :32:36.me this evidence, they wanted to show me Glenn Mulcaire's notes
:32:36. > :32:41.which were covered in my personal details, phone numbers, PIN numbers,
:32:41. > :32:46.details of friends, family, personal trainers. Well, it was
:32:46. > :32:50.getting intimate when I got to personal trainers! Let's get to the
:32:51. > :32:55.point. They seemed very good. They I am told by lawyers who have been
:32:55. > :33:01.around them a lot, been around both sets of Metropolitan Police, say
:33:01. > :33:09.this lot are ashamed of what their fellow officers at the Met did,
:33:09. > :33:14.they think they were a disgrace. They were very hard to the point
:33:14. > :33:21.where there will be arrests. trust the police to examine their
:33:21. > :33:26.own behaviour? I trust Operation Wheating. Jon Gaunt, do you? There
:33:26. > :33:29.are some bad apples. At this very moment tonight, Britain's bravest
:33:29. > :33:36.coppers are being celebrated at a hotel here in London. Let's
:33:36. > :33:46.remember the kind of work these men and women do on the streets...
:33:46. > :33:50.What's funny? Basingstoke! APPLAUSE Such great night life which I am
:33:50. > :33:54.sure you will experience later. yeah. If you fancy! I thought I was
:33:54. > :33:58.in London. I apologise. They are celebrating and commemorating these
:33:58. > :34:01.people tonight, these men and women. Let's remember most coppers are
:34:01. > :34:05.good and want this rooted out. It must be rooted out. Those police
:34:05. > :34:10.who have taken bribes need to be put before the courts and if found
:34:10. > :34:15.guilty, the book should be thrown at them, the same as politicians.
:34:15. > :34:23.The people not to do this investigation are the IPCC, because
:34:23. > :34:27.they are useless. You mean the PCC? The police... Some members of the
:34:27. > :34:32.panel are skirting around the real issue. Phone hacking is against the
:34:32. > :34:37.law and it is legislated and it should be dealt with in that manner
:34:37. > :34:41.through the judiciary system through judges, through juries et
:34:41. > :34:46.cetera. We are not skirting around it because if you believe, as I do,
:34:46. > :34:49.like you, that the law says you cannot hack, then we are entitled
:34:49. > :34:52.to say are the people who are going to discover whether people hacked
:34:52. > :34:59.in the face of the law are people we can rely upon? Don't put your
:34:59. > :35:07.hand up yet, I haven't finished! Don't insult him! I'm not. I'm
:35:07. > :35:12.telling him not to put his hand up. In my view, I would agree with what
:35:12. > :35:19.has been said by Hugh and by Jon that most coppers are pretty
:35:19. > :35:24.straight. It is wonderful that they can be. They are faced with the
:35:24. > :35:28.pressure of corruption. If Andy Coulson produced 100,000 K for the
:35:28. > :35:32.police you have to be a brave policeman to say I'm not going to
:35:32. > :35:37.accept none of it. Back in the days when I was on The Daily Mirror we
:35:37. > :35:41.used to regularly appeal for �5 for somebody who had given us
:35:41. > :35:46.information. To the police? To the police. You didn't do it yourself?
:35:46. > :35:51.You sure? I'm sure I didn't. I was on celebs! Oh right. Deep down,
:35:51. > :35:55.there is a deep culture, it is a troubling culture and it needs a
:35:55. > :36:00.great deal of decency and strength by the police to refuse to get...
:36:00. > :36:09.Now you can put your hand up. he can't! The matter needs to be
:36:09. > :36:14.dealt with immediately. The man there? If the politicians are so
:36:14. > :36:19.scared of the news empire, why do they jump into bed with them in the
:36:19. > :36:22.first place? Why didn't they stay separate? Chris Grayling?
:36:22. > :36:26.skirting around - criminal offences have been committed. They need to
:36:26. > :36:29.be dealt with by the police and dealt with in the courts. I would
:36:29. > :36:32.hope that some of those responsible, all of those responsible are
:36:33. > :36:37.brought before the courts and prosecuted. That is the number one
:36:37. > :36:43.priority. I think we were talking about inquiries. There needs to be
:36:43. > :36:48.three. We need to look at the overall issue. We need to look at
:36:48. > :36:51.why the first investigation trail went cold so early. The third
:36:51. > :36:55.question which needs a proper investigation is whether police
:36:55. > :37:01.were taking money from the media. If they were, that is also a crime
:37:01. > :37:05.that should be dealt with accordingly. Douglas Alexander?
:37:05. > :37:08.think the integrity of the police is in issue this evening. Hacking
:37:08. > :37:12.phones is illegal and if there is evidence brought to the police that
:37:12. > :37:19.people have had their phones hacked, then they should face the full
:37:19. > :37:24.force of the law. Secondly, paying police for information is a
:37:24. > :37:26.criminal offence and those people who have been paying the police for
:37:26. > :37:31.information have committed a criminal offence and should also
:37:31. > :37:38.face the full force of the law. Thirdly, we do need answers to the
:37:38. > :37:41.question that Hugh asked which is why when senior politicians,
:37:41. > :37:45.celebrities, when they brought information to the police the
:37:45. > :37:49.investigation went nowhere. Why was it the file was closed? We were
:37:49. > :37:58.told these were two rogue reporters and that no further action was
:37:58. > :38:02.going to be taken. We also need answers as to why senior police
:38:02. > :38:07.officers made a judgment that this wasn't worth the trouble of
:38:07. > :38:11.investigating. Assistant Commissioner Hayman became an
:38:11. > :38:17.employee of the News of the World. That's worth mentioning. Given the
:38:17. > :38:20.amount of work that was done for "cash for honours", the inquiry
:38:21. > :38:25.that was trying to denigrate the Labour Government of the time and
:38:25. > :38:30.the weak response that the police have had on this case of the
:38:30. > :38:34.original case, it seems sinister to me, some political manoeuvring...
:38:34. > :38:39.Chris Grayling, do you share his worries that there is something
:38:39. > :38:41.murky going on which you may not discover? No, I don't. I trust our
:38:41. > :38:46.police. I trust Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the
:38:46. > :38:49.Metropolitan Police. He is one of our finest police officers. He has
:38:49. > :38:53.been in a senior position through all of this. I trust him. The
:38:53. > :39:01.public should trust him to do the right thing in complicated cases
:39:01. > :39:04.like this. The man there? There was an interview with a member of the
:39:04. > :39:09.Metropolitan Police today who said that they were turning up to the
:39:09. > :39:14.scene of major incidents, ten or 15 minutes after the press had arrived.
:39:14. > :39:19.Not only is it illegal, but it is starting to put people's lives at
:39:19. > :39:22.risk. I want to pick up on a point that Shirley made, the question of
:39:22. > :39:25.Murdoch taking over BSkyB which is in the frame at the moment. It was
:39:25. > :39:28.thought there was going to be a decision made this week. Douglas
:39:29. > :39:32.Alexander, do you think in the light of all this, that News
:39:32. > :39:36.International should be allowed to take over BSkyB or do you think
:39:36. > :39:40.this has put the kibosh on it? There are new questions that have
:39:40. > :39:45.been raised this week. In the House of Commons, Jeremy Hunt, Chris's
:39:45. > :39:48.colleague in the Government, said that he was minded to approve this
:39:48. > :39:53.takeover unless new information emerged. Now, what possibly could
:39:53. > :39:57.be worse than what has emerged in recent days? I don't think this is
:39:57. > :40:03.a decision that should be taken by Jeremy Hunt or by any elected
:40:03. > :40:05.politician. I think the right place for this to be taken is with the
:40:05. > :40:09.Competition Commission. If that case is put to Chris, he will say
:40:09. > :40:13.if it goes to the Competition Commission, maybe there will be a
:40:13. > :40:16.judicial review. Jeremy Hunt is going to face a judicial review
:40:16. > :40:18.whatever decision he reaches. So the right people to take the
:40:18. > :40:21.decision are the Competition Commission. They need to give
:40:21. > :40:26.consideration to the legal tests. There is one other point that I
:40:26. > :40:31.would add, however. If it is the case that the News of the World is
:40:31. > :40:35.being closed down and the test is plurality, we need to know what are
:40:35. > :40:40.the implications in terms of the pluralism of the media given one of
:40:40. > :40:45.Murdoch's major titles has disappeared. You, Sir? News
:40:45. > :40:52.International were touting for the commercial rights to Formula One so
:40:52. > :40:59.should Formula One fraternity turn away as well? Chris Grayling?
:40:59. > :41:02.have to follow what is a quasi judicial process established by the
:41:02. > :41:05.last Government. Have things changed because of the events of
:41:05. > :41:10.this week? The ministerial responsibility is to judge - it is
:41:11. > :41:17.important to understand the law - the ministerial responsibility is
:41:17. > :41:22.purely around plurality of ownership in terms of the test that
:41:22. > :41:27.is there. That is the law as set out in the Act of Parliament. We
:41:27. > :41:31.have to stick to the law. Ministers cannot break the law because of
:41:31. > :41:35.political controversies. Ofcom are the body responsible for judging if
:41:35. > :41:42.somebody is or is not a fit and proper owner. All Ministers do is
:41:42. > :41:46.judge whether there is an ownership issue. We have just completed, or
:41:46. > :41:50.we are completing tomorrow a consultation involving 120,000
:41:50. > :41:54.people. Jeremy Hunt will take some time to look at the responses to
:41:54. > :42:02.that consultation before he gives a verdict purely on the issue of
:42:02. > :42:12.plurality. Shirley Williams? Let me say a word in defence of Jeremy
:42:12. > :42:21.Hunt's original statement. In all fairness, he didn't know, none of
:42:21. > :42:24.us knew we were going to see this on an industrial scale. Set down by
:42:24. > :42:30.Vince Cable originally? Yeah. Remember, Vince got into terrible
:42:30. > :42:40.trouble for saying what he said about Rupert Murdoch. Let me come
:42:40. > :42:41.
:42:41. > :42:48.to the... He laid down... Indeed. It does not fall within the area of
:42:48. > :42:54.the judgment of the Secretary. Quite separately from that, the
:42:54. > :42:58.Broadcasting Act is there. The OFT has a responsibility to look into
:42:58. > :43:01.the fit and proper person. It would not be possible for the Culture
:43:01. > :43:07.Secretary to do it. It is appropriate for it to be asked as
:43:07. > :43:17.to whether these are proper persons. It seems to me that they are not.
:43:17. > :43:17.
:43:17. > :43:23.OK. You would be against. APPLAUSE Yes? When Chris Grayling is talking
:43:23. > :43:27.about conflicts and perhaps delays in the police and the public
:43:27. > :43:33.investigations conflicting between the two, is there not going to be a
:43:34. > :43:38.conflict between the regulator, the Ofcom regulator investigating
:43:38. > :43:43.whether News Corp and Murdoch's organisation are fit and proper to
:43:43. > :43:47.take over BSkyB? I will take the point. You, Sir? You said a good
:43:47. > :43:51.point about the press being important to hold people
:43:52. > :43:55.accountable, but who watches the watcher? I don't want our
:43:55. > :44:01.politicians to step up and represent us in what we believe and
:44:01. > :44:06.do something about it. Let's leave Murdoch with your point about BSkyB
:44:06. > :44:12.and... I'm more interested in this gentleman's point. Who is watching
:44:12. > :44:17.the watcher? I'm not for regulating the proper press, the broadsheet
:44:17. > :44:21.press. It is insane to me that the tabloid press has been left
:44:21. > :44:25.unregulated all this time. If we - what are the arguments not to
:44:25. > :44:30.regulate? People say it is an intrusion on the freedom of speech.
:44:30. > :44:35.We regulate broadcast media. We regulate with Ofcom BBC News, Sky
:44:35. > :44:39.News, ITN, Channel 4 and they are all really good. It is fantastic
:44:39. > :44:43.journalism. In what way would tabloid journalism be compromised
:44:43. > :44:47.by having a proper regulatory body of the type of Ofcom watching them?
:44:47. > :44:52.I don't see that. There is only one reason why there isn't that body,
:44:52. > :45:02.that has been the cowardice of politicians up till now. It is the
:45:02. > :45:05.
:45:05. > :45:11.Jon Gaunt? I think the PCC has got faults, clearly. Clearly, they were
:45:11. > :45:15.lied to, but why more regulation? To stop Milly Dowler being hacked.
:45:15. > :45:20.We have laws of defamation, libel and slander. I don't think we need
:45:20. > :45:26.to regulate more, but use the existing laws we have and people
:45:26. > :45:30.can choose which newspapers to read in this country. They can choose
:45:30. > :45:35.which station they watch. If we are not careful and overregulate the
:45:35. > :45:39.press then we don't have a safe press. That's what I just said. We
:45:39. > :45:42.regulate TV. There may have been stories in the papers that you
:45:42. > :45:52.don't like. But the other incident you were involved in, that was
:45:52. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :46:00.perfectly in the public doe mation. I agree. I put my hands up and I
:46:00. > :46:06.did it and I expected to be in the paper, so you can't hit me with
:46:06. > :46:10.that. I don't accept that it's lack of guts in the case of politicians.
:46:10. > :46:18.There is a genuine worry about the politicians controlling the press.
:46:18. > :46:24.Why is there not a problem with the broadcast media? You decided and
:46:24. > :46:30.most of the press decided they want to self-regulate. That was called
:46:30. > :46:35.the PCC. Talk about gentlemen and trousers, there was nothing there,
:46:35. > :46:39.was there? The PCC has been a total failure in regulating the media. If
:46:39. > :46:46.you want to avoid politicians doing it and I'm doubtful about that
:46:46. > :46:52.being wise, I agree, then you have to have a PCC which actually works.
:46:52. > :47:00.You can't have 20 editions in the next three days because you have
:47:00. > :47:05.behaved badly. I think that self- regulation largely has worked and -
:47:05. > :47:10.- Why are we all sitting here? one is going to condone the hacking
:47:10. > :47:14.of Milly Dowler, but if we don't have a press that can investigate -
:47:14. > :47:16.the News of the World was a great newspaper in terms of some of the
:47:16. > :47:21.investigations and campaigns that it had. I think we would accept
:47:22. > :47:28.that, would we not? You have to go back a long way. I don't think so.
:47:28. > :47:32.My view is that yes, we need to beef up the PCC and the Baroness
:47:32. > :47:35.Who is in charge would agree with that herself, because she was
:47:35. > :47:40.obviously lied to in that case, but the idea we want more regulation
:47:40. > :47:43.and need people to tell us what we can and cannot watch or see or
:47:43. > :47:51.listen to is ludicrous. If you go down that route it will be like
:47:51. > :47:55.France and Spain and we will not have a free press. TV is regulated.
:47:55. > :47:59.Mark Thompson, the boss of this great institution, now says let's
:48:00. > :48:03.have partial news Chan ez. Those on the left don't want that, because -
:48:03. > :48:10.- channels. Those on the left won't want that, because they won't be
:48:10. > :48:17.popular. You want Fox News. can't we have that? Who are you to
:48:17. > :48:20.tell us what we can and cannot watch? Who is more dock to tell us
:48:20. > :48:30.who we should or should not vote for?
:48:30. > :48:32.
:48:32. > :48:42.APPLAUSE Doctor Murdoch to tell us who we
:48:42. > :48:44.
:48:44. > :48:51.should or should not vote for in -- vote for? In the United States and
:48:51. > :48:55.Australia, it would be illegal for anyone to own as much of the media
:48:55. > :48:59.as Murdoch does. Can we not take example from them in this country?
:48:59. > :49:03.Both of the countries are much better in this case. It's true. He
:49:03. > :49:12.has a higher percentage here than in America for instance or anybody
:49:12. > :49:21.has in America. The biggest organisation are the BBC. These are
:49:21. > :49:29.issues -- As Hugh was putting it, we are very heavily regulated.
:49:29. > :49:33.are not regulated by Ofcom in the same way. Go on, Chris. Answer the
:49:33. > :49:36.point. It wouldn't be allowed in America. They've been studied by
:49:36. > :49:39.the competition authorities over the years. The Office of Fair
:49:39. > :49:44.Trading looks at them and makes recommendations to of government
:49:44. > :49:49.and the current situation has been accepted and the governments on
:49:49. > :49:53.both sides. The woman there in the middle. With regard's Murdoch's
:49:53. > :49:56.monopoly, this is why we have the problem we have now. If we had
:49:56. > :50:01.never given it and he hadn't had the power maybe he wouldn't have
:50:02. > :50:09.been handing down the politicians. You mean he shouldn't have been
:50:09. > :50:13.able to buy -- Owning the Times and the Sun and the News of the World.
:50:14. > :50:17.Between the broad sheets and the tabloids there is a massive
:50:17. > :50:21.difference. The tabloids sensationalise everything and
:50:21. > :50:27.things seem to get blown out of the water and it doesn't relate to
:50:27. > :50:33.facts. You don't have to buy them, of course. It's informing the
:50:33. > :50:38.people of Britain and if you only read the Sun that's a problem.
:50:38. > :50:46.Long ago I was minister responsible for monopolies and it is still the
:50:46. > :50:54.same legislation. A minister has to agree to refer a case to the OFT.
:50:54. > :50:59.In my case, I foolishly referred the Observer and Guardian merger.
:50:59. > :51:02.Since that time no minister of either government has referred any
:51:02. > :51:06.mergers of major newspapers which happen to support them. Only the
:51:06. > :51:16.ones that don't, so you have to take the ministers out of it and
:51:16. > :51:16.
:51:16. > :51:20.there has to be a law that is automatic. Millions of people every
:51:20. > :51:24.Sunday used to buy the News of the World and now there is the story
:51:24. > :51:27.that they've managed to get their stories by bribing people so should
:51:27. > :51:32.the population of this country not look at themselves and say why we
:51:32. > :51:38.were buying this trash in the first place? The report that Hugh spoke
:51:38. > :51:42.of earlier indicated that there was illegality in terms of hacking
:51:42. > :51:49.across almost all of the newspapers. Do you believe that? I don't
:51:49. > :51:57.disbelieve what the Commission wrote. Do you think others --
:51:57. > :52:01.When they came to see me from that same Commissioner's office and they
:52:01. > :52:05.showed me the notes on me, I said what is this and who are they
:52:05. > :52:10.working for and the officer said, "It looks from his notes like he's
:52:10. > :52:16.working for everyone, pretty much all the press." Look at the papers
:52:16. > :52:25.and how they have covered the stories. Most of the tabloids have
:52:25. > :52:34.not gone really hey and that's pot, kettle and black. They were all at
:52:34. > :52:40.it. The Times wrote a very harsh criticism of the News of the World.
:52:40. > :52:44.Three years after the beginning of the scandal. Douglas you have been
:52:44. > :52:49.lobbying me. This information in the report was produced when you
:52:49. > :52:54.were in government, so if you have concerns about those, why not do
:52:54. > :52:56.something then? If you were this evening you accept the case for a
:52:56. > :53:00.judicial-led inquiry that could compel witnesses would take that
:53:00. > :53:09.point seriously, but not from you. This is Question Time. We don't do
:53:09. > :53:14.one issue. We have got five minutes and I should have said if you are
:53:14. > :53:20.tweeting this is our hash tag. It's too late for all of that. Jeff
:53:20. > :53:25.Harvey. Swiftly at the end. France 100% of their trains are
:53:25. > :53:31.made in France. In Germany, 90% of their trains are made in Germany.
:53:31. > :53:36.Is it right to be laying off 1400 workers in Derby and awarding a
:53:36. > :53:39.�1.4 billion contract to Siemens in Germany?
:53:39. > :53:43.APPLAUSE These were the trains that were
:53:43. > :53:50.going to be built here in this country. We have to be swift, but
:53:50. > :53:52.it's bombardier who are laying off people. Jon Gaunt. It's a little
:53:52. > :53:56.more complicated, because of the finance initiative that is behind
:53:56. > :54:01.it. However, what has been happening is the Tories have been
:54:01. > :54:04.blaming obviously Labour for it and then also the actual core problem
:54:04. > :54:07.is the EU. You wouldn't actually have this problem if Germany and
:54:07. > :54:12.France. They protect their jobs. Gordon Brown said British jobs for
:54:12. > :54:16.British people. It's about time that all of our stuff, as much as
:54:16. > :54:19.possible, we re-invest in the manufacturing industry. It doesn't
:54:19. > :54:27.matter if it's a Honda badge as long as it's built in it country.
:54:27. > :54:31.All our council vehicles should be made in Britain. How do the Germans
:54:31. > :54:36.and French get away with it? This is another reason why we need a
:54:36. > :54:40.referendum on Europe. They get away with it, because they stick two
:54:40. > :54:45.fingers up to all this stupid ledge slaition. France and Germany are in
:54:45. > :54:53.the EU. It depends on how you write the tender documents. You wrote
:54:53. > :54:57.this one? No, we didn't. We faced a situation similar to this before we
:54:57. > :55:00.left office and we reached agreement there would be an
:55:00. > :55:03.assembly facility here in the United Kingdom, so the order went
:55:03. > :55:07.to Hitachi, but the trains will be manufactured in the north-east of
:55:07. > :55:11.England. I simply don't understand why your colleagues, Chris, didn't
:55:11. > :55:14.have those conversations and are now trying to blame the previous
:55:14. > :55:19.government, when you just nodded this one through with the cost of
:55:19. > :55:25.hundreds and hundreds of British jobs. Breath-taking. You wrote the
:55:25. > :55:32.tender document and you set the criteria. We inherited the contract.
:55:32. > :55:39.It's nothing to do with us. You've been in the government 14 months.
:55:40. > :55:46.Is it true or not true? Labour wrote the tender document and the
:55:46. > :55:50.Tories were bound by it? The tender document can be altered in the
:55:50. > :55:56.course of the negotiations? Shirley Williams? I'm going to say
:55:56. > :55:59.something very unpopular now. Think very hard before you go for
:55:59. > :56:03.protectionism. We have thousands of employed people in this country who
:56:03. > :56:06.work for German and French and Japanese firms and they have on the
:56:06. > :56:10.Continent thousands of people who work for British firms. If you want
:56:10. > :56:15.to start down this train, I'll tell you what will happen, you will lose
:56:15. > :56:18.as least as many jobs as you get and you bring in protectionism you
:56:18. > :56:27.will see the 1930's back again. APPLAUSE
:56:27. > :56:31.. Hugh Grant. First the man there. Jon was talking about British jobs
:56:31. > :56:37.in England. The fundamental problem is I think health and safety laws
:56:37. > :56:40.totally prohibit any amount of manufacturing in England. OK.
:56:40. > :56:42.ridiculous. I'm in a distribution company and the health and safety
:56:42. > :56:50.laws we have to abide by and we don't manufacture. It's
:56:50. > :56:56.unbelievable. We have had to let people go. I do not even
:56:56. > :57:00.manufacture. Most of those are coming from the EU. I'm sure that
:57:00. > :57:10.what Shirley says is probably right, no insult to Shirley, because I've
:57:10. > :57:12.
:57:12. > :57:15.grown to love you, I'm sure it makes sense economically, but it's
:57:15. > :57:20.just so depressing. That's the trouble with Europe. If you add up
:57:20. > :57:24.all the numbers it's better that we are in the EU and all that, but in
:57:24. > :57:31.terms of just morale for the British, it's so awful to be paying
:57:31. > :57:36.our tax pounds to a German company rather than to keep our own men in
:57:36. > :57:40.works. It is bad for morale and we lose our identity and I see this
:57:40. > :57:50.country slightly losing morale and I think it needs it back.
:57:50. > :57:50.
:57:50. > :57:54.APPLAUSE That ends Question Time for tonight.
:57:54. > :57:59.It's also the end of the present series. We'll be back on 8th
:57:59. > :58:04.September in London, with a special programme ten years after the 9/11
:58:04. > :58:11.attacks and on the panel, among others, the former Foreign
:58:11. > :58:14.Secretary, David Miliband. If you want to come to that programme or
:58:14. > :58:24.the following week, when we are in Northern Ireland in Londonderry,
:58:24. > :58:29.