07/07/2011 Question Time

This week, the phone hacking scandal took a new turn, not

celebrity this time, but murder victims, bereaved families being

targeted and now the newspaper responsible closing. Tonight, our

audience here have their say. With me here in Basingstoke, Chris

Grayling, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, the

Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams, the radio presenter and

former Sun columnist Jon Gaunt and the actor himself a victim of phone

hacking and a vocal critic of the tabloids, Hugh Grant. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. Our first question from David Johnson. Is the

closure of the News of the World a cynical attempt to insulate the

rest of News Corporation from the fallout over phone hacking? Is it a

cynical attempt to insulate the rest of the business? Hugh Grant?

Yes. Will that do? No, definitely. Clearly, the News of the World was

going out of business anyway. People were not going to buy it on

Sunday. Advertisers were falling out in their droves and all credit

to them. All those companies should be applauded. It keeps Murdoch's

costs down, it was a losing company. I strongly suspect that we shall

presently be seeing the Sunday Sun. I heard on the radio that someone's

spotted that only a few days ago Sunday Sun.com was booked as a

domain name. I think we should see it for what it is. It is a cynical

managerial manoeuvre which has put several hundred not evil people,

there were a lot of evil people there, but non-editorial staff out

of work and has kept in particular one woman who was the editor while

Milly Dowler was being hacked in a highly paid job. APPLAUSE Douglas

Alexander? I don't think the end of the News of the World is the end of

this story. What people want and demand after the revelations this

week is surely not the change of a title but the change of a culture.

It is simply beneath contempt what we have discovered seemed to be

happening in the newsrooms of the News of the World in the course of

the last few days. I deal with service personnel and their

families in my constituency, I have travelled to Afghanistan. The idea

that after somebody gets the knock on the door in the morning that

they most fear or the telephone call late at night that they were

having their phones hacked by journalists for profits and for

stories is obscene. That is why I think there has been resullion from

the British public, from some of the most trusted brands in Britain,

which forced the News of the World to act today. I don't think this is

the end of the story. There needs to be responsibility from the most

senior leadership of the News of the World and I think frankly many

in the public are concerned as to whether politicians themselves now

have the capability of dealing with this on their own and that is why I

supported the call that Ed Miliband has made for a full public inquiry

led by a judge, with the ability to compel even the most senior

witnesses to appear before them so that we can get answers about the

ethics and practices that were happening, I fear not just in one

newsroom but potentially in other newspapers as well. APPLAUSE A

number of points there. The question was whether it is a

cynical attempt to insulate News Corporation. Do you think that is

what it was? Quite possibly. It needs to be the first step in a

fundamental change. If they are not prepared to change, a public

inquiry is needed. Jon Gaunt? simply, Rupert Murdoch has sacked

or closed down the wrong red-top. Which red-top? Rebekah should go.

APPLAUSE Am I going to have to explain every joke tonight, David?!

Get ready for the next one. Depends how good they are? Have a listen to

this one! It is like the captain of the Titanic rushing towards the

lifeboat and pushing women and children out of the way to jump on

it. I have worked for the Sun for five years, and I didn't see these

practices happening. However, I'm the father of two girls, 18 and 16,

the worst thing that could ever happen would be losing one of my

daughters. To hack Milly Dowler's phone was an act of grave

irresponsibility, it was immoral, it was illegal, not only that they

deleted messages and hampered the investigation. Heads must roll. I'm

sorry, the book stops with Rebekah. I like her. She gave me a job. She

gave me a big break. I'm sorry, she has to go. This is a cynical

attempt to save it. There will be a Sunday Sun, which will be great

because the Sun is a great paper. A lot of people today are out of work.

200 journalists. People like David Wood, the political correspondent

of the News of the World, an honest man who has been thrown out of work

today and that is wrong. One person should go. She was left in power, I

said this yesterday, to draw fire from James Murdoch, both her and

James Murdoch should be leaving their desks and that I say as a

former Sun columnist, I'm disgusted. APPLAUSE The man in the checked

shirt? It's hard not to be cynical about the move by Murdoch today and

News International when their shares have risen today. Clearly,

there's strong anticipation it will be replaced by another Sunday

newspaper, the Sunday Sun is around. I think that is outrageous. It will

be the same thing revamped. The sooner the politicians get hold of

the political system again, the better. Murdoch has had a pervasive

influence on politics here for the last 25 years. It's got to stop.

APPLAUSE The closure of the News of the World is nothing to do

withethics. What Rupert Murdoch is scared of is losing out on the

BSkyB bid. Shirley Williams? Well, first, let me comment on what Jon

Gaunt said. The top is not Rebekah Wade, or Rebekah Brooks, who ought

to consider her position as they say. In particular, the amazing

situation which Rupert Murdoch named her as head of the

investigation into his own News International. Talk about getting

the person who is in prison to decide whether or not he should be

there, amazing. It is deeper than that. It is about the whole Murdoch

empire and it goes through the United States, Australia and the

United Kingdom. It is terribly worrying. You said, quite rightly,

that politicians should get on top of it. Let's be blunt. I think my

party is the only one that is positively loathed by Rupert

Murdoch. I saw him coming into every single 10 Downing Street

after 1997 election, the 2001 election, the 2010 election, there

he was waiting for the next Prime Minister to be told he wouldn't get

elected again unless he managed to square himself with Murdoch. That

is a desperately dangerous situation. In my view, the second

investigation, not only the first one, but the second one about the

whole relationship between politicians and the media is

crucial. The so-called Press Complaints Commission is a joke. It

ought to be replaced by some powerful element otherwise we will

get the press dominated by the law. They should be controlled on their

own side. Finally, the involvement of the police. We have to look into

that as well. There is no doubt the trust in the police after the first

2006 investigation when as we all know we came up with two pathetic

characters as being responsible for the whole damn mess we are in, it

won't do. The Metropolitan Police have got to clean themselves up. We

have to get our trust back in their ability to investigate. All right.

We have questions on... We've got questions on all these things so

let's take them one by one. Chris Grayling, is the closure of the

News of the World a cynical attempt to stave off greater problems for

News Corp? Frankly, today's decision to my mind is almost

immaterial to the key goal right now. That is to understand who is

responsible for what's happened, for them to be properly

investigated and put before the courts. I think on Monday, when we

learnt about Milly Dowler, and since then the revelations about

victims of the London bombings, about the families of soldiers in

Afghanistan, this whole affair went to a level that's beyond anything

else. It is appalling. The people responsible have to be investigated,

they have to be charged, they have to be brought before the courts.

This was a crime that has revolted the whole country. APPLAUSE What

kind of inquiry would you think was the right inquiry? I think...

People are sceptical about inquiries? We will end up with

several inquiries. We have one today through the IPCC into the

conduct of the police. There will be - and we have agreed with the

opposition - there should be a public inquiry. Chris, you haven't.

Would you accept tonight that because of the relationship between

politicians and the journalists there needs to be a judge heading

that inquiry that has the capacity to compel witnesses to appear

before the inquiry? It is a simple question, "yes" or "no"? Including

politicians. David Cameron has said he will sit down with Ed Miliband

and agree what form that inquiry will take. We have a question...

may be a judge-led inquiry. Let us sit down and decide what the best

way to carry it out is. Shirley is right. Ever since, will the last

person out of Britain, the Sun front-page when Neil Kinnock was

there, everyone said The Sun won their election. I don't think they

did. What happened then was Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair

created this relationship with Murdoch. It wasn't just Murdoch as

Darth Vader, the evil emperor, that is not what he is. It was both of

them together. The Conservatives have continued - I sat in the

office and saw it happen. That is why I agree with you Shirley, I put

it in my diary, we need a full public inquiry. Rupert Murdoch

should be called if that is at all possible. That is what should

happen. APPLAUSE Hugh Grant? Yes, the question that Chris can't

answer, will the inquiry be headed by a judge, will it be able to call

witnesss who have to give evidence under oath, will it have access to

all material? It is scary that you can't answer it. Without that, it

is completely meaningless. What it says to me, I smell a rat. I think

Cameron is still thinking do I stay in bed with Murdoch, or do I cut

him loose now and become my own man and stop being Murdoch's helper? I

think he's squirming on the edge of that dilemma right now. You are

squirming slightly because he's squirming. Any kind of Government

that I would respect would right now say we have a full judicial

inquiry, with statutory powers. There is going to be a full...

APPLAUSE There is going to be a proper public inquiry. Wait a

moment. Can you answer? The Prime Minister will sit down and agree

what form Shah should -- what form that should take. What we must not

do is take steps to dive into calling non-police inquiries that

may compromise the real task and the important task of bringing the

people responsible not before judges but before the courts.

does it compromise to appoint a judge? How does it compromise the

police? If we start the inquiry now, there is a risk that we end up

compromising the police inquiry. Hang on... That is not true. I

spoke to the ex-Attorney General and he said that is not true. Those

two things can run concurrently. My suspicion when you or David Cameron

says let's wait, what you are trying to do is push it into the

long grass, get it down the road and hope some other big news event

comes along. APPLAUSE It is this prevarication by Chris and by David

Cameron which makes people diseffective with mainstream

politics in this country. Just speak the truth. Let's find out

what's happened. Both of you have been in bed with Rupert Murdoch and

other newspaper editors. It has to stop now. Douglas, you made the

point that the whole thing was obscene and you sounded terrific.

Was it not the fact you were at Rupert Murdoch's party three weeks'

ago? Yes. Let me... APPLAUSE Along with Ed Miliband, your Shadow Home

Secretary, or are you the Shadow Home Secretary - I'm lost. Who is

that guy that gives Miliband his advice? His PR guy? I would artpwue

a politician's job -- argue, it is a politician's job to speak to

editors... There is a difference between speaking... The test is in

the face of events like this week, are those politicians going to

prioritise relationships with the press or their responsibility to

the public? I was sitting with Ed Miliband yesterday at Prime

Minister's Questions, when he said we need a judge-led inquiry, where

we can compel witnesses, we want to see responsibility to the very top

of News International. He cut Rebekah Wade loose which is an

amazing thing for a politician to Would you accept an invitation

tomorrow from Rupert Murdoch? is a serious point. There are some

honourable and decent journalists at News International. The

suggestion they were all involved in criminal activity is nonsense.

We have a responsibility not to pretend all journalists are bad,

but to work to do what we can to get better journalism in this

country. That's what Ed Miliband's trying to do. You didn't do it in

14 years while you were in power. Chris, you have refused despite

what Hugh asked you and Douglas and Jon say is because there is going

to be a police inquiry. Are you saying there is no inquiry until

the police inquiry is done, and could be postponed for years? When

can it start? I don't think you can start -- Any?? We are very clear.

There is going to be one as soon as possible, without compromising the

police investigation. I happen to believe it is important to bring

the people responsible -- Can I get a chance among the men, David?

Shirley, you always get a chance, but there is a woman there. Just to

prove the point. The woman there in the third row from the back.

think that any sort of action that Rupert Murdoch takes now we can't

really take as sort of non-cynical. I think everything he does is

pretty cynical, but there are a good amount of good journalists and

in foresight it's good for the journalists because they have been

given a clean break and unless he finds a credible alternative of

Rebekah Brooks, but I think she will stay, but they can move on to

more moral organisations. It's a luck kwhri break for them. -- lucky

break for them. Shirley Williams. Thank you. There are two bits to

this answer. First, that it seems to me quite - I agreed with Chris

Grayling that I thought was probably right to wait. I've

changed my mind for two reasons. We know there are 4,000 notes which

indicate hacking into people's phones. It's going to take weeks

and maybe months for the police to complete those investigations.

Years I was told. Maybe years, but any way, months. Given how corrupt

the whole thing is, how probable is it that some of the crucial

evidence will simply disappear in that time and we won't be able to

reach it? APPLAUSE

Hugh Grant is trying to say that we cannot wait that long. I don't

think the public will want us to wait. Although I have to say

proudly I've never had an irritation to do with anything with

Rupert Murdoch in my life, I think it would be better to get on with

the inquiry because there are real worries about waiting. Another

question on this, which goes into the wider political impact. With

the fall of the News of the World, has Rupert Murdoch's role at king

maker ended? We have been talking about Murdoch and the Murdoch press

was cosying up to Labour and then the Tories. Has his role come to an

end as king maker? Jon Gaunt? one thing to say about Murdoch,

couple of things first. The Times newspaper wouldn't be here if it

wasn't for Rupert Murdoch. He has subsidised the Times and what

people call the quality journalism by the News of the World and the

Sun. He has invested -- With great respect, that's not an answer. Come

to the question. It's important to say what his contribution is if we

are criticising him too. He revolutionised football and 24-hour

news in this country. There have been positives in the so-called

Murdoch empire. Is he the king maker? I have been invited to one

of his parties. It was at the Oxo Tower. When I went three years ago

there were 200 people and it was the so-called great and good, or

maybe bad of British politics and British business. All the major

parties, not so much the Liberal Democrats, but certainly all of the

Labour Cabinet were there and all of the Shadow Cabinet. It was like

being in the court of the Sun king, if you don't mind the Met foreand

it was like that. -- metaphore. It was like being in one of his

movies! It was incredible and these people do control the country and

what we need in this country is a separate judiciary and independent

police force. We need an independent press. We don't need it

to be as shackled as Hugh wants and we need the press and the

politicians to be separate as well. That's where it has gone wrong and

both Labour and the Tories are to blame as much as Rupert Murdoch.

Don't paint him as just the villain on his own, that's a cliche. Jon is

right, that after repeated election defeats in the early 1990's and

Tony Blair became the leader, a decision was made to change our

relationship with the media because there had been huge bias against

the party and there had been huge damage done for many years, but I

think, as in many other things, politicians have been behind the

public on this and I think it's a time when politicians need to show

humility, because the truth is the Sun endorsed the Conservatives and

Britain decided not to give a majority to David Cameron. I

actually think there were times when we were in government when we

overestimated the power of the press and we frankly underestimated

the common sense of the British people. One of the reasons that

Murdoch has been so powerful, but also we have seen some of the

practises that have taken hold in the news of the wofrld, is because

newspapers are declining -- News of the World, is because newspapers

are declining because of the rise of a whole range of different new

media I think there is a very different future for the

relationship between politicians and the press, but frankly for some

of the reasons that Jon has explained, I don't think the public

can look to any politician to sort this problem out on their own,

which is why I think there does need to be a judicial-led inquiry

that looks at the ethics and practises not just of one newspaper

or one organisation, but actually the custom and practice right

across the British media. Coming to the Labour Party, you have clearly

burnt your boats with News International. Ed Miliband and what

he said in the House of Commons yesterday, but then you suddenly

say but it doesn't matter because it's new media that count. You have

burnt your boats when you think Murdoch is going under? There are

several points when something changes and I think this week Ed

Miliband understood that frankly better than David Cameron. I think

what we have seen from the Prime Minister this week has been

genuinely disappointing, because I think the British public were

revolted by what they have read and seen this week and it wasn't a

desire to take on Murdoch or take on News International. It was a

genuine recognition, I think, by people that things have gone badly,

badly wrong. How did David Cameron fail to match up? For reasons of

personal relationships or for fear of what are very powerful

individuals and powerful forces. What should he have done? One thing,

concede there needs to be an inquiry to compel witnesses. Chris

Grayling? There is going to be a public inquiry. What about the

thrust of the argument? That David Cameron wasn't up to it this week.

I don't agree with that at all. There's a surprise! Look, the key

is I don't accept that any newspaper proprietor today is a

king maker than perhaps they were 20rbgs30 or 40 years ago. The

reality is that people get their news from the television, or from

new media and it's been a challenge for newspapers that they've seen a

lot of their traditional position eroded. People do not take the

morning paper for the news of the day to the degree they once did and

the reality is ownership of a newspaper does not convey the

political power that it perhaps did decades ago. Why did he choose Andy

Coulson as his press adviser? don't think - Andy was recruited --

What is the answer? He was recruited as an adviser. From the

heart of News International? have had a communications assistant

from the BBC who is a broadcasting expert. You want somebody who is

working to have a good understanding of the media.

would do yourself a favour and your party and Government if you had the

humility to say when Andy Coulson, who was the editor of the News of

the World when many of these things were happening, he was brought in

and David Cameron made a terrible mistake, and just got it wrong.

Shirley Williams. APPLAUSE

I agree with that, but what I must add, I think, on behalf of David

Cameron, is that Andy Coulson was a brilliant liar. If one looks back

to some of the things he said, for example, in the Select Committee of

the House of Commons, the capacity to look someone in the eye and just

say the opposite of the truth was simply phenomenal. Sadly he wasn't

under oath. This guy had �100,000 in five years to the Metropolitan

Police. He denies all of this. he doesn't. The documents don't

seem to deny it. I think he denies it. I don't want to get tied one

that. I think also that one of the things, if we believe what has been

said by both Jon and Douglas, then we are looking at a sing ar crisis

in a new media -- singular crisis in a new area, which is BSkyB and

it raises very big questions in relation to the Broadcasting Act of

1990 which said to have a licence you need to be a fit and proper

person and it's about time we looked very closely at the meaning

of that. APPLAUSE

Maybe we can come to that, but before that, do you think the

unfluence of Murdoch now as a result of all the events is in

terminal decline on the British political system and on politicians

who believe they have to win his favour? It's in decline and most

politicians will be cautious in future, but I don't think it's

necessarily in terminal decline. It will take longer to get there.

the previous Government do more to take more preventive measures on

this? In what way? Back in 2006 there was a perfect opportunity to

take more preventive measures. didn't they do anything about it?

Exactly. I think there are good reasons and not so good. Let's have

the not so good! I think politicians should be cautious

about regulating the media, because they are certainly not popular

tonight, but they do an important job in holding often powerful

people to account and we shouldn't lose sight of that, notwithstanding

the horrors that have emerged in the last week. I think the less

attractive reason is that we got close to a situation where there

was a culture of freedom -- fear among politicians and contempt

among journalists. It was very bad for politicians and journalists.

is said in 2006 the Cabinet was -- the idea was proposed to the

Cabinet that there should be an inquiry into the sandal, but the

Cabinet, of which you were a member, decided not to launch that. Is it

that true? I honestly cannot recollect that conversation. In

that sense I think all of us this evening should be careful with our

words. You are accusing me. what I'm saying is at that time we

were being advised by the police that there were two individuals

involved in this. That was the evidence that the police gave to

the Government. That was what was said before select committees. News

International was given a clean bill of health by the Press

Complaints Commission. Have all of those undertakings been proved to

be nonsense, I'm afraid they have. You can't have it both ways. You

were talking about Andy Coulson, but when you had the ability to do

something you chose not to do something. The right people to deal

with Andy Coulson are the police. Hugh Grant. You are quarrelling

among yourselves about who was more in bed than Murdoch and I would

have said it was a pretty even match. You did have - as far as I

can see - new Labour Party had 14 years to do something. It wasn't

just that you were told some lies by News International and the PCC

didn't get it right because they are useless, there was the

Information Commissioner in 2003 when the first scandal blue up and

the Commissioner said, "Look, all the British papers effectively have

been using the scumbag who has been hacking phones and blagging PIN

numbers and bribing people at Vodafone." It was clearly endemic

in the British press at that time. You did nothing, but I with will

give you this credit, but it's not credit, but semi-sympathy, I think

you were frightened of falling out with for instance Murdoch, because

at that time you still probably thought he would get you elected,

but there is an individual threat going on and MPs were terrified

individually of taking on any of the tabloids, but especially

anything from News International. The prime example being when there

was the culture and whatever it is Select Committee in 2003, not the

later one, 2009, when they tried to bring Rebekah Brooks into them and

she refused and they asked again and she kept asking and finally the

message got through if you make me come I will destroy your personal

lives. They backed off. They were terrified. That's what MPs have

been, on an individual basis This is a protection racket and it

should not be called anything else. These are supposed to be our

lawmakers. APPLAUSE Yes? Going back to what Shirley said, given the

fact that the Metropolitan Police has been sitting on this

information since 2006, given the bribe allegations, can we trust the

Met to run this investigation or should an external police force be

called in? That's a question - we had it from Geraldine Hutchison,

which is the same. The police are implicated in the phone hacking

saga, are they to be trusted to continue the investigation? Can I

start? Yes. Being as they have been to see me... When did they come to

see you? I'm innocent this in this one! LAUGHTER You sure? So far, I'm

innocent. They have been to see me twice. The original people came to

see me in 2004 and then disappeared and nothing ever happened. Those

were the bad cops. We know it was a shameful, feeble investigation...

This was Yates. And they covered it up and they said there have only

been a couple of cases. When people asked for, like John Prescott, "Are

you sure my phone hasn't been hacked?" Absolutely not. It turns

out he has been hacked to death! LAUGHTER OK. Yeah. The new cops

have been to see me, they asked to see me because they wanted to show

me this evidence, they wanted to show me Glenn Mulcaire's notes

which were covered in my personal details, phone numbers, PIN numbers,

details of friends, family, personal trainers. Well, it was

getting intimate when I got to personal trainers! Let's get to the

point. They seemed very good. They I am told by lawyers who have been

around them a lot, been around both sets of Metropolitan Police, say

this lot are ashamed of what their fellow officers at the Met did,

they think they were a disgrace. They were very hard to the point

where there will be arrests. trust the police to examine their

own behaviour? I trust Operation Wheating. Jon Gaunt, do you? There

are some bad apples. At this very moment tonight, Britain's bravest

coppers are being celebrated at a hotel here in London. Let's

remember the kind of work these men and women do on the streets...

What's funny? Basingstoke! APPLAUSE Such great night life which I am

sure you will experience later. yeah. If you fancy! I thought I was

in London. I apologise. They are celebrating and commemorating these

people tonight, these men and women. Let's remember most coppers are

good and want this rooted out. It must be rooted out. Those police

who have taken bribes need to be put before the courts and if found

guilty, the book should be thrown at them, the same as politicians.

The people not to do this investigation are the IPCC, because

they are useless. You mean the PCC? The police... Some members of the

panel are skirting around the real issue. Phone hacking is against the

law and it is legislated and it should be dealt with in that manner

through the judiciary system through judges, through juries et

cetera. We are not skirting around it because if you believe, as I do,

like you, that the law says you cannot hack, then we are entitled

to say are the people who are going to discover whether people hacked

in the face of the law are people we can rely upon? Don't put your

hand up yet, I haven't finished! Don't insult him! I'm not. I'm

telling him not to put his hand up. In my view, I would agree with what

has been said by Hugh and by Jon that most coppers are pretty

straight. It is wonderful that they can be. They are faced with the

pressure of corruption. If Andy Coulson produced 100,000 K for the

police you have to be a brave policeman to say I'm not going to

accept none of it. Back in the days when I was on The Daily Mirror we

used to regularly appeal for �5 for somebody who had given us

information. To the police? To the police. You didn't do it yourself?

You sure? I'm sure I didn't. I was on celebs! Oh right. Deep down,

there is a deep culture, it is a troubling culture and it needs a

great deal of decency and strength by the police to refuse to get...

Now you can put your hand up. he can't! The matter needs to be

dealt with immediately. The man there? If the politicians are so

scared of the news empire, why do they jump into bed with them in the

first place? Why didn't they stay separate? Chris Grayling?

skirting around - criminal offences have been committed. They need to

be dealt with by the police and dealt with in the courts. I would

hope that some of those responsible, all of those responsible are

brought before the courts and prosecuted. That is the number one

priority. I think we were talking about inquiries. There needs to be

three. We need to look at the overall issue. We need to look at

why the first investigation trail went cold so early. The third

question which needs a proper investigation is whether police

were taking money from the media. If they were, that is also a crime

that should be dealt with accordingly. Douglas Alexander?

think the integrity of the police is in issue this evening. Hacking

phones is illegal and if there is evidence brought to the police that

people have had their phones hacked, then they should face the full

force of the law. Secondly, paying police for information is a

criminal offence and those people who have been paying the police for

information have committed a criminal offence and should also

face the full force of the law. Thirdly, we do need answers to the

question that Hugh asked which is why when senior politicians,

celebrities, when they brought information to the police the

investigation went nowhere. Why was it the file was closed? We were

told these were two rogue reporters and that no further action was

going to be taken. We also need answers as to why senior police

officers made a judgment that this wasn't worth the trouble of

investigating. Assistant Commissioner Hayman became an

employee of the News of the World. That's worth mentioning. Given the

amount of work that was done for "cash for honours", the inquiry

that was trying to denigrate the Labour Government of the time and

the weak response that the police have had on this case of the

original case, it seems sinister to me, some political manoeuvring...

Chris Grayling, do you share his worries that there is something

murky going on which you may not discover? No, I don't. I trust our

police. I trust Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the

Metropolitan Police. He is one of our finest police officers. He has

been in a senior position through all of this. I trust him. The

public should trust him to do the right thing in complicated cases

like this. The man there? There was an interview with a member of the

Metropolitan Police today who said that they were turning up to the

scene of major incidents, ten or 15 minutes after the press had arrived.

Not only is it illegal, but it is starting to put people's lives at

risk. I want to pick up on a point that Shirley made, the question of

Murdoch taking over BSkyB which is in the frame at the moment. It was

thought there was going to be a decision made this week. Douglas

Alexander, do you think in the light of all this, that News

International should be allowed to take over BSkyB or do you think

this has put the kibosh on it? There are new questions that have

been raised this week. In the House of Commons, Jeremy Hunt, Chris's

colleague in the Government, said that he was minded to approve this

takeover unless new information emerged. Now, what possibly could

be worse than what has emerged in recent days? I don't think this is

a decision that should be taken by Jeremy Hunt or by any elected

politician. I think the right place for this to be taken is with the

Competition Commission. If that case is put to Chris, he will say

if it goes to the Competition Commission, maybe there will be a

judicial review. Jeremy Hunt is going to face a judicial review

whatever decision he reaches. So the right people to take the

decision are the Competition Commission. They need to give

consideration to the legal tests. There is one other point that I

would add, however. If it is the case that the News of the World is

being closed down and the test is plurality, we need to know what are

the implications in terms of the pluralism of the media given one of

Murdoch's major titles has disappeared. You, Sir? News

International were touting for the commercial rights to Formula One so

should Formula One fraternity turn away as well? Chris Grayling?

have to follow what is a quasi judicial process established by the

last Government. Have things changed because of the events of

this week? The ministerial responsibility is to judge - it is

important to understand the law - the ministerial responsibility is

purely around plurality of ownership in terms of the test that

is there. That is the law as set out in the Act of Parliament. We

have to stick to the law. Ministers cannot break the law because of

political controversies. Ofcom are the body responsible for judging if

somebody is or is not a fit and proper owner. All Ministers do is

judge whether there is an ownership issue. We have just completed, or

we are completing tomorrow a consultation involving 120,000

people. Jeremy Hunt will take some time to look at the responses to

that consultation before he gives a verdict purely on the issue of

plurality. Shirley Williams? Let me say a word in defence of Jeremy

Hunt's original statement. In all fairness, he didn't know, none of

us knew we were going to see this on an industrial scale. Set down by

Vince Cable originally? Yeah. Remember, Vince got into terrible

trouble for saying what he said about Rupert Murdoch. Let me come

to the... He laid down... Indeed. It does not fall within the area of

the judgment of the Secretary. Quite separately from that, the

Broadcasting Act is there. The OFT has a responsibility to look into

the fit and proper person. It would not be possible for the Culture

Secretary to do it. It is appropriate for it to be asked as

to whether these are proper persons. It seems to me that they are not.

OK. You would be against. APPLAUSE Yes? When Chris Grayling is talking

about conflicts and perhaps delays in the police and the public

investigations conflicting between the two, is there not going to be a

conflict between the regulator, the Ofcom regulator investigating

whether News Corp and Murdoch's organisation are fit and proper to

take over BSkyB? I will take the point. You, Sir? You said a good

point about the press being important to hold people

accountable, but who watches the watcher? I don't want our

politicians to step up and represent us in what we believe and

do something about it. Let's leave Murdoch with your point about BSkyB

and... I'm more interested in this gentleman's point. Who is watching

the watcher? I'm not for regulating the proper press, the broadsheet

press. It is insane to me that the tabloid press has been left

unregulated all this time. If we - what are the arguments not to

regulate? People say it is an intrusion on the freedom of speech.

We regulate broadcast media. We regulate with Ofcom BBC News, Sky

News, ITN, Channel 4 and they are all really good. It is fantastic

journalism. In what way would tabloid journalism be compromised

by having a proper regulatory body of the type of Ofcom watching them?

I don't see that. There is only one reason why there isn't that body,

that has been the cowardice of politicians up till now. It is the

Jon Gaunt? I think the PCC has got faults, clearly. Clearly, they were

lied to, but why more regulation? To stop Milly Dowler being hacked.

We have laws of defamation, libel and slander. I don't think we need

to regulate more, but use the existing laws we have and people

can choose which newspapers to read in this country. They can choose

which station they watch. If we are not careful and overregulate the

press then we don't have a safe press. That's what I just said. We

regulate TV. There may have been stories in the papers that you

don't like. But the other incident you were involved in, that was

perfectly in the public doe mation. I agree. I put my hands up and I

did it and I expected to be in the paper, so you can't hit me with

that. I don't accept that it's lack of guts in the case of politicians.

There is a genuine worry about the politicians controlling the press.

Why is there not a problem with the broadcast media? You decided and

most of the press decided they want to self-regulate. That was called

the PCC. Talk about gentlemen and trousers, there was nothing there,

was there? The PCC has been a total failure in regulating the media. If

you want to avoid politicians doing it and I'm doubtful about that

being wise, I agree, then you have to have a PCC which actually works.

You can't have 20 editions in the next three days because you have

behaved badly. I think that self- regulation largely has worked and -

- Why are we all sitting here? one is going to condone the hacking

of Milly Dowler, but if we don't have a press that can investigate -

the News of the World was a great newspaper in terms of some of the

investigations and campaigns that it had. I think we would accept

that, would we not? You have to go back a long way. I don't think so.

My view is that yes, we need to beef up the PCC and the Baroness

Who is in charge would agree with that herself, because she was

obviously lied to in that case, but the idea we want more regulation

and need people to tell us what we can and cannot watch or see or

listen to is ludicrous. If you go down that route it will be like

France and Spain and we will not have a free press. TV is regulated.

Mark Thompson, the boss of this great institution, now says let's

have partial news Chan ez. Those on the left don't want that, because -

- channels. Those on the left won't want that, because they won't be

popular. You want Fox News. can't we have that? Who are you to

tell us what we can and cannot watch? Who is more dock to tell us

who we should or should not vote for?

APPLAUSE Doctor Murdoch to tell us who we

should or should not vote for in -- vote for? In the United States and

Australia, it would be illegal for anyone to own as much of the media

as Murdoch does. Can we not take example from them in this country?

Both of the countries are much better in this case. It's true. He

has a higher percentage here than in America for instance or anybody

has in America. The biggest organisation are the BBC. These are

issues -- As Hugh was putting it, we are very heavily regulated.

are not regulated by Ofcom in the same way. Go on, Chris. Answer the

point. It wouldn't be allowed in America. They've been studied by

the competition authorities over the years. The Office of Fair

Trading looks at them and makes recommendations to of government

and the current situation has been accepted and the governments on

both sides. The woman there in the middle. With regard's Murdoch's

monopoly, this is why we have the problem we have now. If we had

never given it and he hadn't had the power maybe he wouldn't have

been handing down the politicians. You mean he shouldn't have been

able to buy -- Owning the Times and the Sun and the News of the World.

Between the broad sheets and the tabloids there is a massive

difference. The tabloids sensationalise everything and

things seem to get blown out of the water and it doesn't relate to

facts. You don't have to buy them, of course. It's informing the

people of Britain and if you only read the Sun that's a problem.

Long ago I was minister responsible for monopolies and it is still the

same legislation. A minister has to agree to refer a case to the OFT.

In my case, I foolishly referred the Observer and Guardian merger.

Since that time no minister of either government has referred any

mergers of major newspapers which happen to support them. Only the

ones that don't, so you have to take the ministers out of it and

there has to be a law that is automatic. Millions of people every

Sunday used to buy the News of the World and now there is the story

that they've managed to get their stories by bribing people so should

the population of this country not look at themselves and say why we

were buying this trash in the first place? The report that Hugh spoke

of earlier indicated that there was illegality in terms of hacking

across almost all of the newspapers. Do you believe that? I don't

disbelieve what the Commission wrote. Do you think others --

When they came to see me from that same Commissioner's office and they

showed me the notes on me, I said what is this and who are they

working for and the officer said, "It looks from his notes like he's

working for everyone, pretty much all the press." Look at the papers

and how they have covered the stories. Most of the tabloids have

not gone really hey and that's pot, kettle and black. They were all at

it. The Times wrote a very harsh criticism of the News of the World.

Three years after the beginning of the scandal. Douglas you have been

lobbying me. This information in the report was produced when you

were in government, so if you have concerns about those, why not do

something then? If you were this evening you accept the case for a

judicial-led inquiry that could compel witnesses would take that

point seriously, but not from you. This is Question Time. We don't do

one issue. We have got five minutes and I should have said if you are

tweeting this is our hash tag. It's too late for all of that. Jeff

Harvey. Swiftly at the end. France 100% of their trains are

made in France. In Germany, 90% of their trains are made in Germany.

Is it right to be laying off 1400 workers in Derby and awarding a

�1.4 billion contract to Siemens in Germany?

APPLAUSE These were the trains that were

going to be built here in this country. We have to be swift, but

it's bombardier who are laying off people. Jon Gaunt. It's a little

more complicated, because of the finance initiative that is behind

it. However, what has been happening is the Tories have been

blaming obviously Labour for it and then also the actual core problem

is the EU. You wouldn't actually have this problem if Germany and

France. They protect their jobs. Gordon Brown said British jobs for

British people. It's about time that all of our stuff, as much as

possible, we re-invest in the manufacturing industry. It doesn't

matter if it's a Honda badge as long as it's built in it country.

All our council vehicles should be made in Britain. How do the Germans

and French get away with it? This is another reason why we need a

referendum on Europe. They get away with it, because they stick two

fingers up to all this stupid ledge slaition. France and Germany are in

the EU. It depends on how you write the tender documents. You wrote

this one? No, we didn't. We faced a situation similar to this before we

left office and we reached agreement there would be an

assembly facility here in the United Kingdom, so the order went

to Hitachi, but the trains will be manufactured in the north-east of

England. I simply don't understand why your colleagues, Chris, didn't

have those conversations and are now trying to blame the previous

government, when you just nodded this one through with the cost of

hundreds and hundreds of British jobs. Breath-taking. You wrote the

tender document and you set the criteria. We inherited the contract.

It's nothing to do with us. You've been in the government 14 months.

Is it true or not true? Labour wrote the tender document and the

Tories were bound by it? The tender document can be altered in the

course of the negotiations? Shirley Williams? I'm going to say

something very unpopular now. Think very hard before you go for

protectionism. We have thousands of employed people in this country who

work for German and French and Japanese firms and they have on the

Continent thousands of people who work for British firms. If you want

to start down this train, I'll tell you what will happen, you will lose

as least as many jobs as you get and you bring in protectionism you

will see the 1930's back again. APPLAUSE

. Hugh Grant. First the man there. Jon was talking about British jobs

in England. The fundamental problem is I think health and safety laws

totally prohibit any amount of manufacturing in England. OK.

ridiculous. I'm in a distribution company and the health and safety

laws we have to abide by and we don't manufacture. It's

unbelievable. We have had to let people go. I do not even

manufacture. Most of those are coming from the EU. I'm sure that

what Shirley says is probably right, no insult to Shirley, because I've

grown to love you, I'm sure it makes sense economically, but it's

just so depressing. That's the trouble with Europe. If you add up

all the numbers it's better that we are in the EU and all that, but in

terms of just morale for the British, it's so awful to be paying

our tax pounds to a German company rather than to keep our own men in

works. It is bad for morale and we lose our identity and I see this

country slightly losing morale and I think it needs it back.

APPLAUSE That ends Question Time for tonight.

It's also the end of the present series. We'll be back on 8th

September in London, with a special programme ten years after the 9/11

attacks and on the panel, among others, the former Foreign

Secretary, David Miliband. If you want to come to that programme or

the following week, when we are in Northern Ireland in Londonderry,