17/02/2013 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning. Horsemeat is on our menu this Sunday. I hope it is not

on yours. Looking at the papers, one supermarket boss does the

Telegraph that the pressure to sell the cheapest stuff inevitably

strains the supply chain. Here to take the strain out of reading all

the Sunday papers, two people who have done it for you, then editor

of the Times and formerly editor of the Sunday Times, John Witherow,

and the Labour peer Helena Kennedy. Beside that Telegraph front page on

horsemeat, a whistleblower tells the Sunday Times that the

Government ignored warnings about horsemeat illegally entering the

food chain two years ago. This morning, we will ask the CEO of

Iceland whether we are all paying an unexpected price for cheap food.

Romanian horses have been identified as part of the problem

in our food. Romanian people and Bulgarians are a problem for the

Government, anxious that they don't flock here to take our benefits and

eat our burgers. In a Europe which cherishes free movement of people,

I will ask Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith how he

plans to turn the government's warm words on restrictions into

something tangible, especially after the Appeal Court ruled this

week that schemes to force jobseekers to work were legally

dodgy. With politicians inching towards a deal on press control

that some argue flies in the face of the Leveson report, I will be

asking the parents of Madeleine McCann if their evidence was a

waste of time. And if nothing compares to Sinead

O'Connor. She will be here, singing one of her new songs. First, this

morning's news. Good morning. The Home Secretary is

promising a new law to stop potentially dangerous foreign

criminals staying in the UK by arguing their right to a family

life here. In a newspaper article, Theresa May has accused some judges

of ignoring government guidance which says the prisoner's human

rights should be weighed against any risk to the public.

You legislation to prevent convicted criminals avoiding

deportation would be welcomed by the family of Amy Houston.

The 12-year-old was injured after being struck by a car in Blackburn

in 2003. The driver, who was jailed for four months, was due to be

deported by won leave to stay in the UK after his lawyer argued that

he had a right to family life as he had two children with a British

woman. It is not an isolated case. Recent figures suggest that 177

foreign criminals avoided deportation last year after

convincing judges that they had a right to a family life in Britain.

It is something the Home Secretary pledged to tackle during her

Conservative Party speech in 2011. We will change the Immigration

Rules for last of Now I'm a strongly-worded attack on the

judiciary, Theresa May has he said the actions of a minority of

immigration judges were not acceptable, and accused some judges

of thinking they can ignore Parliament when they think it came

to the wrong conclusion. She said a new Immigration Bill

will be published later this year to give full legal weight to

ministers' demands that foreign criminals should not routinely be

able to avoid deportation by citing the European Convention of Human

Rights. Mrs may also warned that the delay in getting back onto the

statute book would inevitably mean there would be more victims of

violent crimes committed by foreigners in this country.

People accused of sexual crimes should not be named until they have

been convicted, according to the head of the organisation which

represents barristers in England and Wales. Currently, the victims

of sex offences are automatically given anonymity, but but not

defendants. Maura McGowan, the chair of the Bar Council, says

there is a case for changing the law because of the stigma that

comes with being accused of a sexual crime.

An investigation has begun after a woman was killed by a car that was

competing in the Scottish Rally Championship. 50-year-old Joy

Robson was watching the rally near Loch Ness yesterday, when a car

left the track and hit spectators. Two other people including an

eight-year-old boy were injured. A teenager has died after he was

shot in east London last night. The 19-year-old boy was attacked in a

street in Clapton. A 32-year-old man was also shot and injured. He

is in hospital in a stable condition. Detectives are trying to

work out a motive for the shooting. The Pope will make one of his final

public appearances this morning as he blesses thousands of people in

St Peter's Square. Pope Benedict XVI announced his retirement last

week and will leave his role at the end of the month. Cardinals who

will choose his successor before Easter have started arriving in

Rome. I will be back to the headlines

before 10 o'clock. Let's look at the front pages. This

is the one I mentioned earlier, the Sunday Telegraph with a warning

from the boss of Waitrose. We will have the boss of Iceland on the

programming just a while. In the Sunday Times, it would not be a

Sunday without a Cabinet split story, this time over Beijing.

There is also a story about Prince Andrew. It is quite a feast this

week if you are a fan of George Osborne. There is a story about a

tax and the Liberals. There is another front-page story with

George Osborne, pledging global action on tax abuse. And there is

again on the front of the Independent, in a stories

suggesting that with the inflation rate being higher than was forecast,

spending on education is falling. The Sunday Express - immigrant

crime soars. We will talk about that with Iain Duncan Smith in a

while. And as well as Hugh Grant, who is a virulent campaign against

the worst excesses of the press, there is a story suggesting that

the Liberal Democrats might want to be snipping all over your house to

find out you are -- how much you are worth. Welcome to her Eleanor

and John. John, it is your first time and my first time. Helena, you

are a veteran. What have you found? There are a number of papers

covering stories about immigration. It is always a popular thing for

politicians to reach for. I was disappointed that this story is in

the Daily Mail on the front page and also inside. It is a blistering

attack from the Home Secretary on judges. This depresses me, because

it is a common story with Home Secretaries that this is what they

end up doing. She says she will fight any judge who stands in her

way. Would she win? We have to remember that this is about the

independence of the judiciary and why that is so important. It is

imperative that judges are not under the thumb of Home Secretaries.

It is of course frustrating for Home Secretaries, but it is not

good to see a vocal attack on the judges. But the suggestion is that

they have been ignoring the guidance and keeping too many

foreign criminals in this country. But there are no statistics as to

the number of cases. There was one case mentioned in the Daily Mail

about a young man who was being allowed to stay after being

sentenced. The purpose of criminal courts is to sentence people for

the crimes they commit. Then it falls to the immigration courts to

decide if they should be deported. Sometimes the criminal courts make

orders that someone should be considered for deportation. It is a

hard decision when someone says, my mother, father, sisters and

brothers are in this country, and I am to be sent back to the country

from where I originally came, with nobody? That presumably the judges

would be happy with new legislation to clarify that.

A well, we had a new legislation not long ago and the guidelines are

clear. But judges have to make subtle decisions about what you do

if the community is being protected by the sentences of the criminal

courts. Then when they come out, hopefully they will not offend

again. Do they stay with their families or go back? The numbers we

are talking about are miniscule. This is a populist bit of

politicking. John, you edited the Sunday Times for 18 years. Now you

edit the Times. Has the Sunday Times gone downhill? Quite the

contrary. The one I want to highlight is this piece on the

anniversary of the death of Marie Colvin, the Sunday Times' Middle-

East correspondent who was killed in Syria a year ago this week. The

Sunday Times has sent another impressive woman correspondent,

Lebanese born, to find the spot where Marie was killed. Sadly, she

could not. The place is now so destroyed by this terrible civil

war that she could not find it. She found out that town is the same as

it was a year ago, so there has been no progress. It is mainly

controlled by the rebel army. We are now almost two years into the

Syrian civil war, and it is a stalemate. More than 70,000 people

have been killed, and it is a terrible conflict. Marie, who was

an extraordinary war and, I would like to think her death had made a

difference, but sadly it didn't. But she did make a difference in

many other ways. She was an inspiration to many women in

journalism. One of the sad things in this is that the newspaper world

is now no longer able to afford as many foreign correspondents as it

once did. That is true. Luckily, the Times and Sunday Times are

still sending people into Syria. People are still taking risks.

Marie is indeed an inspiration, but it is tragic that a death like that

could not have brought about more international involvement to try

and solve this. What about the Telegraph and the horsemeat

coverage? The horsemeat story has continued and continued. The

Telegraph has on its front page a story about how the people most

affected by this our shoppers who are having to live on short budgets.

As the cuts are biting, they are increasingly looking for a cheap

way of feeding families. The poorest people buy the cheapest

food and they are most at risk from all of this. So there is a story

here which is about, who is most affected? There is probably not one

of us who has not eaten horsemeat in some form. When you are waiting

shepherd's pie or something in some restaurant or the canteen at the

Old Bailey, you are eating something that is contaminated.

There is a canteen at the Old Bailey. Any of these places where

we rush in to get food quickly is probably selling of this stuff.

it terrible to eat? I know people do not want to eat horsemeat if

they think it is something else, but Nigella Lawson was interviewed

in the Daily Mail today and she said she was fed horsemeat all the

time as a child. If you are receiving it as a delicacy which is

a very fine, well prepared horsemeat, it is delicious, like

prosciutto. But we are given to understand we are talking about

scabby old horses from parts of the world where they really are being

thrown on to the heap. And they are mashed up for by gesture. So there

is a question about the quality of what it is. And you don't know what

has been put into the waltzers, what sort of drugs. There is a

story in the papers here, the Sunday Times actually, about how

horsemeat warnings were ignored. Two years ago, actually, it is a

Sunday Telegraph story about how the Government was alerted to this.

We have been seeing a lightening up on the FSA, the agency that should

regulate food, they have been lightening up on their inspections

for a period of time. It is a global thing. We will talk more

about that with the CEO of Iceland. In is about maximising profits.

John, you have the Daily Mail front page about the heirloom tax? There

are a lot of tax stories around today, largely on the back of

Labour changing its policy on the mansion tax and reinstating the 10

pence starting tax. The Daily Mail has a story about how the Lib Dems

explore other means of taxing us. They have come up with a novel one,

which is to consider taxing people's jewellery, paintings and

other assets. Taken to its logical extent, it means tax inspectors

would have to go into people's houses. Luckily, I don't possess

much jewellery of that kind. But I suspect you would find that they

would look at people's insurance policies. They would look to see

what you have insured, and for how much. And then people would be

taxed that way. But then people would not insure their jewellery.

It seems to take taxation to absurd levels. They should be looking at

how to run government more efficiently, rather than raising

taxes. But you have to look at behind this and what it is about.

It is about the fact that the burden of most of the constraints

is fallen on the shoulders of the poor. So people are looking at how

this can be evened out a bit more. The well-to-do continue to be able

to live a very different kind of life to the majority of people,

including the middle classes. is related to one of the many

George Osborne stories. I picked out at this story in the front

pages of the Sunday Times, which is that Osborne is facing a challenge,

not because the Conservative Party is looking increasingly like the

party that is cushioning the well- off. Labour and the Liberal

Democrats are trying to find ways of evening this kind of burden out.

It is ordinary middle-class families and poor families who at

the moment are suffering the consequences of this, not the well-

to-do. So Ed Miliband has been looking at what the Liberal

Democrats have come up with and is endorsing it and saying people

don't need houses worth more than �2 million. That should be taxed.

If you are talking about us all being in this together, you have to

find ways of making it apply to the Another story in the Sunday Times

about Pope Benedict? He has considerable influence on over who

succeeds him. He has appointed a lot of cardinals.

This story is he has appointed cardinals who have a bias towards

selecting somebody from the third world. I think that would be a

great idea. Wave had too many European popes for thousands of

years now. To get somebody from Africa or Latin America I think

would be a great step forward. So it is an encouraging storey. People

have put money on the African cardinal.'S Frontrunner. What else

have you go the? A story from the Mail? Everywhere there are stories

from the terrible story of the killing in South Africa and the

arrest of Oscar Pistorious. I picked up this story,,

"Bladerunner's victim's father says 'there isn't any hatred in our

hearts'." There is something where there is terrible tragedy people

reach to the better part of themselves and haven't reached a

judgment adds it whether he is guilty of murder or not. They have

lost their child, their daughter. They are not looking to immediately

call out for revenge but are actually saying - we aren't hating

anybody and certainly not the man who has been arrested. We just feel

the loss of our child. There is something wonderful when people

beyond in that kind of way to a tragedy. There is a big story here

in the Sunday Times. It is a shot in the dark, describing all the

events but one of the columnists, Kevin McCalum from Johannesburg is

saying he actually once interviewed Oscar Pistorious and saw he kept

beside his bed at gun at easy reach. I know South Africa is a dangerous

place and there are break-ins but the business of firearms being so

readily available leads to this sort of tragedy. You have a story

about Hugh Grant. They mention his baby joy. Yes, he is the leader of

habgd off, leading the campaign to regulate the press more closely. --

Hacked Off. He has had a second baby. It was his will that the

woman wasn't identified earlier. And the effect of Leveson is the

press have stayed well-clear of Hugh Grant.

The Mail sent him a text saying - congratulations on your son, would

you like to comment? How did they know We will a very to find out at

some stage. Then he tweeted that he was delighted to have another child.

It is very Leveson-compliant and presumably Hugh Grant is content

with the way it has come out. That's some of the effect you are

seeing of Leveson already. Are you one of the editors traipsing in and

out of Downing Street having the chats about how Leveson will be

responded to? I am. I have been meeting the Liberal Democrats and

Labour, too. How close is the Government to coming up to

something everyone can agree on? I think they have come up with a neat

solution, frankly it. Takes in most of Leveson's recommendations it.

Doesn't go for statute, rightly, I believe. It has come up with a Rhyl

charter. Helena is giving me a look, I don't think she believes it.

don't believe it. It would impose the toughest form of self-

regulation anywhere in the world. I think what is on the table is very

tough on the press. We don't like all of it. We don't like exemplary

damages at all, but I think the Liberal Democrats and Labour should

agree to it. Do you think Labour has shifted? Ed Miliband was pretty

clear immediately after Leveson reported? There was contradictory

statements coming out of them. are having the private discussions.

Well there are contradictory statements. The Liberal Democrats

are not too far from accepting a Rhyl chart we are these terms -- --

a Royal Charter it. Would take two- thirds of the House to change it.

Why are you sceptical? I think reaching for a Royal Charter, one

of the things we have been trying to use less and less a prerogative

power, one of those powers this is unexamined and not democratic, is

one of those things that I think is not the solution here. There has

been a campaign by sections of the media to say that Leveson's report

was calling for Government having its hands all over the press. That

is not true. The idea is that there is simply an underpinning. There

were no teeth in the Press Complaints Commssion before, this

is to give it some teeth. It is simply to absolutely make sure that

the self-regulation is working. You need to have some kind of

legislation to make that happen and the press are on the run from all

of this and they have done a very smart campaign suggesting that

freedom of the press is at risk. Let's legislate for freedom of the

press, that there should be public interest cases and so on and make

sure it is protected but you have to protect the victims who have

been given a terrible time by the media. If this doesn't stick, and

you think you are close to an agreement but, it is either this or

who know what is? I should think if it doesn't work there will be

attempt to impose a statute it. Has incredible teeth, in fact it has

jaws. It is powerful. I think the Opposition parties, well Labour

would be sensible to accept it. Whale talk to Kate and Gerry McCann

about this in a while. For now. Thank you very much.

It was always sunny in Andrew's studios. What about everyonery

where else. Here is Nick miller? where else. Here is Nick miller?

-- But what about everywhere else? Today we complete a weekend of fine

weather with that sunshine. After a chilly start for some of us, that

temperature heading up the coast to where it should be at this time of

year. We have more of a breeze towards the south coast, south-west

and running through Northern Ireland. We have to wait sometime

before it brightens up in Northern Ireland. Eventually this afternoon

we should see sunshine coming through. It is a brighter day in

western Scotland. The Moray cost and the north coast of Northern

Ireland could see temperatures around 10 or 1 1. Hovering close to

freezing in parts of England and Wales. And patchy fog in the south.

But by 3.00pm we have recovered to around six to eight degrees. A

windier day in the far south-west and west of Wales. It turns chilly

this evening with clear skies. As the night goes on, the cloud

increases to England and Wales. Meaning the frost here is patchy,

more widespread frost. A colder night to come in Scot whrand some

patches of mist and fog to start on Monday morning. -- in Scotland with

patches of mist and fog. Tuesday more cloud from the east. From

Wednesday, generally temperatures are lower and a windchill. The cold

is coming back. Like it or lump it, the winter isn't finished with us

the winter isn't finished with us the winter isn't finished with us

In May 2007, a trip to the sun turned an anonymous British family

into people who were nationally and internationally known. Kate and

Gerry McCann's eldest daughter, Madeleine, went missing in Portugal.

Initial media support turned into suspicion. The McCann's privacy was

treated with contempt by sexes of the press who stopped at nothing to

write something, anything about the couple wheb. They attended the

Leveson inquiry, the McCanns were clear on why they had decided to

take part. A system has to be put in place to protect ordinary people

about the damage the media can cause (when it is your voice

against a powerful media it, doesn't hold weight. We are

desperately shouting out internally - please stop what you are doing.

We are trying to find our daughter and you are stopping our chances.

Among the worst offenders newspapers owned by the Express

group. The McKprans shown some of their stories -- McCanns. It is

disgusting. I think if memory serves right, they also said they

stored her body in a freezer. got hold of of a copy of her

private diary and published it without telling her. It was my way

of communicating with Madeleine. There was no respect shown to

Madeleine or a human building. hoped for a change in the law a new

press regulator with legal backing. Kate and Jerry McCann, you heard

John there talking about the Royal Charter idea. If that's what we end

up with, was going to Leveson a west of your time? I think it

certainly won't be what we were hoping to achieve. We very much

disagree with, that Leveson was tough. I think Leveson has been

generous to the press, and more than their behaviour or certain

than their behaviour or certain sections of the media deserve,

really. They are getting a last chance at

self-regulation, which for me was actually a step too far. Can you

explain from your point of view, what is the practical difference

between what Leveson wanted and what now seems to be the

compromise? What difference does that make I have three concerns at

the minute: the first is the transparncy. The quienyir was open.

You could see what was going -- the inquiry was open. You could see the

evidence. What has happened is exactly what was talked about.

There is a number of private meetings. The minutes or

discussions are not published. That leads to serious concerns about

independence of what is being proposed. Major part of Leveson was

acknowledging that the press had got too close to politicians. The

third concern for us, and what is being proposed, is we are going to

end up with sub-Leveson recommendations, really.

Particularly around independence. Both of the Board who are going to

eversee it and the fact that there should be complete independence of

the appointments of that board. struck by something you are quoted

as saying, Gerry, "The Leveson package, including legal

underpinning is the minimum acceptable compromise for us." I

wonder if it was up to you, if they gave you the power to draft

something, the if you tour of the press, what would you do? -- future

of the press. To be honest, I have already said this to you, I feel

that the press has lost its entitlement to self-regulation over

many, many years. I would have liked to have seen actually

statutory regulation, not self- regulation. I get the impression if

it was up to you, you would go much further. People wouldn't blame you.

What would you do? I would make it that there would be independent

regulation. I think when we saw the Leveson recommendation, for us it

was a seven out of ten. I think Lord Leveson has come up with

something that is balanced and he has tried to be as fair as possible

to every party involved. But I think what the Government are

proposing with the charter, and a charter body is everseen by

ministers which takes away the independence, it is a compromise of

a compromise. Why do the press and Government not want to be

accountable like everybody else? The press are the first to hold

people in authority to account. you noticed any improvement in the

press since Leveson? It's very difficult to say that. You only

know about your own individual circumstances. Even there? Are

things been better? Obviously the situation for us, we still have

episodes where things are published which we would much prefer weren't

published. There has been a recent headline, front page of a Sunday

newspaper about a potential fleed Madeleine's case it. Hadn't been

fully explord. -- potential lead which hadn't been fully explored.

It is something we raised that Madeleine and her safety is often

treated with contempt. We have no preDes currently and I have

concerns if editors get what they want about w how complaints are

dealt with, it would only be certain complaints and they could

decide which ones. One of the things we are very, very concerned

with is about accuracy and standards and consideration for the

public. We want the regulator to be able to protect the interests of

the public. The recent story about Madeleine that you were unhappy

with. Did you try to speak to the paper concerned? I wrote to the

editor the newspaper and explained my concerns. I have to say I got a

reply back which made my blood boil. It was basically telling me that he,

they knew what was best for Madeleine. They knew best what was

for missing children. Despite what we as parents thought and despite

what the Metropolitan Police thought, they knew what was best.

That is really concerning. Post- Leveson inquiry that this is the

pons we are getting. I believe -- this is the response we are getting.

I believe if the Royal Charter goes through, this is what we will get.

This is the chance, it might not come again. The public need to know

what is happening. There has to be total transparency. What Leveson

was proposing, is not what the Government is proposing. Do you

have hope that what you want might come in? I have not given up hope.

I think the vast majority of MPs are fully supportive Leveson. I

have mentioned this before but if our parliamentarians want to redeem

themselves in a public light, they know that the right thing is to

implement Leveson in full, not a compromise, not a sop to the

Would you eat a beef product if you knew there was a 1% chance of it

containing horsemeat? Test results this week have not finished dish

concerns about the provenance of our food. If we think horsemeat is

distasteful, what about the prospect of suppliers, supermarkets

and politicians blaming each other for the state of affairs? The Sun

yesterday castigated cowardly retailers, saying they are still

ducking key questions. Malcolm Walker is chief executive of the

supermarket chain Iceland, and he is here to answer questions. When

you see these disputes between politicians and supermarkets, where

do you think it the responsibility lies? Well, the supermarkets are

visible because they are on the high street. But supermarkets

should not be blamed. British supermarkets have a fantastic

reputation for food safety. They go to enormous lengths to protect

their brand. If we are going to blame somebody, let's start with

local authorities, because there is a whole side to this industry that

is invisible. That is the catering industry. Schools, hospitals, it is

a massive business for cheap food. Local authorities award contract

based purely on price. So if you are looking to blame somebody for

driving down food quality, it is invisible. It is schools, hospitals

and prisons are, local authorities drive the price down. Sir is your

message not to worry so much about the stuff you take home and cook

yourself, but be vigilant because you don't know what you are eating

outside the home? Supermarkets carry out an enormous range of

testing procedures on every product that bears their name. OK, you

could say we have not tested for horse, but why would we? We don't

test for hedgehog either. We stand by our products. At Iceland, we

have had no horsemeat in any of our products. And I don't believe

supermarkets have either. We are talking about two different things

- horsemeat flesh, and contamination. Anybody passing off

horsemeat, horse carcasses cut up and sold into the industry, that is

not going to the supermarket business. But because it is out

there in the supply chain and in some of the factories, you are

getting minute amounts of contamination. I take it you are

joking about hedgehog, but three weeks ago, people would have

assumed you were joking about horsemeat in our food. However

minuscule the amount, we want to know that it is not there and that

systems are in place to stop it. is not there. There is most --

there is no horsemeat in any supermarket product. You are

talking about contamination in microscopic amounts, and that is

there because some rogues suppliers have been using their factories to

process horsemeat for other purposes. It has not been going to

supermarkets. Will there ever be a system whereby we can be at

absolutely sure where every product has come from and be able to trace

it back to source, or is that nuts? No. You have got it now for the

majority of products. Supermarkets normally sell three levels of

products - a premium brand, Standard brand and then the white

label economy brand, which is made to a price. That is the one people

should be looking at. But all the ingredients are clearly labelled on

the back of the packet. Iceland has never sold economy products. We do

not sell cheap food. We have one level of food. We know where all

our food comes from. We follow the supply chain right the way through,

and it is short. The majority of are ready meals are made in our own

factory. The meat for that factory comes from our own cutting house.

The meat from the other cutting house comes from farms in Wales. We

know where it comes from. The boss of which rose today was casting

aspersions in the newspapers today on cheap food, perhaps the sort of

products you are talking about. Would you eat other supermarket Pym

and value products? Personally, I would not eat value supermarket

products, because they will not contain much meat. There will be

other things in there, whether it is Rusk or filler or whatever it is.

We don't sell economy products. am just wondering what happens if

you have a choice of which level of food you want to eat, that is fine.

But for people on a budget, what do they do? There is nothing wrong

with those products. I am just saying that the real culprits in

this are the catering industries. It is those backstreet

manufacturers who are supplying products to the catering industry,

and a lot of that is being bought by local authorities for schools

and hospitals. That is where the problem really nice. What other

action would you like from central government? I don't see what they

can do. We are talking about one or two Road suppliers who have raided

these premises. They can be stopped, and that will stop the supply going

into the food chain. The government got a bloody nose in

the courts this week over some of its back-to-work programmes in what

became known as a Poundland case. Undeterred, it is determined to

tweak the benefit system further in preparation for the arrival of a

knows how many Romanians and Bulgarians next year. As from

January 1st, there will be no restriction on how many choose to

come to the UK to seek work and claim benefits, like anyone else

who lives here. The Prime Minister this week said that he feared that

people might come to Britain to take advantage of us, and added

that there is a lot more to do to make sure we are not a soft touch.

The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is here. What

about that Daily Mail story today? Theresa May is planning to

introduce primary legislation to force judges to keep foreign

criminals out of this country. reality is that the point she is

making is supported by pretty much anyone in Parliament with any

common sense. Over a period of time, judges seem to have moved across to

the idea that somehow, this right to have a family life comes all

other rights. Parliament has made it clear in previous legislation

that if a criminal commits a crime, they should be in a stronger

position to kick them out if they came from overseas. That is what

she will tighten up in the guidance. I wonder if she is not closing the

stable door after the... Well, let's not talk about horses. When

this guidance came in last July, Labour said, you will need primary

legislation for this, and we will back it. Why has it taken until

now? We what the judges to be reasonable and react properly to

what Parliament says. But in the intervening months, how many

foreign criminals are still here? The courts reacted strongly to what

Parliament said. It is different now. We have to do a lot more to

get the courts to make sure they do the right thing. The judges know

the mood and the mind of Parliament, but they have continued to trump

that with this business of a right to a family life. Parliament made

its views clear. Both the big political parties agreed that this

was the right direction. Theresa May now wants to enshrine that in

legislation. But she was told to do this last July and how she has

waited until February to write articles about it. There are lots

of things going on. So it is less important than other things going

on? No, what we all believed was that it was enough for Parliament

to express its strong view, and in the past, courts would have stuck

to that. They haven't, so we will legislate quickly. Let's turn to

Romanians and Bulgarians. The Daily Mail today says there is a secret

Chequers summit planned for Thursday on scroungers and illegal

immigrants. The Prime Minister and George Osborne and the chief of

staff at Number 10 will be there. A polling guru will be there. I did

not see your name. Are you in on this secret meeting? I have already

had a meeting with the Prime Minister and a team of people last

week about this. I had a separate meeting with the Home Secretary.

She, myself, Eric Pickles and others are discussing how to make

sure there are no loopholes. What have you come up with? And the

benefits, we have a thing called a habitual residency test which will

be applied to anybody coming in from Europe or elsewhere. It is the

idea that are you genuinely here to be a resident, or are you coming

for benefits? My JobCentre staff have a lot of flexibility as to how

they apply that. They look at leasing arrangements, the time

spent here. This is how the system works at the moment. We are able to

be reasonably tight with these people. We are looking at the way

we apply some of those benefits, for example, whether or not they

are contributory benefits or not. We can look at leasing arrangements

and whether it is feasible to look at whether somebody has a leasing

arrangement lasting nine months a year, rather than just a matter of

months. I believe we will be able to tighten this up. We have a big

battle here to do with the European Union. They are already trying to

in fact me over the strength of opposition on the big draw

residency test. They are saying we don't have the right to any kind of

test. So that is a battle. But it is not just us. People like the

Dutch and the Scandinavians are on our side. We think we need to

tighten up. I think we will be able to make those regulations tougher

for people coming in to take advantage of our benefits. We know

the Government has not released any figures for the estimates of

Romanians and Bulgarians who might come here. It is one thing not to

release them, but have they been compiled? Not to my knowledge. I

have asked whether there is it any rational figure that can be gained,

but the last Government got it so wrong that it shows you that

estimating the numbers coming through is difficult. A thing could

is pointless trying to estimate it, because we -- the last government

thought it would be a few thousand, and we ended up with a couple of

million. If you look at where the Romanians have already gone, you

get a better picture. The majority of them have settled at the moment

in Germany. Ironically, they are also settling in Spain. A nicer

weather. The Spanish government is now trying to work with us to

tighten that up. The majority are going to Germany and Spain. We want

to make sure they can't come here and claim benefits. The last

government did not record which migrants coming in were then

receiving benefits. We will record that, so we know exactly how many

people are here and if they get access to benefits, who they are.

Then we can tighten up. Our Rome are potentially more of a problem

then Romanian sand Bulgarians? -- Roma? I don't look at any

particular category. We just look at people who want to come here and

claim benefits without making contributions to the tax bill and

National Insurance bill. That is my only criterion. President Sarkozy

in France managed to repatriate thousands of Roma. Don't you fancy

that? I am not President Sarkozy. My view is simple, that we make

sure our door is shut to those who want to claim benefits, and open to

those who want to contribute and make this economy strong. There are

good economic reasons for some migration. It is important to

approach this on a wider range. The Home Secretary has already cut net

migration by a quarter. We have begun to get a grip on what was a

system completely out of control under the last government. I would

not pick on individual groups. you will make sure the only people

who are here are those who should be here. What about what they can

claim and what they can send back home? David Blunkett, former Home

Secretary, thinks it is crackers that taxpayers are funding child

benefit for children who don't even live in this country. Are you going

to stop that? I am very fond of David Blunkett, and I love it when

he expands about these things when he sat for 13 years and did nothing.

Labour criticised us, but they did nothing to cut net migration.

benefit? Under the European free movement rules, if an individual

comes to work in another member state, the child provisions for

that state are then netted out against what they would receive in

their own country, and if it is a higher figure, the net figure is

then transferred across to their family in that country. Do I agree

with that? Absolutely not. But we will have to change that by

speaking to the commission to saying it is absurd that people

come over simply to attract a benefit which is higher than theirs.

There is a big issue for us for countries that have good support

for children, like we and Germany do, we want to discuss with them

about how we can change that. The Prime Minister is strong on

this. But this is what we inherited on a Labour Government who let the

fld gates open. Turning to the -- flood gates open.

Turning to the attitude you this I this may betray of the British

Government's view of Romanians. The leaders in Romania say - look, we

are European citizens and wonder why they are being singled out?

They are not actually being singled out. This rule and changes we make

to our habitual residency tests would apply to everybody. This is a

process of saying - look, people shouldn't use the free movement

rule to travel around looking for the best benefit they can get.

That's the critical bit the Commission has to understand, which

is why if you asked me the question about the roamia, I don't see it

like that. I see it on the basis that Social Security and welfare

has never been in the providence of the European Union and now they are

trying to reach in and make sure they can take control and we should

say no, it is set by national governments. Have you considered

removing Britain from the Free Movement Directive? No. Because we

are beneficiaries between British people go to work abroad. It is

about getting the balance right. We want people to be able to trfl to

get work but not benefits. -- to travel to get work.

It is locking the door to benefits. Most people. I suspect most Germans

and Swedes and Danes would nod their heads in agreement when I say

that, that's what we get from their governments. They are all in

agreement something needs to change. I want to move on to benefits, in

terms of the famous "bedroom tax." There is no such thing as a bedroom

tax. I know you don't like that. is none sense. There is no bedroom

tax. Your department has confirmed to the Sunday People that some

pensioners - the story has been about people at working age - but

some pensioners will be hit by the bedroom tax, whose name you don't

like. Not existing claimants but new claimants. Is that true?

They have asked us a hypothetical question and got a hypothetical

answer. This is about under- occupancy. Let's be clear about

that. For years the Government did nothing about this simple fact

which is that we have in social sector housing a very large number

of people, in houses, where they have many more bedrooms than they

actually need, something like 1 million spare bedrooms are sitting

narned social housing, meanwhile there are over 250,000 people on

over-crowding and a million people in the waiting list. The last

Government let housing building fall to the lowest level since

1920s. We inherited a bill that doubled from �11 billion to �20

billion set to rise to �25 billion a year. I've said what we want is

those who are under-occupying their properties, we need to help them to

be able to move to property that they would occupy... You mean force

them. We are saying to them - look, you are stay where you are.

cough up. But if you do, you have to pay more. We know you are poor,

but pay more. No, wait a minute. Exactly the same people with the

same criteria who rent in the private sector under housing

benefit are not allowed to have extra bedrooms. They have never

been. They are only paid in the private sector for the number of

bedrooms they occupy. The point of social house something to help them.

That's what we do. All we are saying is people who work on

marginal income who don't receive housing benefit, those who are in

the private rented sector, they know very well that you occupy a

house that you can fit into because, look, the tax payer is paying about

�900 per household to help people stay in social housing. Tell me

about pensioners. The point about the pensioners is they are not

included in this. No pensioner is going to be included in this.

Existing. Exactly. Existing pensioners and going forward where

somebody is in work, where there is a pensioner who, for example, is

not retired and is working and another one that it is, where

somebody is in receipt of the means-tested pension, the pension

guarantee, they won't be included either. The reality is that they

are looking at Universial Credit further down the road and they have

asked a specific question about that and yet to set finally what we

do with that group. It is not our intention that pensioners in anyway

will suffer under this. It is not about punishing people, it is about

trying to reallocate the housing so people live in a home they occupy

and others who are overcrowded, of which there are a million on the

waiting list, a quarter of a million looking for homes where

they can have extra rooms and we have a million spare bedrooms

kicking around. It is not punishing. It is about getting the balance

right. Councils are already beginning to sort this out.

started talking about judges in another context. The Appeal Court

gave the Government a bit of a kicking this week. What do you

think of the judges, on Poundland? The High Court upheld all of our

position first time around, the Appeal Court came in - and the

important thing to know is what they didn't do. The meem went to

appeal, this woman particularly, they said it is against her human

rights to be told in a work experience programme that she

should work only paid by her benefit, that this is something

against her human rights. The court said rubbish. Let's talk about what

they did say. They said the regulations were set too wide and

weren't specific enough. The High Court said they were. They have

said they weren't. I have already put emergency regulations down.

That's ended it. I am not going to give way on this. Clierly tell you

this: people who -- I clearly tell you this: people who think it is

right to take benefit and do nothing for it, those days are over.

That's not what happened in the case of Kate Riley She volunteered

for a work experience programme which many young people want to do.

And then decided that actually didn't want to do it any more. It

was made pretty clear at the time that they would suffer a withdrawal

of benefit if they didn't do what was asked. Gl Kate Riley has a

degree in geology. She was doing voluntary work in a museum. Then

she's told - you must go and stack shelves in Poundland. She wasn't

told that at all. What happened was work experience - let me explain

what work experience. When I came in, I was asked by thousands of

kids up and down the country, who said - we can't get jobs because

the first thing they ask us for, what experience do you have? We

can't get the experience if we don't have the job. We allowed

people on benefits to have two months in a company work experience,

just working, doing what other people can do. They can put this

that on their CV it. Has been so successful that over half of those

kids have left benefits. The most successful programme we have got.

But we said - wupbgz you commit to doing that work, because -- once

you commit. Because companies have to make arrangements around it, if

you don't, you may suffer a benefit withdrawal because you have messed

them around and they'll suffer as a. Are you it is a point that anybody

out there listening will no. You have to learn early if you commit

to something you stay by and do it. I understand she said she wasn't

paid. She was paid Jobseeker's Allowance by the tax payer to do

this. Most young people love this programme. I'm sorry, there is a

group of people out there that think they are too good for this

kind of stuff. Terry Leey started his life stacking shelves. Next

time people go in, and say - these smart people think they are too

good for this. When they can't find their food on the shelves, who was

more important, the geologist or the people stacking shelves? It may

have been cleared off the shelves. Now Sian has the headlines.

The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has supported

the Home Secretary's plans for new laws to stop foreign criminals

avoid deg pourtion by claiming the rights to a family life. --

deportation. Mr Duncan Smith said courts too

often allowed family life to trump the view clearly expressed by

Parliament that foreign criminals should be deported. He said judges

knew very well the mood and mind of Parliament and should be reasonable

and react properly. Kate and Gerry McCann have

criticised Conservative proposals to set up a new regulatory body for

the press, backed by a Rhyl charter, rather than the legal underpining

called for by Lord Justice Leveson at the end of his inquiry into

press standards. Gerry McCann told this programme that the press had

lost any entitlement to self- regulation. He said Lord Leveson's

recommendations were the minimum that he could accept to safeguard

the public. Next news is on BBC One at 12.00pm.

First a look at what is coming up after this show.

7 Join us live when after the Pope's regular isnaig we will ask -

is it too late to renew the Catholic Church -- resignation.

The human rights defender says the crisis of child abuse is

insurmountable and we need ten new commandments. A philosopher

explains his manifesto on how to be Now, it's more than 20 years since

Sinead O'Connor shot to international fame with the hit

song, Nothing Compares 2 U. #Ing in, I saiding in can take away

these blues -- nothing compares # Nothing chairings to you... # The

single went platinum in the UK and the song and its video became a

classic. In the intervening years, Sinead O'Connor has frequently been

in the headlines, condemning the Catholic Church in Ireland for its

response to child sex abuse revelations. She's also been

searingly honest about her own difficult childhood, and later

mental health problems. But she's carried on recording and performing,

and her latest album, How About I Be Me, And You Be You? Has been

critically acclaimed. Sinead is here. Every interview I see with

you drags up all of your past. let's not. Tell me how things are

now? Good, really God. I'm great. Wonderful, fantastic, the greatest.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Nobody. I'm making idle

conversation until you ask me something interesting. We have a

conversation. The album is very you. There is one wildly optimistic

track, which I think is the one we are going to hear. I do believe it

might be something more. There may be more than one optimistic track

on there. I'm not sure. I would characterise it as fantastically

brilliant. The best album anyone ever made, ever. What are we going

to hear? You mean musically? Yes. Yes. We will be back in second to

hear it. That was the GREATst interview I have ever done.

Next week my colleague, Jeremy Vine will be here with Paloma Faith.

We'll leave you with Sinead O'Connor and her new single. Gl

# Going to put my pink dress on and do it up real tight

# I'm going to put some eyeliner on # I'm going to go down to the

church # I'm going to marry my love

# We'll be happy for all time # He's got big brown eyes

# I can't believe he's mine # Does he know his love is srous

# -- serious I will, I will I will I do

# Going to put my pink dress on # And do my hair up tight

# I'm going to put eye shadow on # It's going to look real nice

# I'm going down to the Church # Going to go for a drive

# I'm going to marry my love # We'll be happy for all time