09/02/2012 This Week

Come on everybody. Let's get The Muppets back on TV. Tonight, it's

time to play the music, it's time to light the lights, it's time to

meet the Muppets, on the This Week Show tonight. (The Muppets' Theme

Tune) Starring everyone's least favourite terror suspect, Abu

Qatada - should he stay or should he go? All-singing and dancing

civil rights campaigner, Shami Chakrabarti has her say. So much

for dodgy deals in the desert. Abu Qatada can't be deported, so give

him a fair, criminal trial. A different sort of Muppet Show in

Parliament, as the Kermit and Miss Piggy of Westminster slug it out

over NHS reform. The Observer's Andrew Rawnsley joins in the fun. A

lot of Tories are whispering in the wings that Andrew Lansley ought to

be Yanked off the stage. But this week David Cameron declared he

would stick with his embattled Health Secretary and his

contentious NHS plans. And Charles Dickens might not quite be in the

Muppets' league, but we'll still be celebrating the great man with

another great star of film and stage, Charles Dance. How the

Dickens am I going to download the whole of Great It's time to get

things started on the most sensational, celebrational,

Muppetational This Week Muppet Show tonight. Expectations on to this?

Evening all. Welcome to This Week - the late-night punchline to a not-

very-funny joke. So, we must congratulate a comedian called Tim

Vine, who won an award for the year's funniest joke -

conjunctivitas.com - a site for sore eyes! Boom boom! Not bad, Tim.

Clearly, when it comes to plumbing the depths we have a rival. Yet if

only the judges had cast their ears towards Westminster this week,

they'd have heard some of the best one-liners in the business. What

about Home Secretary, Theresa May, who told MPs she wanted to deport

radical preacher, Abu Qatada, so he is not in the country when the

Olympics come?! As if the principal security threat isn't Al Qaeda

terrorism, but Mr Qatada rocking up at the synchronised swimming semi-

finals! Or what about the Downing Street source who claimed Health

Secretary, Andrew Lansley, should be taken out and shot? Don't tell

me that didn't have the Cabinet in stitches and calling for more while

reaching for their Purdeys! And what about cheeky Boy George

warning of the dangers of - wait for it- anti-business politics,

just as the blood of Goodwin and Hester is scrubbed from Call-Me-

Dave's innocent little hands? Yet surely the honours must go to

barrel-of-laughs Disability Minister, Maria Miller, who told

the unemployed that, despite the state of the economy, there isn't a

shortage of jobs, but rather a lack of appetite for some of the jobs

available. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Speaking of those who are laughed at behind their backs, I'm joined

on the sofa by two of Westminster's most stand-up guys, the funny, ha

ha and funny, peculiar of late- night chat, I speak, of course, of

Michael Portillo and, as always, #manontheleft, Alan AJ Johnson.

Welcome to you both. Good to see you. Moment of the week, Andrew?

Mark Mardell, who is the America editor for the BBC, had a report on

Tuesday in which he said the White House believes that Israel will

atake Iran through the course of this year, possibly as early as the

spring, certainly before the presidential election. The

reasoning is that before long the nuclear weapons programme in Iran

will be beyond reach. But also that if you were to launch an attack

before the election both presidential candidates would have

to support Israel in an election situation, so it is good a time.

Because of the Jewish vote? Yes, of course. So, this appears to be the

betting. Now, if this happens and of course this may lure the United

States in, but it is a transformational occurrence if it

happens. Iran would be expected to retaliate and then there is Saudi

Arabia and possibly against the fleet in Bahrain. It will make most

of the things we are talking about at the moment pretty much like a

Sunday pinnic. Barack Obama needs that like a hole in the head.

Candidates tend -- incumbents tend to do well in at -- at a war

situation. Alan in Chris Huhne's resignation from the Cabinet. He's

confident. He's strong. He is capable of holding an argument in

Cabinet. He's one of only two trained economists in the Cabinet.

I can't see how they can replace that kind of political skill, which

I think Chris Huhne had, so I think it is bad news for them. We found a

friend of Chris Huhne. I always wondered who it was. Well done,

Alan. There you go. Now we know all the quotes come from in the

newspapers. It was you. You heard it first. Now, pressure is mounting

on the Government to remove terror suspect and all-round rabble-rouser

Abu Qatada from the UK, despite a ruling from the European Court of

Human Rights effectively blocking them from doing so. Qatada is set

to be freed on bail within days, after a judge declared his

detention without trial could no longer be justified. His movements

will be seriously restricted, but in three months he could be free to

do what he wants. So, how do we rid ourselves of turbulent clerics with

a penchant for terror? Director of the Liberty human rights group,

Shami Chakrabarti, is here with her take of the week. Churchill said

the use of instruments of torture can never be regarded by any decent

person synonymous with justice. The European Court of Human Rights,

that was his legacy agrees. I detest Abu Qatada's views, but he

should neither be deported to torture nor to jord wan to stand

trial on the basis of evidence tortured out of others. -- Jordan.

British suspects can't be deported. Ask Britons who have been

imprisoned abroad. Your pass fort shouldn't affect your right to a

fair criminal trial. Abu Qatada has been detained on and off without

any criminal charge for nearly a decade. Now that the court of human

rights has ruled against the deportation to Jordan, he's been

granted bail. But with a 22-hour curfew and conditions that would

put many prisons in the shade. The Home Secretary rightly said the

best place for a terrorist is behind bars. But what about the

obvious question - why hasn't he been charged with any criminal

offence here in the UK? We have all heard from he is accused of.

Inciting murder here and around the world. We have heard the tapes of

his delivering he's sermons and found in the homes of people

associated with the gravest crimes and we are told he was convicted in

his absence of a terrorist conspiracy in Jordan. The

Government expects us to trust the assurances of a Middle Eastern

kingdom where torture is routine and where his co-defendants have

already been tortured. The court is right not to trust such a country,

but conspiracy have long been grave offences here, punishable with up

to life in prison, so why have all the authorities not brought a

single one of these charges in an English court and allowed 12

ordinary people to decide his fate? Remember the so-called short cuts

attempted after the horror of 9/11? In the US Guantanamo Bay and

extraordinary rendition and here we have secret commissions and

internment without charge or trial, rather than relying on the justice

system admired the world over. By closing down open justice, flirting

with torturers and negotiating dodgy deals in the desert, don't we

become just a little more like those who are trying to change our

way of life? Anyway, the shortcut wasn't worked, so why not return to

an old-fashioned fair trial at the Osama Bin Laden? It might just

deliver both the moral authority and security that is eluded

governments since the war on terror began? I think lots of people would

like to see that for real. I would have come in and released you. You

have heard what was said. Should by ignore the court and deport him

anyway, Michael? No, I think Shami puts her finger on the problem. It

is believed that this man is inciting hatred and violence. These

are criminal offences. It is extraordinary that he can't be

charged. How is it that John Terry can be charged with a hate crime

and he cannot be? He has been? Jail six-and-a-half jails and on and off

the best part of ten years. That is a problem in a democratic society.

How can you keep people locked up for year after year if they've not

been charged? I think the court has delivered a wake-up call. It's all

very well the Prime Minister being on the phone to Jordan, but to the

King of Jordan, but the problem that will arise is he will be sent

back for trial, using evidence to be acquired in torture was obvious

as the case proceeded. Why is it that only after the findings are

against us is the Prime Minister on the phone to the King? Alan, why

hasn't he been tried? Because we have been trying to deport him,

where the crimes were. He was implicated in blowing up the

American school in the Jerusalem Hotel in 1998 in Jordan and he's a

Jordanian citizen. He came here on a false passport. Illegally.

have been trying to deport him. I disagree with Michael on this,

because what the Government were quite right to do, this government

and previous government, was to seek the extradition. The European

Court knocked it back under article 3. That is the torture. There was

then a memorandum of understanding reached with Jordan and other

countries, which took a long time to get, that was fine in the House

of Lords. The House of Lords looked at the implication that some of the

witnesses might have been tortured and decided that the human rights

in this country became above that. When it - now, the good thing for

the Government about the judgment this week - the latest judgment by

the court in Europe, is they accepted that memorandum of

understanding. Article 3 is no longer in contention. They brought

in article 6 for the first time ever as I understand it. Article 6

being the right to a fair trial, on this basis that the witnesses, that

the House of Lords looked at and rejected, that they may be

subjected to torture. The criticism of the court is they changed the

goal post. They laid out under article 3, you can't send someone

to a country where they might be tortured, so the British Government

did a deal with Jordan. The European Court said fine, but now

you can't have a trial where someone who is giving evidence

might have been being tortured?. This is convoluted. The answer is,

how can you trust the regimes where torture is routine? The European

Court was happy that happened. You called it a dodgy deal in the

They were not happy with the legal system where he'd be convicted.

they moved the goalposts. I don't think they did because this was the

claim that was before them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist

or a Supreme Court justice to realise that you are in trouble

when you do deals with Libya or Jordan. Our Supreme Court accepted

it? I probably disagreed with that decision, but sometimes you

disagree with the judge. European court have accepted that.

We are where we are. You said yourself, if you don't mind me

saying so, that criminal prosecution was not being pursued

all these years because we thought we'd deal with it by deportation. I

think that is... Committed to where he came from. This has been going

on for a decade. You don't think there was a twin track approach

going on in your department that so many people had inhabited. I think

this is a weakness because it's asserted repeatedly that this man

is extremely dangerous in Britain because he incites hatred and crime

and he advocates killing and massacre and all these sorts of

things. If this is true, these are criminal offences. Very serious,

punishable by life. By the way, we also assert the right in this

country to try people for grave crimes committed elsewhere even in

Jordan. If you are right and I'm wrong and I'm being too purist,

even if you would rather do deportation, in cases like this,

it's going to be very difficult. This isn't just a minor driving

charge. The point is, Alan Johnson, that given it's taken so long to

deport him and we still haven't, and he's been banged up all this

time, would it not have made more sense for us to have begun

proceedings against him here? That might be where or what has to

happen in the end. Was the Government right to try and deport

him yes, the actual crimes he committed preceded the legislation

on hate crimes that came in. I'm sorry, that's wrong in law. We

are not talking about hate crimes, we are being told this is

incitement to murder, a offence punishable... No, legislation that

would allow us to put him on trial in this country for what happened

in another country came after 9/11. But, the issue is, we should try, I

mean if he's tried here, he has to be imprisoned here, it's right for

the Government to try to deport him to where the evidence is, where the

witnesses are and where the crimes took place and up until the

decision of the European Court of Human Rights, that seemed to be

going in the right direction. people certainly have had enough of

this, there's a poll in if papers tomorrow, 57% of people think

ignore the European court, send him back, 27% do another deal with

Jordan, send him back, only 7% agree with you? I do appreciate

that the way this debate has run, it's all about nationality. But 7%

is such a small amount. You argue your case day in day out on

television, radio and so on and do it with tkpraet distinction, yet

only 7% agree with you -- great. When you ask people whether they

think torture is right or wrong, 97% agree with me. When you ask

people whether they think everyone should have a right to a fair trial,

they agree with many. When you have difficult cases, unattractive

poster boys for a human rights argument, people will be irritated.

I certainly wouldn't want my liberty to be dependent on an

opinion poll. It has to be more fundamental things than that. I've

been convinced this person is a very dangerous person because I've

been told repeatedly that he incites murder and mayhem. What I

can't understand if, -- what I can't understand is, if that's not

the case, why isn't he being tried. Would you settle for him being able

to walk the streets free? I think if the evidence is what we are told

it is, he should be charged. know that evidence can't be shown

in court. It was shown at the immigrations appeals commission in

closed session. It can't be put in open session. Why? The problem for

the Government is - for all the reasons you know, we can't use

interceptors' evidence. Sorry, we are told there are tapes in

existence of him inciting murder. I've seen this stuff. The reason

why it was put in closed session in the immigration appeals tribunal is

that it would reveal sources. It would reveal sources. I find it

difficult to see that... I find it difficult, I am explaining to you

why.... The problem for the Government now is, if these bail

conditions run out, the thing we all agree. Which They Probably Will.

This man is dangerous. When the bail conditions run out, he can't

use a mobile phone or the Internet, he has to be restricted into where

he goes. When that runs out Because we haven't got control orders, this

Government foolishly accepted the orders. Within that runs out, he

will be able to use a mobile phone and the Internet and will be tiebl

go wherever he likes because control orders have been abolished.

Five minutes ago you said we didn't try to prosecute him because we

were right to spend ten years deporting him, now you are saying

we can't prosecute him because of the intercept evidence. A control

order would have been the right thing if we were still in a

position where we couldn't deport him or put him on trial. Shami, a

general point, you have placed huge emphasis on this guy's human rights.

No-one, even his own lawyer says this is a bad guy, he believes evil

things, he's incited violence, but you put his mew man rights on one

side, a lot of people will say what about our human rights not to be

blown up by people like him. Doesn't that matter? Our human

rights are all interconnected. Everybody on the planet has some

basic human rights just because they are alive. If you start

carving it up on the basis of nationality... By so much weight to

his and so little to the other 60 million of us. I understand where

that comes from, he's a foreigner, be shot of him, even if it's to...

But... That's the argument being put against me, based on his

nationality he should be deported. If we carve up human rites on the

basis of nationality, rather than humanity, that is the road to

Guantanamo Bay where you are because you are British, French,

Australian, not American. If every country in the world does this, all

of us will be deprived of our human rights as well. I said you would

have the last word and you did. Thank you very much. Because Chris

Huhne no longer needs to be up in the morning and can stay up late

main lining Blue Nun and watching this-week, doesn't mean you can't

too, so stick with us us, adding some suavity to the sofa, Charles

Dance will be explaining why Charles Dickens still matters. If

you would like to inform us of one yof your bouts of indignation that

you will never ever be watching this show ever again, remember, you

can do so on our interwebsite. Or you can do it on or on Facebook.

It's been said in some quarters, in the BBC Director General's quarters

that you have to be a muppet to watch This Week. Just as well he's

standing down soon. There are no muppets here, apart from these two.

I apologise! We decided to break the habit of a lifetime and raise

the tone this evening. Here is Andrew Rawnsley with his round-up

Before it became one of our greatest novelists, Charles Dickens

earned his living as a Parliamentary sketch writer,

perhaps it was observing politicians that inspired him to

create the smooth villains, the well-meaning but hopeless

characters and the various grotesques that populate his books.

I'm cold to the bone. Let's repair to that tavern before we catch a

chill. Morning, ma'am. Things have been

looking Bleak House for Andrew Lansley. It's been the gloss sip of

the town that Number Ten's lost confidence in the Health Secretary

and his widely opposed plans for the NHS so. Young master Miliband

sensing a chance to advance his own fortunes raised the topic at PMQs,

only to find that old Lansley had some life in him yet.

The Health Secretary shouting from a saiden tear position, nice to see

him here, Mr Speaker. -- saiden tear position. Some distance away,

I notice. The Prime Minister says he wants the voice of doctors to be

heard in the NHS. Why doesn't he listen to them? It's always good to

get a member from happy families from the Right Honourable member.

That the Prime Minister may fancy himself a gentleman of quality, but

he could do with freshening up his material. You can always tell that

young master Cameron is in a spot of bother when he tries to make

merry like young master Miliband's brother. Still, for better or worse,

a lot of Tory MPs privately fear it will turn out to be for the worse.

The Prime Minister's recommitted himself to both his Health

Secretary and the NHS plan. In Syria, it's been a tale of two

cities, an appearance of calm in Damascus as the Russian Foreign

Minister flew in, slaughter on the streets in the besieged rebel city

of Homs. The Foreign Secretary cranked up the rhetoric in

condemnation of President Assad. This is a doomed regime, as well as

a murdering regime. There is no way it can recover its credibility

internationally or with its own people. The UN Security Council's

failure to agree a resolution does not signal the end of our efforts

to end the violence in Syria. Majesty's Government speaks loudly

about Syria but doesn't carry much of a stick, even if there were

Security Council sanctions for actions, no-one in the Cabinet

currently thinks it's practical or even desirable to try a Libya-style

intervention. Dickens started his career as a

journalist which meant he had few illusions about the British Press.

The Leveson Inquiry, which looks likely to turn out to be longer

than the collective works of the great man, heard from a combative

Paul Daker Editor in Chief of the Daily Mail who contended that

celebrities who court publicity deserve the scrutiny of the inky

fingers. Celebrity chefs, sports people make a lot of money by

revealing their lives to the public, I believe newspapers should be

given some right to look into their lives. Do you mean morally? As my

friend Mr Skweers would say, conk your appetites, my dear, and you've

conquered human nature. You know what, I think I'll have another one.

The News of the World is shelling out more compensation to hacking

Vic tums and Scotland Yard has admitted to breaking the law by not

warning them earlier. John Prescott surely a character

who has escaped from a Dickens novel was bursting with indignation.

Frankly they were liars, that's what comes out of it, that

basically they had that evidence, they recorded the names but every

time I kept asking, they said you are not on the list. There are

worse things in the world than having your phone hacked. The

passions of Dickenss were aroused by the social injustice he awe

around him in Victorian Britain. Back in our world, Labour Klammered

for a bigger tax on bankers Kibo us ins -- clamoured. If the claim that

we are all in it together is to mean anything, the re-introduction

of this tax is a must, it would create 100,000 youth jobs and 25

affordable homes. The boss of Network Rail did volunteer to give

up his bonus this week, well, he did once his arm had been twisted

by the Government, but the bankers, well, we know their favourite line

is from Oliver Twist. Please, Sir, can I have some more?!

Andrew Rawnsley there and the Jerusalem tavern dressing the way

MPs used to and I think should again. Michael, all this

speculation about would David Cameron stick with the Health

Secretary, Andrew Lansley. The fact is, he had to in tend, didn't he,

it's gone too far, he can't junk him? Has to and had to I think.

Andrew Lansley I think will survive and the Bill will I think. I mean,

the great difficulty with this is that nobody other than Andrew

Lansley and maybe two or three others, nobody else understands

what it's all about. That is a really difficult position to get

into. That's part of the Health Secretary's problem because it

explains why there's so littlele enthusiasm for this legislation

even on the Tory benches because they don't understand what it's

meant to be doing? One thing worthwhile from the Government's

point of view is the thing it denies most strongly, the

introduction of competition which I think would make a difference. In

the last round of concessions made by the Government, that was all

watered down. Competition was no longer to be brought to the fore.

It's not exactly excluded but I think that is the thing that the

Government actually wants to get out of it. It's remarkable. We are

told in tomorrow's Guardian that Conservative home, which is a very

influential Conservative website among the grass roots is, coming

out tomorrow against the reforms, against the Bill which is quite

important in its right, we are also told indeed they are saying thaef

been encouraged to do so by three Conservative Cabinet Ministers --

they've been encouraged to do so by three Conservative Cabinet

Ministers. If I was in the Cabinet, I would be wondering. It's

difficult to drop the Bill and your Secretary of State, particularly as

Cameron and Clegg seem to have been beguiled by this without

understanding it. But if it goes on, and this is what the three Cabinet

Ministers will be saying, everything that happens in the

National Health Service up to the next election will be blamed on the

Bill and give than there's a very important effort to make �20

billion worth of savings, there will be plenty happening and also,

there's going to be a Spaghetti Junction now of different

commissioning groups because of the concessions that have been made and

the stop and start. No-one is against reform but Andrew, he's a

technocrat, he cares about the NHS but he's a technocrat. He's

produced this unfathomable Bill that means that it's just left

everyone in a state of confusion. Never mind about anyone else, the

Health Service journal, BMJ, Nursing Times, joint editorial,

they never get involved in politics, they are all saying it's a mess.

That's the strategic mistake, I suppose, this is happening at a

time when health spending which had grown hugely under Labour, has had

to come to a halt or it's a marginal increase in real terms

almost nothing. That will cause problems in the Health Service, but

rather than be able to blame that the spending spree had to stop and

that would probably have happened under Labour as well, it will be

Yes. They are meant to make a gain and it's ambitious. By the sound of

the rest of the British economy, it's not particularly spectacular.

Of course, Andrew Lansley would argue that in order to make those

productivity increases you need to have reform. But he couldn't sell

it, could he? That is also part of the problem. You can argue for or

against if he was going too far or also say a lot of the reforms could

have been done without the Bill, the big Bill, but whatever he

couldn't sell it even to his own side? It's partly because there was

a ban on selling this. Before the election, the line was there would

be no reform on the Health Service. After, even, Conservatives spent

most of their time saying the National Health Service is

absolutely wonderful. Nurses are glorious. It's quite difficult to

argue the case for reform when you feel yourself obliged to praise

everyone as though they were doing a great job. What ministers really

think is lots are not doing a great job and need a boot up the backside.

You are skilful enough to not try and sell them as he did, as

introducing the competition values of the private companies, Thames

Water and British Gas. It was so cack-handed. When you lose the

support of Alan Milburn you are in trouble. Syria, the big

international story of our time. Where now can we see this? Can we

divine where this goes? We can rule out western intervention, agreed?

wouldn't entirely agree with that. Tell me why. Where is it going? I'm

very conflicted about this. On the one hand, I have a strong feeling

it will end up with the President of Syria swinging from a rope. But

on the other hand, he clearly has the fire power and the people in

Homs don't. None the less, you see massive desertion from the Army.

Apparently he has lost the Sunni officers and down to the Alawites,

his own tribe. Only 3%. Yes, it's grime. -- it's grim. If this Homs

thing goes on and if on TV, because we have now got cameras in the

places, if we are going to see the people being slaughtered day after

day after day, then you are going to get a Bosnian situation. I agree.

The UN resolution wasn't even chapter 7, it was 6. It wasn't the

most sturdy or profound. They took into account all the Russian and

Chinese amendments, which made it innocuous and vetoed it in the end.

I think when you get a situation like that the regime says if the

international community have rejected a resolution that is

specifically condemned what we are doing to our people, then they must

be giving us covert nod and a wink. So, it's very difficult to think

how you can resolve it with the UN now sidelined, unless there can be

some change of heart on behalf of Russia. There was one interesting

thing and we haven't got time to talk about it, and it was indicated

that Turkey may be prepared to create a safe zone in the north of

Syria that it would control if it had western backing. You could see

some mileage in that. Now, when it comes to scenes of Dickensian

squalor and poverty-stricken working conditions, there are few

more pathetic sights than the wretched artful dodgers in the This

Week production office. Thanks to the wonders of central heating we

no longer have the need to send children up chimneys, yet still we

force underage street urchins of modest abilities to produce current

affairs programmes for the viewing public, for nothing more than a

signed photograph of Michael Portillo, one of his discarded

green satin shirts, and a bowl of BBC gruel. Hard times indeed.

That's why we've decided, as it's his birthday, to put Charles

With the anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, it seems one of

the most successful story tellers of all time still has us all of a

twisted around his little finger. A service in Poet's Corner and a

Royal reception at his former house. What more could the birthday boy

wish for? His descriptions of characters and of his state of

being at that time in England was part of our historical record of

what it was like back then. Even the House of Commons marked the

event. I understand that this morning's Cabinet meeting that the

Culture Secretary gave the Deputy Prime Minister a Dickens -- for

Dickens Day a copy of Oliver Twist. Did they then burst into a verse of

Consider Yourself? In these hard times, there are no expectations.

Just how relevant is Dickens in the modern world? His writing has been

in television and film, but will he be as popular in the next 200

years? If by the magic of television, Charles Dance joins us.

Welcome. So good to see you. Thank you. What is it that there is about

dickans that we are celebrating his 200th birthday? Well, in my humble

opinion, he is better than shakes sphere as a wordsSmith. He creates

the more glorious plots and I think it's because he's a very, very fine

writer. Strong cracksters? Yes. Strong stories, as you say. A take

on society at the time? Yes, but we are now living in a London where I

think from where I am standing that the gulf between people who have a

great deal of money and people who have not very much is getting wider.

In that regard we are quite the close to Victorian society. Do we

need another Dickens for,000? -- for now? I think we do. We have Ken

Loach in filming terms, who makes films with substantial content. Not

just to do with entertainment. I think we need people to chronicle

our society. Are you concerned, as some people are, that children now

are being taught in ways that it makes Dickens more difficult? They

haven't got the attention span for the vocabulary and these are -

everything has to be easy and in soundbites. Dickens is not easy and

it's not in soundbites? No, it's not easy. I think it also depends

on quality of the teaching. And how much time teachers have. It seems

to me, that in the State system that they are bogged down by

bureaucracy and a great percentage of children, I suspect, read to

acquire information. They don't read for the joy and love the

reading. To absorb the words and stories. They read to find out how

to do things, because education is to do with training people to

become useful members of society. Not to do with finding out a

child's potential and bringing it out. I think that is what great

literature and painting and music do that for people. Not training

and pushing. Or cramming it in. Have you read any Dickens, Michael?

I have read a lot. I started with my mother reading me a huge amount.

I used to sit at her knee and she must have read me ten or 12 novels.

I retain knowledge of those and the memory of those novels from those

readings by my mother to this day. When Great Expectations I knew the

first line. The greatness of Dickens, I've been trying to think

about this. There are tens of Dickens novels that are wonderful

lessons in the social inequality at the time. How many novels have

there been since? There have been the To Kill A Mocking Bird, but

each author has produced one great novel about the social conditions.

He produced dozens. Alan, are you a fan? I'm reading Great Expectations

at the moment and I read David copper field when I was 13. From

then there was a love of Dickens. Some children are urged to read it

before the age of 11. I know you having it read to you might be a

difficult thing, but I wouldn't do that. Around about 14, 15, 16,

because he isn't an easy read in the sense you have to concentrate

and you have to follow some of the plot. Yeah. Do you think it matters,

because we talked about the difficulty of some children reading

him today, but today's generation have a plethora of TV and film on

Dickens and in many cases because the productions are so well done,

that will encourage some people to get the book and read? Hopefully,

yes. I think it does, yeah. We all agree that Dickens is not an easy

read and you were very lucky to be read by your mother. Rather like

shaibgdz spear, is better watched and heard than -- shakes sphere is

better watched and heard than read. -- shakes sphere. Dickens used for

adjectives and he created a wealth of characters and you really do

need to concentrate. As you said at the beginning, people's attention

span is limited now and we are also creating a new language that we

tweet with and text with. When it first came out, it wasn't a book.

It came out as a serialisation, which in many ways made it more

able to do that, because you read a little every week when it came out.

Yes. Do we have a Dickens today? have a lot. He has so many

relatives. That's not what I mean. Do we have some cataloguing society

of today? The Americans have Philip Roth. Absolutely. He's a giant.

People will look back to find out what the United States was like in

the post-war deck ainds they'll look to him. My sense would be --

decades and they'll look to him. My sense is we'll be talking about him

in another 200 years. He'll survive? Absolutely. If he was here

now he would be writing sceneplays and television series. What about -

Simon Cowell has been writing them. -- Simon Callow has been writing

them. Do MPs read? They should. When you are a minister it is quite

difficult, because you have got so many other things, but if you make

a discipline of continuing to get away from the red boxes. They take

novels on holiday with them. Nowadays particularly they'll take

them on the kindle. By the way, I downloaded all of Dickens on to my

whatever, my tablet, and it cost me $2 for 50 novels. Wow. Unbelievable.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. Great beginning.

It's the best of all. Yes. Charles, thank you for joining us. That's

your lot for tonight folks. Sadly, we'll be giving Annabel's a miss

tonight - Charles Clarke's minicab is stuck in a snowdrift on The

Embankment, so it looks like we'll be bedding down on the This Week

sofas. Shouldn't be a problem getting to sleep, Michael's

promised to read us a bed-time story from John Major's memoirs.

Alan, however, has been banned from strumming his guitar. We're being

forced to take a holiday next week folks, but we'll be back to annoy

you on the 23rd. So, we leave you with the cockney geezer who's