Murnaghan 17.03.13 Interview with Simon Hughes, Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems

PLEASE ATTRIBUTE ANY QUOTES USED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: But I mean do you agree with Harriet Harman there? This is really a single issue that you’re cooperating about and err really it ends there. They’re in opposition, you’re in government?  

SIMON HUGHES:    Well when the government was formed it was formed when Labour lost their majority, there wasn’t a majority in Parliament, the only majority there could have been was us and the Tories and in the national interest we entered into the government with the Tories not just because they are our friends because they were the only other party capable of forming a government with us and we thought it was better rather than let there be a minority Tory government running the country that we were there to make sure we had a fairer country and we sorted out the economy. That’s why we did it and it’s a five year deal. Now there’s a programme, we’ve an agreed programme, we’re working through it and obviously on some issues Labour disagree with us on that and we have your normal political confrontations.  

DM: Yeah but it would stand you in good stead wouldn’t it come 2015, if there’s another hung Parliament and Labour’s the biggest party. I mean the goodwill that’s been reformed over this issue and maybe others in the future, in the intervening years between now and the general election would mean that you know relations of thought.  

SH:    Well, I have always tried to have good relations with my Labour colleagues as I have with other colleagues and I think Harriet Harman put it fairly that there are issues which are outside any of the agenda of the government, we have a difference of view to interpret what the government’s done about taxes for the rich. We actually can show that the rich will be paying more tax rather than less tax. So we can have our political debates about that but this issue we agreed to go to a Royal Commission. My party’s been arguing for a Royal Commission since the nineties, we thought the public and the public wanted a less close relationship between the press and politicians and the press and the police. We have argued that, argued that, Tories resisted it, Labour resisted it. At last after the last election when there was a coalition government we persuaded the Conservatives that it would be right to do and all parties said let’s set up Leveson. Lord Justice Leveson did his enquiry we all gave evidence and he’s produced this report. What we’re now seeking to do is implement what he recommended, the independent Judge, not a party politician.  

DM: Well, I mean to be absolutely literal, if we go even for what you’ve proposed, you’ve moved a bit away from the core proposal of Leveson by accepting the Royal Charter.  

SH:    There have been two things that have moved slightly by agreement between all three of the parties and the Royal Charter was a Conservative idea which we thought provided it was locked in as you’ve just heard from Harriet Harman, locked in with a legislative guarantee, was a reasonable way to do it so that that couldn’t be changed. But there are now differences and the Prime Minister pulled the plug because he clearly thought we weren’t going to get agreement on the other four things. One is about making sure somebody could tell the papers how they had to correct something wrong and that’s the front page story that was proven to be wrong, which at the moment is corrected on page 33. One is to make sure that there could not be a veto by the press on who was doing the regulating. It’s a bit like, I don’t know whether you watched the rugby yesterday, but it’s a bit like a rugby game and giving one side the chance to veto who the referee was and the third was, that we thought it was really important that the rules, the code of conduct which will govern the press, should not in the end be decided by the body with the press on it, but by the independent body and they should make the decision, there’s one other smaller matter.  

DM: Okay, so you have those strong links obviously with members of the Conservative party and there’s some discussion about the size of the, of the number of Conservatives who might, if it stays like this as you go in, as you get closer to a vote, the number of Conservatives who might support you and Labour. What’s your reading of that?  

SH:    Tomorrow is even not now clear in terms of what amendments the speaker will select because it’s all happened in literally two working days, Thursday and Friday and amendments, and new clauses, and new schedules have all been table then. There may even be further amendments by manuscript tomorrow. So I can’t tell you exactly how it’s going to pan out. What I know is that on our side of the argument, there are Conservatives about 20, something up to 60 at the maximum but probably 20 core people, there are nationalists they have signed some of the motions that are down in my name, the Democratic Unionists from Northern Ireland, so there are Irish parties, nationalist parties, the Green party, single MP, Labour, Liberal Democrats and some Tories. Now that’s quite a big coalition. I hope that what will happen tomorrow is that the will of the house will be that we implement Leveson as closely as possible, that the Prime Minister will accept that and it will therefore be clear that the view of Parliament across the parties after having read Lord Justice Leveson’s report is to have a better, stronger system of dealing with the press.  

DM: Okay, nearly out of time, but let me even then push it forward. Let’s say that does happen and therefore you’ve got legislation in there which is the Rubicon, the line in the sand, particularly for many of the big…  

SH:    Well if we’ve a new [DM and SH talking over each other unclear: 12:07] with a legislative lock.  

DM: You know okay but then the papers then say and others in the media say, we’re not going to sign up for this, we’re just not going to accept it, where then do we end up it’s almost back to the nineteenth century and the Stamp Act, the press saying you are trying to affect freedom speech, you are trying to legislate?  

SH:    Right well I’ve seen some writing in the press today that suggests this is the end of the freedom of the press as we know it. Look we are a country that must uphold freedom of the expression, we’ve all…  

DM: But what happens if you get refused on this, how do you force them into this?  

SH:    Well clearly if the press…  

DM: Fines?  

SH:    So fines for example, there’s a provision in the Leveson proposals, is if people weren’t in the system, if people refuse to play ball then there would be a higher risk of them having exemplary punitive damages against them. If they work…  

DM: What happens if they just won’t sign up to the body, how do you get them in there?  

SH:    Well because, on there would be pressure of the courts giving fines that would be significant and they might realise that wasn’t very clever, there will be other elements of the press who are much more sympathetic to this arrangement and I think there will be influence within the media themselves and there will be the court of public opinion and let’s end where we began. This is not because of people like you or me doing a job as a politician or a member of the media, this is to that constituents of mine in Bermondsey or Rotherhithe if they are traduced by the press can have the opportunity to have that put right and get justice.   I think everybody in the wide public understands that that’s a perfectly reasonable outcome and that doesn’t inhibit the press saying something if they get it wrong, they have to put it right.  

DM: Okay Mr Hughes, thank you very much indeed for joining us.  

SH:    Thank you very much.  

DM:    Simon Hughes there, Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems, I’m sure you’re going to get many compliments on that tie, very appropriate for the 17 March. And you’re watching Murnaghan here on Sky News, coming up I’ll speak to the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission.