ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Time now to take a look through the Sunday papers and I’m joined now by the former Attorney General and Labour peer Lord Goldsmith, by the broadcaster, campaigner and founder of the Silver Line, Esther Rantzen and by the author Stanley Johnson.  A very good morning to you all, thank you all very much indeed and it may be the week before Christmas but there is an awful lot in the papers.  Stanley, the extraordinary story of the Sony hack and from the newspapers point of view I suppose it is the story that just keeps giving, to continue with the Christmas theme, you’ve picked the Observer.

STANLEY JOHNSON: I did, I went actually for the headline, not the headline but the main editorial of the Observer and I know it’s a left wing paper and so on and so forth but they actually made a sensible point this morning, reign in North Korea by diplomacy and not threats.  This is of course a totally hilarious story but at the same time is very serious and you have Obama making some very nasty threats a couple of days ago, you just don’t want to see this thing escalate, that’s my line here.

DM: Okay, what kind of diplomacy, have we exhausted all the diplomatic avenues with North Korea a long time ago?

STANLEY JOHNSON: I don't think we have.  One of my sons, I can’t remember which it certainly wasn’t Boris, one of my sons a few months ago ran in the North Korea marathon in Pyongyang so you get a lot of people running in a marathon…

LORD GOLDSMITH: Do they speed them up by shooting whoever’s last?

STANLEY JOHNSON: No, he did absolutely fine, there’s a wonderful picture of him on the North Korea website of him waving his hands as he gets into the stadium.  I get the feeling we can’t just treat this as a pariah state, we can’t have a … after all, don’t forget, we also did a bit of cyber attacking ourselves, didn’t we put down the Iraqi, the Irani nuclear industry not so long ago, anyway.

LORD GOLDSMITH: … finding gossip about Angelina Jolie, I think, Stanley.

DM: Well what do you think Lord Goldsmith?  My point there is are there any more diplomatic avenues to follow and given the nature of the regime, they don’t listen?

LORD GOLDSMITH: It’s difficult to see what there is more that can be done, I mean we’ve seen that actually diplomatic issues like sanctions can make a big difference as they are doing in Russia at the moment but North Korea is subject to all of those so I’m not sure what else there is.

DM: Esther, what do you think?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Always talk to people, always.  If people want to talk, listen, always.  I get fed up with rules that say no, no, we’re not going to listen.

DM: Even if they are as mad as a snake and have got nuclear weapons?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Yes, listen, listen, always listen.  There is the other aspect of it, how many emails Lord Goldsmith have you ever written that you would not like others to read if you were hacked into?

LORD GOLDSMITH: Oh I’m sure there are lots, I’m sure all of us have written lots that we wouldn’t want to …

ESTHER RANTZEN: Stanley!  

DM: So are you saying the North Koreans are providing a service here and this is like a freedom of information inquiry really into Sony I suppose?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Indeed, indeed.  Well partly I think that Obama, for whom I have the greatest respect he will be relieved to hear because like Stanley he is an author and he has written wonderful books, wonderful books but I think he is wrong to say we won’t accept this request to investigate together because the more you can get people across a table, the more real you are to them, the less monstrous you seem and the harder it is to use the nuclear option on someone you actually believe is a human being.  

DM: Would you apply that dictum to Islamic State, to the Taliban?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Do you know, I say always talk?  I have been in a situation in organisations which I have actually chaired where people have said no, you mustn’t listen to them and I’ve said you must listen to people.  If they feel they’re being heard it makes a difference.

STANLEY JOHNSON: Do you know there is an option here.  When the fatwa was put forward on Salman Rushdie’s book Midnight’s Children as I remember…

DM: The Satanic Verses, it was The Satanic Verses that the fatwa was on.

STANLEY JOHNSON: Was it?  Well I’ll be corrected here, anyway the fatwa basically as I understand the publishing editor said no, we can’t accept this, let’s make sure we publish it anyway and there is a case for the industry, the film industry and the distributing industry to say no, we’re not going to settle for this and let’s get this out somehow in such a way that you can’t have a threat to people coming and sitting in cinemas.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well put it online, put it online.  

DM: I’m glad you mentioned that because that’s what I was wanting to get to, that film has to be seen somewhere doesn’t it?

LORD GOLDSMITH: I think they were talking about putting it online now.  It obviously has to be seen and how good a film it is we’ll find out but it also says something else this, because obviously the whole issue about the lack of security of emails, lack of security of private information is very, very significant but on the one hand we’re being very, very gosh this is terrible, how could the North Koreans do that and on the other hand we’re looking in the paper saying, goodness me, did Angelina Jolie really say that?  So we’ve got double standards a bit about this.

STANLEY JOHNSON: What did Angelina Jolie say?

ESTHER RANTZEN: They said it about her, about her.  They were as rude as bosses always are …

STANLEY JOHNSON: William Hague is very close to Angelina Jolie isn’t he?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well I don't think that close, I think he may admire her.  Is this a new email that we’re thinking of hacking into?

DM: We’d like to find out.  Esther, bring us your first story, it’s from the Telegraph and it is something we all know you’ve campaigned about for a long time but particularly pertinent at Christmas isn’t it, we don’t care enough about the elderly.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well they have got a campaign running, Justice for the Elderly, and they are actually looking specifically at care for the elderly and how appalling it often is.  Now I think one has to say that it is often wonderful as well and I have met many professionals working in the field, working in care homes, who are utterly devoted to the people they are looking after and Andrea Sutcliffe, who is in charge of the Adult Care Services for the Care Quality Commission, is a really good egg, you know her, a nice feisty woman, determined to get things right and she always make the point that there are wonderful people but there are also these appalling cases where people are put on drugs to quieten them down, are sitting round the edges of residential homes and I know of a wonderful little group of volunteers local to me who tell me how difficult it is for them to be allowed in to residential homes to offer activities, singing and conversation to people. I think we need to be very wary, if you’re thinking of putting an older person or an older person is going to go into residential care – and it’s not always the last resort, it’s not always the end of the world – you need to ask how many people come in and out of this place, how welcoming are you to volunteers and to others coming in and befriending your residents?  

DM: Get to know it.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Indeed, get to know it and if I may just say to people, 0800 4708090.

LORD GOLDSMITH: That’s not the Silver Line is it?

ESTHER RANTZEN: It is the Silver Line.

LORD GOLDSMITH: I just thought it might be.

ESTHER RANTZEN: And it’s open over Christmas, it’s open over New Year, it’s open every hour and we want to listen and talk to anybody who needs us.

DM: Thanks for saying that.  Esther, has it taken your breath away since it’s open, just the number of people who are using the Silver Line?

ESTHER RANTZEN: Yes, it has because we targeted 100,000 calls in a year and we got 300,000 calls and people ring us because they want someone to say goodnight to, they ring us because they feel that nobody cares about them, they ring us – one lady said ‘I’m not afraid of dying but I’m afraid of not being found, of nobody knowing.  Now I know I’m getting a regular call from you, I know someone will notice.’  I was rung up by a local paper about the case of an old lady who was found seven years after she died, seven years in Poole in Dorset, she was  a nurse …

STANLEY JOHNSON: We all have different ways of doing this.  I’ve just been up in the north, the north of Canada, up in the Arctic and they have different traditions.  I mean the Inuit people, the very old Inuit people know they’ve had a decent life and they have a party by the ice and then walk out into the snow.  Well we have different approaches.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Is that assisted dying?

DM: We’ll leave that one to hackers!  Lord Goldsmith, you’ve got another one to lift the mood and the CIA and, well almost torture allegations, this in the Observer as well.

LORD GOLDSMITH: Yes, and what’s being said now and has been said for a little time but the former human rights rapporteur for the European Union is saying that Britain must investigate this, investigate what complicity it had if any in CIA torture. Actually it’s an unsatisfactory state of affairs because we have tried to do this already, an inquiry was set up under a judge, Sir Ralph Gibson.  He then couldn’t complete his inquiry because of police investigations and he then did something which I think was the worst of both worlds, which was to release a report which said I can’t investigate but here are a number of questions which I think are important.  The problem is, those questions were all picked up as facts which have been found by him and the result is that the people in the secret security services and some people in political life were being accused, you’ve done all this when actually no one has actually got to the bottom of that.

DM: So what do we need, Lord Goldsmith?  Do we need a senate intelligence committee to blaze through it and …?

LORD GOLDSMITH: They seem to be rather better at this than we are in a number of respects.  There are reasons why you can’t reveal certain information, there’s no doubt about that but I think having started this sort of inquiry we now need to finish it and we now need to finish it quickly.  We’ve got the intelligence and security committee under Malcolm Rifkind which is supposed to be looking at this and rendition flights and all of this stuff, let’s get that done, let’s try and close it down.  If people have done the wrong things, let’s find out about it, if they haven’t then let them at least …

DM: What’s your gut feelings, do you think people have done the wrong things?  You were there of course, in government I mean, and with the United States if they asked us to do something, presumably this country would have done it?

LORD GOLDSMITH: No, we wouldn’t, no we wouldn’t I think, we tried very hard not to.  Of course the difficulties on the battlefield, you’ve got soldiers alongside each other and again, Stanley was talking about different traditions, different rules which apply to them but on the whole the British forces, the British secret service I think were very, very diligent, very disciplined in not doing things which were inappropriate despite the temptations no doubt from time to time.  There may have been the odd occasion but I think on the whole …

DM: But perhaps not saying to the American you shouldn’t be doing this?

LORD GOLDSMITH: Oh no, that happened too, that happened too, that happened as well but that’s not really the issue.  The issue did we assist them for example in allowing them to use our possessions in Diego Garcia to transport prisoners.  

STANLEY JOHNSON: I just want to ask a question to Lord Goldsmith, it’s a pretty technical question.  One of the issues people raise vis a vis the House of Commons Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee I guess chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, is that they won’t be giving evidence under oath whereas other committees perhaps might be.  I don’t understand, is that an absolutely crucial point that you don’t expect an MP to lie if he is under oath but if he’s not under oath you expect he would?

DM: A fair point, you make a fair point.  

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well God will decide, if you do an oath you see God is the ultimate judge and people will [inaudible] if they tell an untruth and Malcom Rifkind ….

LORD GOLDSMITH: I strongly suspect these days that’s not the reason, if you give evidence under oath and it’s untrue that’s perjury and a criminal offence.

ESTHER RANTZEN: You got to jail.

DM: Well let’s talk, Stanley, your next story about some people we’d like to be questioned under oath I think, this FIFA story and the investigation.

STANLEY JOHNSON: No, that’s Peter’s.

DM: Oh okay …

ESTHER RANTZEN: But we all care about it!

LORD GOLDSMITH: What I noticed this morning in the Sunday Times, they have a story which says that the Swiss authorities are now going to crack down on FIFA and I think this is really important.  I had an involvement in this, I was put on their independent governance committee.

ESTHER RANTZEN: But how do they do that?  Aren’t they self-determining?  Don’t they decide their own rules?  Who are they accountable to?

LORD GOLDSMITH:  At the moment they do, they are not accountable to anybody except their Congress and that’s why … They’re based in Switzerland so the normal rules which apply to big companies, non-governmental organisations, don’t apply to them and I think the right thing to do is somebody has now got to put them under that degree of accountability and the Swiss authorities are the right people to do it, I’ve said this actually in a comment piece today.  Ultimately Sepp Blatter has got to go but …

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well yes but he doesn’t think that does he?

DM: The point is he embodies the mechanism and just seems to completely float above the law but can you have an influence on the Swiss authorities?

LORD GOLDSMITH: We tried very hard in this committee that was set up and we agreed to serve on it, really to try and improve FIFA and we actually thought we’d done quite a good job but the farce that’s taken place over the last few weeks of reports being produced, being summarised, the author of the report then saying it’s not an accurate summary …

ESTHER RANTZEN: I like that nice American, that lawyer, is he called Garcia?  Come out from wherever you are Garcia.

LORD GOLDSMITH: He’s resigned.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Well yes but bring him here, bring him here, talk to him.

DM: Let me tell you, Esther, the invitation is open, we await his appearance.  Now Stanley, your next story is written by our very own Adam Boulton isn’t it?

STANLEY JOHNSON: No, my next story is …

DM: I’m not doing very well with the papers but he’s written a very good article it must be said and I recommend it to you.

STANLEY JOHNSON: My next story – Adam Boulton is a very fine man and has nothing to do with the Billy Bunter story I’m about to talk about.   We have the Billy Bunter Charter, an incentive to the obese and it’s a piece written by Camilla Cavendish in the …

ESTHER RANTZEN: Paper.

STANLEY JOHNSON: In the Sunday Times, in the Sunday Times.  I have a feeling that Melanie Reed has got a piece too about this.

DM: So just talk us through it, what’s the gist of the article?

STANLEY JOHNSON: The gist of the argument is that the European Court of Justice, which is an EU institution, has said that people who are obese, you know, fat, very, very fat, more so than me for example, have the right to be called disabled with all the access that goes with that.  This seems to me to be pushing it a long, long way because if you look at it, something like one third of the population of the United Kingdom at the moment classifies as being obese under the definition, body mass index of more than thirty or something like that, so I think this is just going – and I’m not making an anti-EU point,  I spent thirty years working at the EU but honestly, this one is a piece of nonsense and is going to cause …

DM: Red rags to bulls who are already rather upset about many aspects of the EU.

STANLEY JOHNSON: You know, you go on a plane, does this fellow have a right to occupy half your seat?

ESTHER RANTZEN: He has a right to a fat seat which will stop him sitting on your lap, Stanley, so you ought to be pleased about that.

STANLEY JOHNSON: You’re very keen on rights.  

DM: Here’s one answer to obesity, Strictly Come Dancing, Esther?  It puts you through your paces doesn’t it, you were watching very keenly last night.

ESTHER RANTZEN: As an ex-contestant, of course as you all know I lasted three whole weeks on Strictly.

STANLEY JOHNSON: You did very well.

DM: I think that’s more than any of us would but the final last night was very exciting and everyone was saying the standard of dancing has been better than ever.

ESTHER RANTZEN: I love reality shows, this has been a wonderful fortnight for reality shows, not only the Strictly final as of course you will be aware but also the final of the X Factor, as of course you’ll be aware – I don't know why.  Stanley, of course you’ll be aware.  I’m A Celebrity, Michael Burke …

STANLEY JOHNSON: I thought it was brilliant the way Claudia Winkleman went back on the show even though her child had just been badly burned, that was something.

ESTHER RANTZEN: Very brave, very brave.  What I would like to say is, the point I think about Strictly and where it wins over the X Factor is that the judges are much better.  Now I adore Simon Cowell, as I’m sure we all do, I discovered him for television – that’s another story – but I think we’ve got to sack ‘em, sack all the judges because they sit there saying inanities – you’re wonderful, you own the stage, blah-de-blah – whereas the Strictly judges not only have authority as of course you’ll be aware … You are looking at me so blankly, I’m assuming that you watch avidly!

LORD GOLDSMITH: Every single episode, Esther, I record them and watch them again, watch the repeats and on catch up.

ESTHER RANTZEN: The right contestant won and she won actually because of the emotion she put into her dance.  You’ve got good little dancers, good technical dancers but Caroline Flack – remember the name – was the rightful winner.  Tonight it’s the Apprentice.

DM: We know what your viewing is tonight, Esther.  Maybe you could get a job on the panel, maybe the X Factor panel with your analysis.  Thank you all very much indeed, lovely to see you.  Thank you to my newspaper panel for taking us through all those stories.