22/11/2011 Newsnight

Tonight's stratospheric pay rises for top executives, pocketing 100-

times more than employees, as if living on another planet.

Strange British politics, one day they are a bunch of wealth creators,

the next, a bunch of leeches. Is it time to redefine the "fat cats". We

will hear why. We will hear from businesswoman, Nicola Horlick.Also

tonight. TRANSLATION: We haven't put one single bullet on the

Egyptian citizens. That's progress, but the people don't seem to

believe those promises in Egypt. At the hacking inquiry, we examine

how dodgy dealing and hacking of celebrities went beyond the Murdoch

press. When I appeared on Newsnight, I mentioned someone in a less than

flattering light, the next day the papers raking up all the old

tabloid stories about myself and Hugh Grant. And climategate two,

and new leak of e-mails from scientists on the eve of another

international summit. How damage ring they this time?

-- damaging are they this time. Good evening, President John F

Kennedy tackled the idea of great inequalties in earnings in the

United States, by saying a rising tide will raise all boats. What

happens now, as when in Britain, the tide is falling. One thing we

notice is real pay for most British workers is now going back wards.

But for top executives it has gone up 4,000% over 30 years, according

to the high pray commission. Is this just rewards, -- High Pay

Commission. Is this just rewards, or is the market system broken, and

can and will politicians do anything beyond reflecting public

outrage. In place like this, a decent suit

will cost you �4,000, a decent watch about the same. In London's

Bond Street, as we are approaching bonus season, there will soon be no

shortage of people who know how to make and spend money. But the

wealth disparities are getting bigger. If we take average pay last

year, and then see what cleaners, nurses, teachers, policemen, army

officers, civil servants and local Government chief executives were

paid, it all pales by comparison with the chief executive of the

average FTSE 100 company. The thing that shocks me most is the way the

top 0.1%, mostly company directors, have pulled away from the rest in

the past 30 years. In 1980 being a company director was a respectable

middle-class job, you got paid a decent salary. You were on

something like 13-times average wages. Now they have pulled away so

much they have had up to 5,000% increases over that time. They are

now paid in the millions. They are paid at 75-88-times average wages.

It was the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s that began the process,

capital controls were abolished, top raift tax cut. But rise -- top

rate of tax cut. But rising inequalties is not the only problem,

but capitalism is changing and nowhere more than under Gordon

Brown. With wages keeping track with growth in the 80s they nearly

did, and even in the 90s, 90% was reflected in wage growth. After

that it was a different story, Labour may have declared itself

relaxed about people getting filthy rich, but it was the intensely

average that did worse than before. My fear is that the British economy

has caught a bit of the American inequality virus. This man, former

adviser to President Obama, says it goes deeper than politics. In order

to understand this phenomena, you have to understand the obvious

point, middle-class families do not depend on their bond portfolio and

their shares of stock, they depend on their pay cheques. If their pay

cheques, adjusted by inflation, aren't going anywhere, which is

what is happening for the past three decades, then you have a

middle-class squeeze, it really follows. Some employeeers have

dised today's report, commissioned by Compass and JRF, the Government

has not. It is thinking about this hard. I want to see responsible

capital, that is what the vast majority of British business,

including the banking sector want to see as well. It is not right

that we have the situation that has been happening over the last decade,

where we have vast ex, extreme awards -- vast, extreme awards paid

to directors of companies. It is not good for the consumers eers,

the people who run the company -- consumers, the people who run the

company and the public. High pay is a political hot topic, with the

third bleak Christmas in a row coming up, it is not hard to see

why. When the financial crisis started in 2008, redistribution was

not high on the agenda. People were worried about the structure of

capitalism, the credit boom, now, after three years of seeing the

rich get richer, it is about the rich.

An opinion poll for the High Pay Commission found almost three

quarters of people thought income differences were too large. Well

over half said ordinary working people didn't get their fair share

of the wealth, and almost as many laid the problem at the feet of

Government. We like to think that we have a very visceral sense of

fairness in this country. A lot of people would say that earning

enough to become independently wealthy in three to five years at

the top of one of our big businesss not fair. I think we can take

action on this, we don't have to be led by other countries. We have

gone too much in the direction of America, where pay has really

reached stratospheric levels. here's the dilemma, the coalition's

less than a week away from announcing its growth strategy. It

is being urge bid some in its own ranks to -- urged by some in its

own ranks to rip up the 50p tax rate and other measures, all in the

pursuit of wealth creation. But inequality has now arrived, in

its chauffeured Bentley, on to the political scene, that complicated

matters. We have Elizabeth Truss and Chuka

Umunna and Nicola Horlick to discuss this. People get really

wound up about it and politicians make a lot of statements but

nothing is done. It was not done under Labour and it won't get done

here? I don't agree with that. It doesn't talk about the impact of

business, the report, having rewards for failure or rewards

disproportionate to performance. Having pay incentives within

business doesn't promote good business practice. Brilliant

analysis, what bu what will happen? We have said a number of things,

pay and transparency is key. Business needs to be working in

partnership with the public. There are things in the report today, for

example, having an employee on the remuneration committee of the board

which would increase transparency. Also having companies publish the

ratio of the average paid employee to the person highest paid in the

business. There is a dire need for greater simplification of the pay

structures. I speak as a former corporate employment lawyer. In the

perspective of the company and the executive and society, being able

to better understand these things is crucial. The thing is, we need a

partnership of society and business working together. We need wealth

creation as well? Of course we do, they are interdependant. You need

there to be trust between the two, we need, of course, communities,

which feed businesses, employees and customers, but society needs

business too, which is creating those jobs. Is there a consensus

about this. Vincent Cable said this is unacceptable, we can't have it,

again, what can you do about it? think there is more consensus on

the problem than the solution. My view is we haven't seen enough of a

free market. We have had very heavily regulated markets. New

companies have not been able to enter, we haven't had enough

competition, that means companies have been able to make huge profits,

and pay chief executives more. you saying there is a market

solution to profound market failure, this is surely a failure? We are

83rd in the world now for regulation, 50% of our GDP is spent

by the state. I don't think you can say that's a true free market. The

other issue we have got. Just to be clear, you should think we should

keep our fingers crossed and hope the market will sort this out?

think we need more competition, in the banking sector, which has

become increasingly concentrated. We need to split up banks that are

too big, to ensure more competition. We need more competition in the

labour market. One of the things that has happened is we have seen

the development of an hourglass economy, so the number of high-

skilled jobs has gone up, and the number of mid--skilled jobs has

gone down. The last Government didn't prepare people for that, we

are 28th in the world for maths. Ed Milliband admitted we don't have

enough engineers or wolder, or people educate today do the jobs

now. How can you have a proper competition system if people don't

have an understanding of what the rewards are. We need a robust

competition regime, to argue there hasn't been a market failure here.

In the last year we have seen a 49% increase in the remuneration of

FTSE 100 directors, but only a 3% increase in profit. I agree about

the market transparency, that is making the market better. We have

seen Government introducing regulation after regulation that

stops new companies entering the market. I disagree. Shareholders

haven't a grip on this either, have they? You can blame shareholders

and also non-executive directors, they are generally the people who

sit on the remuneration committees that decide what pay is. Including

for themselves? In that report, somebody said, that this is, we

have been infected by what is going on in the United States. I think

that's true. Because we have got many companies now which are more

global, if you have got a large pharmaceutical company, which is

based in the UK, which is competing for top, top executives, with Merc

and Pfizer. This report is a myth that these people will disappear to

Dubai, they don't? The point is there are certain number of people

in the pharmaceutical industry who will take the top jobs, they are

not necessary British, we want the best person to manage the top

pharmaceutical company. You are competing in the international

market. This issue is not limited to the private sector. We see

organisations like the BBC, or Network Rail, giving out huge

salaries as well. It is not limited to the private sector. Yes, there

are issues about competition in the market, there are also issues in

quangos as well. How would you see the market correcting this system?

I think Nicola is absolutely right, we need a clearer relationship

between the owners and managers in a business. What has been happening

is the managers have been getting the rewards, and the owners have

been taking the risks. How do you get that? You get that through

shareholders exercising their rights. Yes. Wait a minute,

shareholders own the business, there are examples in the past

where shareholders have taken action and been very successful. In

years gone by, it used to be the case that top executives had three-

year rolling contracts, and pension funds, systematically, at AGMs

voted against that, and it stopped. This ignores one thing, part of the

problem is there is a closed circle in some of these boards. It is a

cosy club. I completely agree we need to increase shareholders

engagment. There is a democratic deficit there. There is a

difficulty for us in a sense that two fifths of UK shares are held by

international investors, we have to work out how to better engage them.

I come back to the need for greater transparency and accountability,

Government has a role to play there working with business. Is Vincent

Cable closer to Chuka Umunna's view than you are? We need to empower

consumers. How do you do that without transparency? In the

banking industry we need to make it easier for consumers to change

their bank accounts to drive competition, so more banks enter

the market. Take I don't want regulators and Governments setting

people's pay, which is the thin end of the wedge that you are decribing.

This commission didn't call for that. Nobody called for that.

did call for workers to be making decisions about remuneration.

are definitely against that? I am against that. There are lots of

industries where there is plenty of competition where the companies

aren't that profitable, and the chief executive is paid a lot of

money. It is not about competition. What would you do, it does seem

some people must be uniquely undermotivated in chief executive

positions, because they get rewards that are completely out of step

with workers what would you do? would encourage shareholders, it

may well be the case that 40% of shares owned outside the UK. That

is the FTSE, it is not true of medium-sized companies and smaller

companies. That is a general figure for all companies, the FTSE is

higher. It is very high. How would you empower the shareholders?

shareholders are empowered. They don't use T They are not using

their votes effectively. What they need to do, and also, major

shareholders get the opportunity to discuss these things, with senior

management, at least twice a year. If you have a big shareholding in a

company. Often it is not a meaningful engagment. This

discussion I find bemusing because it is talking as if some how the

status quo is fine and the market will step in. It is definitely not

that. Do you think things have profoundly changed, in the good

times you put up with it as share horld or worker, but you don't --

shareholder or worker, but you won't put up with it now? I think

things are getting worse and the previous Government and its

policies face blame for that. Ed Milliband criticised the old rules,

they were rules invented by Gordon Brown in terms of regulation of the

economy. They absolutely were, when the going was good, Labour was

happy to take the money and they did. And now they say the rules are

wrong, you invented them. If you let me get a word in. I wouldn't

say that, I find this amusing that there is irony you get tapped from

the right for not just leaving it to the market, and you get by --

attacked by not doing enough in Government. One thing we put in

Government was legislation to implement the Walker Review, which

would have meant in the financial circumstances disclosure of pay in

bands. With remuneration you need to know what it is, the Government

put in legislation for. That you talk about our Government, but you

have been in power for more than 18 months, now is the time for action.

I want to see more competition. Recently I proposed more

competition in the bank industry. Would you agree with Vincent Cable

that something must be done, that might include some kind of

legislation, isn't he closer to Chuka Umunna's point of view than

your's? I think what we need is a change in corporate culture.

legislation? We need shareholders to be more active, and change the

ownership to management. legislation? That may involve

legislation about corporate structure, it certainly doesn't

involve the Government deciding how much people get paid. Nobody is

arguing for that? You are You are erecting a straw man here to win an

argument you are losing. The voice mail hacking scandal started, we

were confidently told, with one or two bad apples at one newspaper,

the News of the World, now as the Leveson Inquiry rolls on we have

gone from the bad apple theory to the collapse of the News of the

World, and into the Murdoch empire and other news groups. We have

tried to figure out how far the contagion has spread. Put these on

the tab. Steve Coogan argues that his talent and resulting public

profile does not justify intrusive investigations into his private

life. I don't want to see an erection. Right guys. Finished with

the Daily Mail. Arriving at the Leveson Inquiry today he revealed

how he has been at the end of some extraordinary attempts to dig dirt.

One involved a journalist from News of the World, who phoned him about

an affair, and to offer him a deal. If I confirmed certain aspects of

the story, in return he would guarantee that the more lurid

details would be left out of the story. Yes. So I confirmed certain

details for him, and he gave me his word that the more embarrassing

part of the story, which I knew would upset my then wife's family

would be omitted. And after that, I received, my manager received a

phone call from Andy Coulson saying that they had recorded the whole

phone call and they were going to put everything in the newspaper.

Steve Coogan also argued that many celebrities are too scared of

tabloid reprisals to speak up. He says the Mail has been critical

after his appearances on Newsnight. All the Daily Mail are interested

in are the commercial interests, it is selling newspapers, everything

is based on who is shagging who, it is not about exposing corruption.

In fact, when I appeared on Newsnight, I mentioned Paul Dakerin

in a slightly less than flattering light, a an unwise thing to do. The

next day big story in the newspaper, raking up all the tabloid stories

about myself and Hugh Grant. It appeared to me, probably gone to

his office and sent a memo round saying if you want to throw dirt at

Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, be my guest. In recent cases witnesses

have sought to throw the net wider, saying phone hacking was not

confined to News of the World. In the summer Newsnight revealed

allegations against the Mirror Group of newspapers, allegation

that is were denied. There have been whisper about the Sun and the

Daily Mail, that have been denied. How strong is the evidence beyond

the News of the World. If you look at the career histories of those

arrested so far, it appears logical the police may ask questions of

other newspapers. These three journalists worked together at the

News of the World, before that the Sunday People owned by the Mirror

Group, it hardly amounts to a smoking gun. Footballer Gary

Flitcroft believes his messages were hacked by the Sunday People

after two women tried to sell their story. I got a phone call off a lap

dancer I was seeing, and stated she was being offered �5,000, and if I

didn't pay her she would get it off the newspaper. There was no way the

two girls knew each other. It is a massive coincidence that the Sunday

People get two girls to happen. It doesn't happen. The only way they

could have got it was from my phone bill. Have you any evidence of

phone hacking or is it just speculation? No, it is just

speculation, they didn't know each other or live near each other, it

is a massive coincidence the newspaper gets two girls in the

space of two months. Yesterday Hugh Grant told his suspicions of a Mail

on Sunday stories his relationship with a plumy-voiced woman in

America, he says it may have been voice messages hacked between him

and a plumy-voiced friend. I can't see any basis for the story except

the voice messages. You haven't alleged that in the public domain.

No, when I was preparing the statement, going through all my

trials and tribulations with the press, I looked at that one and

thought it was weird, and then the penny dropped. I think it the

highest it can be put is it is a piece of speculation on your part

in relation to this? Yeah. The newspaper denied this yesterday,

saying the Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant's claim that

they got any story as a result of phone hacking. Then there was our

exclusive story in the summer. When Heather Mills told us she had been

contacted by a senior journalist in the Mirror Group, saying he had

heard a message left by Sir Paul Back then the Mirror Group denied

any knowledge of phone hacking saying its journalists operate

within the law. All in all, there is plenty of smoke but little fire

on the question of whether other papers hacked phones. That they

sometimes behaved unethically is far easier to prove.

The solicitor, Mark Lewis, represents some of those who have

been appearing before the Leveson Inquiry, and will give evidence

there tomorrow imself. Tim Lockhart is a former editor of the Scotsman,

and a lecturer at the University of Kent. There is a lot of speculation

and allegationings, there is no proof of any conat that stage --

allegations, but there is no proof beyond the News of the World?

news news were almost unlucky, because mull -- the News of the

World were almost unlucky because Glenn Mulcaire had written evidence

down. If we compare what was said by the News of the World at the

very beginning, there was also a denial. They ran an editoral, the

one bad apple theory, they didn't do anybody else. They told that

story, and they ran an editoral in addition which said, this was a sad

day in the News of the World's 164- year history. Of course, what we

have got to be very concerned about is whether or not there is a cover-

up in other newspapers. Look, all professions, including the legal

profession, have people who don't follow the rules. It seems very

unlikely that the News of the World was the only newspaper that had a

small core of people who didn't follow the rules who broke the law.

Eventhough there is no proof, but it is certainly worth looking at,

and there is a smell here, isn't there? We seem to be inventing the

novel legal precedent here of guilt until proven innocent. I think we

should reverse it and take the normal stance. There is not any

compelling evidence that journalists outside the News of the

World or News International's newspaper titles have been involved

in phone hacking. There are good reasons to believe that in the

current circumstances, any editor or newspaper group which issued

such an emphatic denial, as the one issued yesterday by associated

newspapers, could possibly be lying, would have to be a fool. Do you

accept then that what we may be seeing here, with the Leveson

Inquiry is something very important for those involved, very cathartic

for those involved, really harrowing stories, we heard some

terrible stuff today, but actually t may not change much? I don't

think that is right. It is innocent until proven guilty. You have a

difficulty that the press choose to report. So we saw Hugh Grant's

evidence yesterday, it was a selected extract of evidence,

people didn't look at the full statement, they maybe watched the

Hugh Grant show and saw the cross- examination of the small bit.

People have to look at the statements available on-line. They

can go through exactly what he said and look at the level of intrusion.

And then perhaps people are able to make a choice.

I don't think that any of the statements that were issued

yesterday by Hugh Grant give firm evidence that his phone was hacked

by any newspaper. But he would accept that himself, he would never

that this is the only logical way he thinks this -- infers that this

is the only logical way he this could have happened? We know there

are many logical ways of finding out what people don't want in the

public domain. It is persistent reporting. Is it Truth and

Reconciliation Commission where people are just finger pointing?

think it is a perfect storm. I don't think we would have had a

Leveson Inquiry, if Murdoch mur's bid for BSkyB had not coincided

with the disturbing behaviour, which included the hacking of koul

Dowler's phone. -- including Sally Dowler's phone.

-- Milly Dowler's phone. A -- A large number of newspapers,

broadcast journalists are being tarred with the same brush as a

small group of journalists in News International. Guilt by

association? I'm not sure that is right. You talked about truth and

reconciliation. I'm not sure we are having the full truth either. We

need to look at the truth, because actually what happens is we end up

losing another Sunday newspaper, or we end up losing a daily newspaper

because people don't tell the truth. They cover up things, and if it

would have come out, the big loser are the people who used to read the

News of the World. There was such a cover up that when it came out they

had no choice, nowhere to go, and the same will happen with other

newspapers. Do you think newspapers, all newspapers actually, do they

have a future, and particular lie the tabloids what will they do?

raise a -- -- particularly the tabloids, what will they do?

raise an important point. This is not the biggest problem facing

journalism. The biggest problem is most newspapers are nearly bankrupt,

the multimedia has completely undermined the advertising market.

We face a problem with the condemnation of tabloid newspapers

risks losing the only profitable newspapers in this country, while

not facing the reality if those newspapers were to die we would

have no newspaper press in this country. The Guardian, that exposed

this, is losing �100,000 a day, the Independent is supported by the

generousness of its owners, the Times is subsidised by the Sun. We

face a real crisis in British journalism, it is about economics.

A economics and this is a side show? It is and it isn't. If we

talk about bankruptcy, we have financial bankruptcy on one side

and moral bankruptcy on the other. We don't need to keep moral

bankruptcy alive. Why should we be subsidising it. How many phones

need to be hacked, how much information needs to be obtained

illegally. Remember what was once told in a reworking of the

journalistic cliche, climategate. It turned on e-mails from the

university of East Anglia, that looked at robust claims of global

warming just before an international climate conference.

There is another climate conference coming up and, guess what, it has

happened against. We have been figuring out if the leaks add up to

much. What is in the e-mails? timing of this is clearly

significant. The latest round of international talks on climate

change begin on Monday. These 5,000 e-mails, involved some of the same

characters, the same period of time as that very first release back in

2009. What's important is that there are snippets of these e-mails

appearing on climate-sceptic internet sites. These have no

context, without that it is difficult to work out the true

meaning of the original e-mails. People will want to scour the

detail. Many of those I have spoken to this evening had not the chance

to do that. Clearly there is material here that people, who are

already suspicious about the science of climate change will sees

on. I think in particular exchanges where there are words used such as,

"spin", or "PR". We have a sample of some of those. There is one that

I spoke this evening to one of the key characters involved, there is a

high-profile scientist called Professor Michael Mann from Penn

University in the United States. He was cleared by misconduct last year

by his university over the climategate affair. He says the

exchanges show the back and forth of scientists wrestling with

scientific issues, disagreeing with each other, frank discussions that

are really important to the advancement of science. But I put

it to him that some of these e- mails clearly the scientists are

not just talking about science. They are talking about policy. And

how to deal with the media. And I asked him if that's territory where

scientists really should be getting involved at all. The attacks

against science gain the upperhand in the public discourse and in

considerations of policy. If scientists aren't there to defend

their science and defend themselves against these attacks. And

sometimes that means getting involved in the public discourse

correctly. Are there any other implications in this? I think there

will be calls for an examination of the details to see if there is

anything fresh here or it isn't more of the same. Three inquiries

have concluded that the British scientists involved in climategate

did not act fraudulently or manipulate data, but they urged

scientists to be more open with their data and how they interpret

it. There is one difference, there is a message posted at the same

time as one of these e-mails, where the person who has posted them is

saying that spending money on climate chaiank with exacerbate

poverty. The police have been interested and doing checks to see

if there are any more clues of who is involved in the original hack.

There are reports of Egyptian security forces going in hard

against protestors in Tahrir Square. Teargas has again been used,

according to a BBC correspondent on the scene. Protestors are speaking

of a second revolution. Nine months ago they were delighted when the

army, as a symbol of the nation, persuaded President Mubarak to go.

Many are doubtful about statements from the army chief, which commit

the military to democracy. We have this report.

Four days into what some are calling Egypt's second revolution.

The ragged encampment at the centre of Tahrir Square, geared up for

another demonstration today. Amid the tumult, a man whose story shows

how high a price some Egyptians will pay for democracy. This man

was a dentist, he will never practice again, he's blind e lost

one eye in January's revolution from President Mubarak's forces,

the other to the forces of the military prueling council two days

ago. -- ruling council two days ago. TRANSLATION: Police were trying to

enter the square, they were firing buck shots and teargas and rubber

bullets. We are defending the stones. I was standing on the

frontline and I was shot in my eye. As people gathered in greater

numbers to demand that Egypt's military rulers leave power

immediately, protestors were celebrating his courage. Losing the

sight of one eye, earlier in the year, why did you come back into

this incredibly dangerous situation again, most people wouldn't have

done that? For me, I stand before you in this square because I want

dignity for myself and the country. You must live free and with dignity.

It is not important to lose my eye. It is not important to lose

anything. We are standing for the sake of our dignity, and nothing

will make us go back. What dignity now means, at least to

those on Tahrir Square, is living under civilian rule. They waited

for an expected announcement about a handover of power by generals,

who they saw as liberators in the spring, then began to distrust, and

with the renewed violence of recent days, to hate.

One of Egypt's leading rights campaigners told me abuses this

year have sometimes been worse than under Mubarak. He has drawn up a

charge sheet against senior officers, he says were behind

orders to maime and kill in recent days. It is a shoot-to-kill policy.

It is Interior Ministry police, it is the same strategy of killing a

few protestors so the rest of them can go home. Obviously it has

failed, just like it failed in January. He thinks the military has

deceived itself about the popular mood. Now we are under a Military

Council whose members strongly believe that eepbl they are

patriotic and that -- only they are patriotic, and that those who

oppose their policies are the enemies within, with an external

agenda, aiming to destablise Egypt. In their mind and in their

narrative they distinguish between the protestors filling Tahrir

Square and other cities now, and those in the same place as January.

They think the January protest was a justified uprising against

injustice, where as this protest is an attempt to destablise the

country. When the head of the armed fores, Field Marshal Tantawi,

finally appeared on TV this morning, he confirmed how offended the army

felt by the demonstrations against it. TRANSLATION: Some people have

tried to entice us to provocation, we put up with injuries and

criticism, however, we didn't give in to these attempts. We are

keeping our restraint. The Government supported us in all of

this. But as the crowd waited outside in the square, he told them

what he believes most Egyptians want to hear, that there will be a

clear timetable for a transition to civilian rule. Tran To carry on the

transitional period with the co- operation of the Supreme Council of

the Armed Forces, to commit the holding of parliamentary elections

on time. To elect a President of the State before the end of June

2012. The Armed Forces represented

through its Supreme Council does not seek power. So what did they

make of that on Tahrir Square? think this is not enough. I saw a

rewind of Mubarak's speech, I think this is a deja vu of what happened

on January 25th. I think it is fine, but an apology is needed for those

who died in Tahrir Square. Everybody needs an apology.

wasn't enough for the Tahrir Square people, they thought it wasn't

enough for them. They didn't satisfy, his speech wasn't that

strong that could fulfil their needs. They will still be here and

stay until more of their demands could be accomplished or be heard

from Tantawi. Here on Tahrir Square, where I can still feel the teargas

in my eyes, where tempers have risen and risen in recent days,

most aren't satisfied by the Field Marshal's words, but this isn't

Egypt, and the promise of a clear transition for a democracy, may

play differently in other parts of the country. Here on the banks of

the Nile, anger hasn't subsided, beyond there is a yearning for

order and stability that the generals hope will work to their

advantage. We were hoping to talk to the

Egyptian novelist and activist, Ahdaf Soueif, who is in Cairo,

apparently there is some problem with the line. We hope to get

through before the end of the programme. Let's have a look at

tomorrow morning's front pages, A member of the financial stability

panel hits out. This comes after, as we were reporting earlier, this

great disquiet about the disparity of pay in this country. The Tahrir

Square protests are on the front page too. The Egyptian general's

pledge fails to quell new Tahrir Square's protests. And the Thomas

Cook, the big business story domestically, their shares plunge

domestically, their shares plunge 75% amid fresh talks on the debt

burden. The Mail, and a few of the papers

have the same story, a damming report into home help for the

elderly, which finds neglect so appalling some wanted to dry. The

cruelty of the careless. Thousands of elderly people being abused and

neglected in their homes by the staff meant to car for them. In

some cases treatment is -- care for them. In some cases the treatment

is so bad that frail pensioners have been left wanting to die. It

comes after studies exposing the shocking standard of care for old

people in hospitals in care homes across the country. The Telegraph

has the same story, the elderly abused by their carers. It also a

story about David Cameron in �140,000 land deal with a lobbying

boss. On my copy here the print is We join Ahdaf Soueif, the Egyptian

goflist and actist, she has been -- novelist and activist, she has been

in Tahrir Square all day. We heard the military leadership promise

they don't want to hold on to power and there will be presidential

elections next June, why isn't that good enough for you and the

protestors? Because we no longer believe them. Because we have been

through this before with them, and before that with Mubarak, where

things are promised and then they don't happen. If anybody had any

doubts remaining after their performance over the last nine

months, what they have done over the last three days should put an

end to that. They have been killing people, they have been gassing

people. Tahrir Square has been gassed as we speak. Alexandria,

people are dying there, and in other parts of the country. So, you

know, actions speak louder than words. We don't believe they will

let go of power. All the evidence, it is too detailed to go into here,

but the evidence in the detail of their proposals for the coming few

months, show they don't intend to leave. Just to be clear. Are you

saying, we have been reporting the protests in Cairo, are you saying

they are elsewhere in the country, Alexandria, Suez and upper Egypt

too, is it going on in other places? Alexandria, Suez, Aswan, it

is everywhere. Haven't some things changed though for the better, you

know, many exiles have gone home, there is a degree of press freedom

and so on. I suppose what I'm saying is there no way you should

be more patient about this, do you think? No, absolutely not. I think

we need to save ourselves and get rid of them. We vpblt had exiles

from Egypt -- we haven't had exiles from Egypt, people have always been

free to come and go. We have a sense of press freedom, that has

always been here. That is not because they haven't tried to shut

it down. They have. State media has been just as bad, and playing just

as unpleasant and treacherous a role as they have in the time of

Mubarak. The one thing that has changed for the better is because

we had the revolution in January and February, we believe in

ourselves. And people have broken that barrier of fear. So they

detain people, they torture them, when they come back on the streets

they are back in Tahrir Square. What has changed is we know what we

want and we know we can get it and we believe in ourselves. Do you

think you can get it without more people being shot in the streets

and being teargased, there may perhaps be more bloodshed? This is

the terrible thing. We thought, on the 11th of February, when Mubarak

stepped down, that we had already paid a pretty big price. Obviously

that wasn't enough. We are paying a bigger price now. But the thing is,

if people back down now it is the end. We really might as well not

have done anything and back to the old regime. At some point very soon

it will all start up again and more people will be killed and more

people will die. It is everybody's choice now. There is no backing

down. The military have to go. Right, but of course the history of

the country has been since 1952, they have been at the centre of

power, in slightly different ways. So 60 years of their military

mystery, I'm just wondering what you would expect them to do over

the next month or two, that would persuade you to return home to wait

for the elections? They need to hand over power, to a civilian body.

Whether it is a civilian Government or whether it is a civilian

presidential council, it is quite clear, really, that the names are

thank are put forward, everybody knows what they are. There is

absolutely no reason why they shouldn't do that tonight. There is

no reason why they shouldn't do that tomorrow. With full powers.

Then they should put themselves where they belong, the military

should be at the service of the country, and they should work under

a civilian Government. We need them because we don't have a police

force at the moment. So we would need the military to redeem itself,

if you like, by continuing, by starting to look after our security,

until such a time as we can get a police force back working. That

really is the only thing they can do. No rhetoric, no words. I'm

sorry we are running right out of time. Thank you very much for

joining us from Cairo. That's all from Newsnight tonight.

Tomorrow night the boss of British Gas will be here live, with Jeremy,

to debate the rising cost of energy bills, it might be worth turning

It's chilly out there. In fact, a touch of frost developing across

the southern half of the UK later on. Fog patches around too. Here

the best of the sunshine through the day. Further north it will be

cloudier, with rain around for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Mid-

afternoon fine enough across most of the Midlands, a bit of patchy

cloud, after the chilly start temperatures rising. The winds not

strong, pleasant, a glorious November day across many southern

counties of England, lots of blue sky with a crisp feel to things. Up

across Wales there will be a gradual increase in cloud,

particularly across more northern areas, maybe the odd spot of rain

for Snowdonia. It will be windy afternoon across Northern Ireland,

a lot of cloud, outbreaks of rain, particularly to the west of Belfast.

Western parts of Scotland too will see some outbreaks of rain. To the

east and the maint tains and later in the far north we should be dryer

and brighter. A bit of a north- south split on Wednesday, with most

of the rain across the north, things turning dryer for a time on

Thursday, it will be a gusty wind. That will offset the mild

temperatures. Further south mostly dry on Thursday, some sunshine,

again temperatures some what higher than they will be on Wednesday.