05/03/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be

With me are Laura Hughes, political correspondent

of the Daily Telegraph, and the journalist and political

Welcome, good to have you here again.

Let's have a look at the front pages.

The Telegraph leads with Boris Johnson attacking

what he call's David Cameron's "Agents of Fear" in the ongoing

The Sunday Times has the same story plus a warning

from the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove that the "EU fuels

The Independent has an exclusive on what it says is a cover-up

of the treatment of terror suspects in the UK.

"NHS to harvest babies' organs" is the rather alarming headline

The Sunday Express says Britannia will no longer rule the waves

claiming the EU wants to take charge of the UK coastguard as part

Welcome to both of you. Laura, let's begin with the Sunday Telegraph, a

couple of stories, Boris Furia over EU bullying scandal. This is all to

do with the suspension of the British Chamber of Commerce director

general? Yes, the BBC should take a neutral stance, but he said they

should be out. It caused controversy. It's been claimed that

Downing Street lent on the board, the BCC, they said that the comments

were inappropriate. They say that conversations did not happen between

the board and number ten, Boris is having fun, this follows from

project fear, he says. He says agents of the are putting pressure

on businesses and people, bullying is absolutely shocking. It is strong

language from Boris here. It is a good opportunity for the campaigners

of the EU to leave the EU. What do you make of it? It's interesting,

John Longworth said it was his personal view. Surely, being head of

the BCC, he says it is not going to be taken on a personal note, he must

have realised it would have cost uproar. Members of the board are

split. -- caused uproar. We will see more stories like this, it is

inappropriate not have a view on it. We've seen some division, people for

the Brexit or the vote, that exit, whatever it is called, they say they

are being bullied into not giving a point of view, it is interesting,

because the government has allowed ministers to vote. They are

campaigning, I think the Tory party will face a meltdown at some point,

they are at each other's throats. The fact Boris Johnson calls it

scandalous, it is part of his way of talking. It is interesting, we had

this Iain Duncan Smith earlier in the week when he implied one of the

government documents on the subject was like the dodgy dossier over

weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The implication is the Prime

Minister cannot be trusted on it, but the theory is people like Iain

Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson will be sat around the table again with

David Cameron on June 24, do people find that credible in Westminster?

It's a collective responsibility in his own cabinet, he has key players,

divisive and strong people like Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith,

he's really interesting because he is in charge of benefits and migrant

benefit issue will be a big one when it comes to voters choosing whether

or not they want to leave the EU referendum. It ties into the

leadership contest. We have reported before that after the referendum,

the next leader of the Tory party, if Britain votes to stay in, would

have to come from the vote leave campaign, it could be Boris or Priti

Patel. It's interesting, having that in the back of your mind every time

you hear these big characters making comments like this on stories.

Another story on the front of the Telegraph, different reasons why

ministers are falling out, over Sunday trading? It links into what

Laura was saying about collective responsibility, we will see

disagreements, people are more courageous about giving out their

opinions, they will see a Cabinet reshuffle, this is about Sunday

trading hours, an issue the government has raised before. The

vote is on Wednesday. According to the story, two ministers, they

aren't named, I don't know if it is on the inside, I don't make so. In

addition to 50 MPs, they may vote against us. We know Labour will vote

against, the SNP it is not clear. It is about the government could lose,

potentially, or get a large opposition within their own party

it's not clear how the vote will go but it is coming up on Wednesday.

The SNP, it's another example, like the hunting law, the government gave

up and said there was no point in trying to bring it back because the

SNP would vote against. They can reach across the House of Commons

and join forces, the same with Labour, it is a cross-party

rebellion that is happening. That is trouble. Let's move on, "Britain

will no longer ruled the waves". This is on the Sunday express. It

would make anyone set up. I wonder what they think about the EU, the

first line of the article says that the EU has drawn up plans to seize

control of the British coastguard. You read through the whole story,

its difficult to say whether these plans have been given the go-ahead

or whether they are considering it, but it is clear the British

government's view is that Britain is not part of the Schengen area. So

far, everything coming from the government is that we are not

included, but having said that, some of the language in how the story is

written, you would think that Russia is controlling the coastguard. It is

about the migrant crisis that we're having at the moment in Europe.

Britain so far has been at bay from accepting refugees that coming in

from Syria and other places of conflict, in addition to some

migrants in different parts of the world. However, they say that the

Eurocrats, bureaucrats from Europe, they want to take control. It is

difficult to know whether this will go ahead. Given that Britain at the

moment does not have this problem, why would you put more forces at a

time when the EU has to put extra resources in from where they are

having to deal with it. Is that necessarily a naval border that

you'd need to defend in the same way? The Daily Express has come up

with it wonderful illustration on the second page, I don't know if we

have it on our screens, it's an image of the white cliffs, and I

don't know whether -- don't know where they founded.

There is the lion protecting Britain... Manning the seas. There

is a ship in the background. She does not look fearsome, this

Britannia. She looks quite relaxed! That is why we have to protect her.

It is time for the lion to roar. This headline, I think it would have

a lot of people picking up the Mail on Sunday, it is a striking

headline. The NHS to harvest baby 's organs, does the story live up to

the headline? It is about the decision that hopefully no woman

would have to go through, or parents, they baby that -- of a baby

that has defects that means it is stillborn, or they have to choose to

abort. If you carry on with a nine-month pregnancy, have the baby

born dead, but harvest the organs. It comes at a time when you have

only had 11 organs donated in two years. There is a problem for babies

being born. 11? Yes, only 11 under two months have become organ donors

in the last two years. However, the way it comes across, it is true. It

is a medical dilemma, whether the medical capabilities are there or

not. To go to full term, knowing that a child is unlikely to survive

will be so severely disabled, she, the mother, and the father, they

make the decision, they may have chosen an abortion instead? It is

described as "Ghoulish". By Doctor Trevor Summers, of Saint Mary 's

University. You do have a crisis in organ donations, I think it says

that there are 7000 people in Britain currently on the list but

you have three dying every day because they do not have access. For

a number of reasons, people are living longer. People are not

offering up organs. It raises the question of, it is, before, whether

some kind of opt in, or if you are automatically in unless you opt out,

that could be a better option rather than going down this route. Unless

there is something particular about a baby's organs that is lacking in

adults or children... They are healthy, fresh... You can see that.

One of the things that is interesting... It is a hard

conversation for a doctor or nurse to have with a parent. This issue

would not be raised, they say, when a woman is considering abortion. It

would not come into the decision-making phase, it could

start that way, but what happens in five, ten or 15 years... They are

making clear that no one would be obliged to do so. Equally, you can

imagine parents at a vulnerable point, they must be concerned about

whether there would be pressure implicitly because of the

vulnerabilities. They've changed the rules so I think that previously, it

was illegal for any baby to donate an organ before two months, but they

are relaxing it. I think people will be talking a lot about that story

tomorrow morning. I'm glad we have it on this paper review.

Let's move onto The Sunday Times. Two interesting stories, on the

left, this organisation that is after your money again! Yes, this

is... Apparently there is a loophole of ?115 million per year of people

accessing BBC programming through their iPhones and iPads through

iPlayer, I frequently use it and think it is brilliant. You can use

it as long as you are in the UK or are using a VPN outside of the UK...

You are not supposed to do that, we will brush over it! You get access

to programmes that you would only have with the TV licence, it means

new legislation that means you had to buy a TV licence. The point of

this is that it really makes it a subscription, how is it different to

Netflix or others? I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing.

It is the principal, we have to think of ways to keep it going, but

more of us are turning to online programming. The TV licence concept

is becoming dead in the water. Perhaps this is the way to go?

Laura, will everyone sign up if they had to pay for it? We will see. I

don't know, it's a general problem that we have in the newspaper

industry, even... Even more than we do. If you love it, pay for it.

There are people behind the scenes putting it together for you. The

Telegraph does not mean you had to pay for it? You can get a lot of

online stuff off of the paper's website. What about publications you

write for, is it common? In the Arab world, you still don't have to pay.

We are probably 10-15 years behind the UK, it is the US is even more

advanced in the sense that it is further ahead. People buy carbon

copy papers more than you would find here. To go back to the BBC issue,

there are amazing programmes people will pay to see. We've realised it

when they sell some of their programmes. Let's squeeze in one

war, OMG. The! Will not be allowed. -- the exclaimation mark will stop

being used. Seven-year-olds, they are not going to be allowed to be

used the exclaimation mark. It would be used in the Telegraph? I don't

recover the used a exclaimation mark in an article! I will keep it in my

head. I will try! Thank you to both of you, we will be back in one hour.

We will be back at the top of the hour with more on the decision on

George Osborne to cut tax relief on pension contributions.

Now, it is time for Reporters. From here in the world's newsroom,

we send out correspondents