:00:45. > :00:49.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Radical changes
:00:49. > :00:52.afoot to our armed forces. The government wants to double the size
:00:52. > :00:56.of the part-time Territorial Army. Army reservists will also get a new
:00:56. > :01:00.name. The Defence Secretary says it is a fresh start. We will be asking
:01:00. > :01:03.him if it's defence on the cheap. Out with the old and in with the
:01:03. > :01:09.new. China gets a new President. John Simpson will be live from
:01:09. > :01:15.Beijing. Should we regulate the press or not? One Fleet Street hack
:01:15. > :01:20.tells us why it should be left alone. And would you eat pickled
:01:20. > :01:30.kangaroo? No? We're not talking about I'm a Celebrity. We'll be
:01:30. > :01:34.
:01:34. > :01:40.discussing the art of ambassadorial You have got a thing about
:01:40. > :01:50.kangaroos! You're on about them yesterday. It stops today. No need
:01:50. > :01:50.
:01:50. > :01:54.to go there. On behalf of the BBC, Irish like to apologise. All that
:01:54. > :01:56.in the next hour. And with us for the duration we've bagged Sir Socks.
:01:56. > :02:02.Yes, the former Ambassador to Washington Christopher Meyer is
:02:02. > :02:05.with us. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Great pleasure. Now,
:02:05. > :02:08.first today, let's talk about the day after the night before, if you
:02:08. > :02:12.get my drift - the US elections. Because President Obama has rather
:02:12. > :02:22.a lot in his in-tray, not least the small matter of a fiscal cliff
:02:22. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:28.hanging over him. Scary! The liberal left in America are
:02:28. > :02:33.claiming this was a watershed election. There is a new democratic
:02:33. > :02:42.majority that is likely to be there for a long time and it is the
:02:42. > :02:45.triumph of social liberalism. True? Up to a point. It does show that
:02:45. > :02:50.the Republicans need to do something about the way in which
:02:50. > :02:57.they garner votes if they will ever win another presidential election.
:02:57. > :03:01.For the moments, the Democrats have a coalition of minorities. That has
:03:01. > :03:07.enabled them to prevail this time around for a bar rubble President,
:03:07. > :03:11.who was weakened by what has happened over the last four years.
:03:11. > :03:15.-- a far honourable president. Whether they will draw the right
:03:15. > :03:21.conclusions remains to be seen. A lot of them will take down and make
:03:21. > :03:26.it worse. Is there not the possibility of a continuing civil
:03:26. > :03:30.war with the TEA Party and the establishment? I have seen some
:03:30. > :03:38.Republicans - reminiscent of Labour in the 1980s - saying they have
:03:38. > :03:43.lost because they did not have a conservative enough candidate. That
:03:43. > :03:49.was until they had Michael Foot. Then they said, we lost because we
:03:49. > :03:55.were not left-wing enough. Mitt Romney was not Conservative. He was
:03:55. > :03:59.a moderate, they thought. Something may concentrate their minds and let
:03:59. > :04:05.commonsense break through. A President does not have to be re-
:04:05. > :04:10.elected Again. He is liberated. The mid-term elections are coming in
:04:10. > :04:13.2014. If he can pin it on these hardline republicans but it is they
:04:13. > :04:23.who are blocking legislation and tax of, and getting the deficit
:04:23. > :04:25.
:04:25. > :04:30.down, then they will suffer in the mid- terms. -- and tax reform.
:04:30. > :04:35.understand it, if they cannot come to an agreement on tax and spend,
:04:36. > :04:45.taxes go up automatically and spending is cut automatically. It
:04:46. > :04:47.
:04:47. > :04:52.could take about 5% at of the American GDP. -- out off. In
:04:52. > :05:00.Washington, they often go to these fiscal cliffs. Do they ever jump
:05:00. > :05:04.over a? A cannot remember a time when they have gone over. -- I
:05:04. > :05:09.cannot. My guess is that if they get to the end of the Year and have
:05:09. > :05:15.not done the deal, somehow or other they will shut down time until they
:05:15. > :05:19.do the deal. I would be really surprised if they went over the
:05:19. > :05:29.edge. It would be catastrophic and ruin what is left of the reputation
:05:29. > :05:35.of Congress. They are down in their approval ratings. Either they do it
:05:35. > :05:39.by 1st January or they will suspend it until late thrash it out.
:05:39. > :05:45.Whether they will want to do a compromise or not. Let me bring you
:05:45. > :05:51.on to something... We will discuss China later in the programme. Yet
:05:51. > :05:58.we suggest, we could already be seeing the beginnings of Mr Obama
:05:58. > :06:05.becoming a Pacific President in the first term and even more of that in
:06:05. > :06:10.the second term. He has no ethnic ties to Europe. His home state is
:06:10. > :06:16.Hawaii. He was brought up part of the time in Indonesia. He is trying
:06:16. > :06:21.to do a deal with Australia. We know he has no love for Europe or
:06:21. > :06:27.the United Kingdom and maybe even regards us as a backwater. I am not
:06:27. > :06:34.sure he has a love for any foreign country. I have never seen a burst
:06:34. > :06:38.of enthusiasm when he has met anyone from anywhere in the world.
:06:38. > :06:44.Gordon Brown had to meet him in the kitchen. What about the idea that
:06:44. > :06:48.America is being drawn inexorably to the Pacific? They have had
:06:48. > :06:53.fleets out there for years. As China becomes more powerful, they
:06:53. > :06:57.will pay more attention to that. It does not mean they are banned in
:06:57. > :07:07.Europe as they embrace the Pacific. Other than trade come up what do
:07:07. > :07:07.
:07:07. > :07:16.they want from Europe? -- other than trade, what do they want?
:07:16. > :07:20.are very scared. The eurozone crisis really concentrates people's
:07:20. > :07:25.minds in Washington. The anaemic recovery in the United States could
:07:25. > :07:29.be thrown off course by anything, including Europeans who do not get
:07:29. > :07:37.that acts together. Europe has not disappeared from out of sight and
:07:37. > :07:44.out of mind. If we're talking 25 years ago, not as important. NATO
:07:44. > :07:52.is still in Afghanistan and we are still quite important in the United
:07:52. > :07:55.States. -- have to the United States. Now you've probably seen
:07:55. > :07:59.lots in the news recently about ash trees and the disease that's
:07:59. > :08:03.spreading through them. The Government is due to publish an
:08:03. > :08:06.action plan tomorrow on how best to deal with the spread of so called
:08:06. > :08:10.ash dieback disease. However, ministers admit we could lose a
:08:10. > :08:13.significant number of trees. But why should we care about ash trees?
:08:13. > :08:18.And what will be the environmental and commercial impact of the
:08:18. > :08:22.disease? There are approximately 80 million ash trees across the UK and
:08:22. > :08:24.they are very important for wildlife. Ash trees support insects
:08:24. > :08:30.like the lesser stag beetle, hole- nesting birds including owls and
:08:30. > :08:34.woodpeckers. And they are an important habitat for flora such as
:08:34. > :08:42.bluebells and ramsoms. Dieback has been confirmed at 115 sites - woods
:08:42. > :08:44.in Norfolk, Kent, Suffolk and Essex are among the worst affected.
:08:44. > :08:47.Nearly 100,000 saplings have been destroyed in recent weeks, while
:08:47. > :08:53.the import and movement of trees has been banned leaving nursery
:08:53. > :09:02.stock virtually worthless. Joining me now from Nottingham is Austin
:09:02. > :09:07.Brady from the Woodland Trust. Isn't this the end of the ash tree
:09:07. > :09:10.in the UK? It could be. That is why we have been working really hard
:09:10. > :09:18.with the Forestry Commission and others to get a handle on how far
:09:18. > :09:23.the disease has spread and how much of a foothold it has got. If we are
:09:23. > :09:27.saying 115 sides, it is it possible to stop the spread? It is very
:09:27. > :09:34.unlikely we can stop it spreading. We need to focus on a clear action
:09:34. > :09:40.plan as to how we will respond, not just to this disease but other
:09:40. > :09:44.threats which are lurking on the borders. The ash tree is part of
:09:44. > :09:50.the very fabric of the British countryside. It makes our country
:09:50. > :09:54.what it is. We are passionate about protecting ancient woods and trees.
:09:54. > :10:00.The ash tree is really important to that. We're trying to do what we
:10:00. > :10:06.can to tackle the problem. What is the commercial impact of this
:10:06. > :10:12.disease? There is a commercial impact on people who manage
:10:12. > :10:20.woodland. Also an impact on people who supplied trees to the trade. It
:10:20. > :10:24.is about getting the supply chain smartened up. Do you think
:10:24. > :10:29.politicians are giving adequate protection to the countryside?
:10:29. > :10:35.There has maybe being a reliance on systems which are not fit for
:10:35. > :10:38.purpose. We need to move forward with solid actions. We have a
:10:38. > :10:42.project on the side -- on the starting blocks. We need the
:10:42. > :10:47.Government to close the funding back to put their money alongside
:10:47. > :10:50.ours to get the project running next week and not next year. With
:10:50. > :10:52.me now is Mary Creagh, who is the Shadow Environment Secretary, and
:10:52. > :11:00.the Conservative MP, George Freeman, whose mid-Norfolk constituency is
:11:00. > :11:03.one the worst affected areas. Has the Government done a good job in
:11:04. > :11:10.responding to the crisis? Secretary of State has taken a very
:11:10. > :11:14.strong grip. COBRA has been meeting. Yesterday there was a major
:11:14. > :11:20.national and international summit of leaders. There has been a
:11:20. > :11:24.nationwide survey of the disease. The truth is, this has been brewing
:11:24. > :11:30.for some time. There are questions to be asked about how we did not
:11:30. > :11:34.spot it coming earlier. It is about looking for it and making Britain
:11:34. > :11:38.secured. When you say the Government is on top of it, they
:11:38. > :11:43.did not respond to the crisis early enough to stop the first confirmed
:11:43. > :11:47.case in Buckinghamshire was back in March. This has been happening over
:11:47. > :11:53.the last decade. There are questions for all parties in
:11:53. > :11:57.government about how we make sure that biosecurity in Britain, in the
:11:57. > :12:02.context of global trade, is looked after. We still have trees coming
:12:02. > :12:09.in from China with soil on the routes. We need to take it as a
:12:09. > :12:14.wake-up call. Is it fair to say the Government was asleep on the job in
:12:14. > :12:18.response to this crisis? disease was found in March.
:12:18. > :12:23.Ministers were informed in April. Why did they not tell the public
:12:23. > :12:29.and would growers over the summer? We know this fungus fruits between
:12:30. > :12:34.June and October. The biggest fruiting time has happened. It
:12:34. > :12:40.likes wet conditions. The Government is doing a four des
:12:40. > :12:45.survey it over the last four days, desperately trying to survey an
:12:45. > :12:49.area the size of Wales. They're totally on the back foot. If the
:12:49. > :12:52.public had known earlier, we could have been out and about and the
:12:53. > :12:58.much further forward with the disease. What has happened in the
:12:58. > :13:05.last seven months? A lot has happened. The best option is not to
:13:05. > :13:09.spread panic. The best advice is to leave the trees standing. We have
:13:09. > :13:13.carried out a nationwide survey of this disease across the whole of
:13:14. > :13:18.the United Kingdom. This government has not been sitting on its hands.
:13:18. > :13:23.It is about making sure that this country becomes again the safe
:13:23. > :13:28.haven in terms of biosecurity. In Australia, they spray you before
:13:28. > :13:34.you get out of a plane. We need to make sure this country is once
:13:34. > :13:41.again a fortress in Europe. Nothing has been done on that scale. It was
:13:41. > :13:47.not done under Labour. The Labour government was told of the threat
:13:47. > :13:50.of the disease from ash trees and it was ignored. The letter went to
:13:50. > :13:56.Forestry Commission officials. The best advice was that the fungus was
:13:56. > :14:02.already widespread in the UK and could not be banned under the EU or
:14:02. > :14:08.World Trade Association rules. It was only discovered in February,
:14:08. > :14:14.2010. The issue is that the Forestry Commission budget has been
:14:14. > :14:19.capped to 36 million and 500 staff have already gone. Do we have the
:14:19. > :14:24.boots on the ground to tackle this? How many people in the department
:14:24. > :14:30.are experts in dealing with this? am not in DEFRA so I could not tell
:14:30. > :14:36.you. Just one person is left in DEFRA, who is a plant specialist
:14:36. > :14:39.and expert, who is able to do this sort of thing. You have seen from
:14:39. > :14:47.the speed and significant of response Houses see the Government
:14:47. > :14:53.has taken it and scientists have taken it. -- how seriously the
:14:53. > :14:57.Government. Will many go into them compensate people question we need
:14:57. > :15:07.to take the very best scientific advice. Should there be
:15:07. > :15:07.
:15:07. > :15:14.compensation. That are worthless? This is not the time for that. --
:15:14. > :15:20.this disease has spread at 30 kilometres an hour. How do we
:15:20. > :15:23.protect the British trees, British growers and the British forestry
:15:23. > :15:30.industry and take this opportunity to reinforce British biosecurity?
:15:30. > :15:36.We do not want this to happen with other species? Should there be
:15:36. > :15:40.compensation? That is further down the line. We are back to the
:15:40. > :15:44.arguments about the science. Should the Government have told people.
:15:44. > :15:50.People planted stuff over the spring and summer and have been
:15:50. > :15:54.planting seeds. Those seeds are worthless. That would have reduced
:15:54. > :15:58.the number of saplings that were planted and, actually, I would have
:15:58. > :16:04.meant that nurseries would not have been ruined from a business
:16:04. > :16:09.perspective. This is not the time at which people are importing trees.
:16:09. > :16:14.The best advice is to keep the mature trees there. When the
:16:14. > :16:18.industry flat this with the last government, it carried on importing.
:16:18. > :16:28.There are issues about how we handle these diseases and make sure
:16:28. > :16:30.
:16:30. > :16:34.that Britain is a strong global Congratulations to endured a
:16:34. > :16:36.crewman on his November moustache. Now, the Chinese President has
:16:36. > :16:39.opened the Communist Party congress that begins a once-in-a-decade
:16:39. > :16:45.power transfer in the country. I'm joined from Beijing by the BBC's
:16:45. > :16:51.World Affairs Editor John Simpson. There is always a periodic changing
:16:51. > :17:01.of the Guardian Beijing. Tell us the significance of this one.
:17:01. > :17:02.
:17:02. > :17:10.Andrew, the way it works, each time a new leadership comes clanking in,
:17:10. > :17:16.they have all got the Grecian 2000, they all look identical, but each
:17:16. > :17:20.time there is a new leadership, it seems to be that much more, I hate
:17:20. > :17:26.to use the word liberal, because they are not very liberal, but a
:17:26. > :17:32.little less controlling, a little less kind of delving into the
:17:32. > :17:36.details of people's private lives. That's the way that China has been.
:17:36. > :17:42.As it has grown richer, it has become more difficult really, to
:17:42. > :17:48.keep the lid on people. The lid is still there but it's not quite a
:17:48. > :17:52.jammed on as much as it used to be. And I'm assuming the new leadership
:17:52. > :17:59.will just be part of that process. They won't be terribly exciting
:17:59. > :18:04.people although, as it happens, Xi Jinping, the new leader, who will
:18:04. > :18:11.be President early next year, is quite interesting. His wife is a
:18:11. > :18:21.folk singer, a crossover folks go, -- Stokes singer, and that gives it
:18:21. > :18:21.
:18:21. > :18:24.a certain interest. -- folk singer. He himself is probably a little bit
:18:24. > :18:31.less appetite than his predecessor have been. But not much more than
:18:31. > :18:35.that. The Chinese economy has been slowing down. Still growing hugely
:18:35. > :18:40.compared to western levels of growth, but slowing down by its own
:18:41. > :18:44.standards. Is that causing fear in the ruling elite? They have a pact
:18:44. > :18:49.with the public in China that we will give you the growth but you
:18:49. > :18:55.let us run the place. If they don't give them the growth, what happens?
:18:55. > :19:05.Absolutely, absolutely. The starkest thing I have heard since I
:19:05. > :19:12.have been here, I was talking to somebody pretty well plugged in, a
:19:12. > :19:19.Chinese figure, and he told me that he had been talking to a couple of
:19:19. > :19:24.senior party people who said the other day to him they wondered
:19:24. > :19:29.whether the Chinese Communist Party would still be around to celebrate
:19:29. > :19:36.its centenary. The centenary comes in only nine years' time, before
:19:36. > :19:42.the term of this ten-year regime. So you can see, within the system,
:19:42. > :19:47.there is a lot of anxieties and they can see it clearly more than
:19:47. > :19:53.anybody else can, and they know there are so much anger about
:19:53. > :19:59.corruption in society, generally, so much anger about the way some
:19:59. > :20:03.parts of the economy are run and the only way out of that is simply
:20:03. > :20:08.to dole out banknotes and say to people, look, you are three times
:20:08. > :20:11.richer than 10 years ago, what is the fuss about? Whether that will
:20:11. > :20:18.continue in the next 10 years is very doubtful and that's why they
:20:18. > :20:23.are nervous. A re-elected President in the United States. Now a new
:20:23. > :20:27.President in China. Are we getting to the stage in the 21st century
:20:27. > :20:36.with the new President in China is as important as the President in
:20:36. > :20:41.Washington? Well, I think if you had to kind of sum up the likely
:20:41. > :20:45.influences on the lives of ordinary people in Britain, say, of the two
:20:45. > :20:52.things, I don't think you would find their lives were much affected
:20:52. > :20:56.as to whether it was Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. The difference
:20:56. > :21:00.between them is fairly, fairly slight, but here, if things go
:21:00. > :21:09.wrong in China, it will affect everybody in Britain. In one way or
:21:09. > :21:14.another, it's going to damage us. And, of course, conversely, if they
:21:14. > :21:19.can pull a rabbit out of the hat, sorted out, I find it impossible to
:21:19. > :21:25.think they can, but if they did, indeed, our lives would be made
:21:25. > :21:30.easier. I'm not talking about political power or influence, but
:21:30. > :21:35.just in terms of the actual effect on your pocket and my pocket. I
:21:36. > :21:41.think China gets the vote. Very interesting. Thank you for
:21:41. > :21:48.interesting live from Beijing. So has Chinese Presidential handover
:21:48. > :21:54.gripped the streets of London? Here's our Adam.
:21:54. > :21:59.Welcome to Chinatown in London. There are millions of people who
:21:59. > :22:05.know their Xi Jinpings from their Hu Jintaos. Let's find out. Have
:22:05. > :22:11.you been following the leadership challenge in China? No. To think we
:22:11. > :22:16.should be following it? The as much as the Americans, sure. You know
:22:16. > :22:21.who won the American election, don't you? Yes. I don't know the
:22:21. > :22:27.Chinese one, and that's deplorable, isn't it? They want to bring
:22:27. > :22:33.Chinese into St -- industry into Europe through Ireland. I think
:22:33. > :22:42.they're quite powerful. Do you know how big the Chinese economy is?
:22:42. > :22:47.Pretty big. I was after a number. don't know. 3.5 trillion pounds.
:22:47. > :22:57.That is pretty big. Can you tell us anything about who is going to be
:22:57. > :23:03.the new President? Barack Obama. China! Your home country.
:23:03. > :23:09.Jinping. They may be changing the number on the committee from nine
:23:09. > :23:19.to seven. Good knowledge. I excite about the new Chinese President?
:23:19. > :23:20.
:23:20. > :23:29.Yes. Xi Jinping. What kind of guy is he? A normal Chinese guy.
:23:29. > :23:34.pronunciation is not very good. you pronounced it very good.
:23:34. > :23:38.was our new Chinese Correspondent. We have now sent Adam on a very
:23:38. > :23:42.slow boat to China! Let's speak to somebody who knows what they're
:23:42. > :23:45.talking about on this matter. And joining us now is the Australian MP
:23:45. > :23:47.Michael Danby, who is the chairman of his country's Foreign Affairs,
:23:47. > :23:54.Defence and Trade Committee. China is looming ever larger in
:23:54. > :23:58.Australia's foreign policy. Thank you for joining us. Will we notice
:23:58. > :24:04.consequences as a result of this change of leadership?
:24:04. > :24:09.immediately but Xi Jinping is the representative of the princeling
:24:09. > :24:16.inspection, a bit more confident with power than the previous
:24:16. > :24:23.bureaucrats previously. Explain what you mean by princelings?
:24:23. > :24:29.sons and daughters of the Communist aristocracy. They were originally
:24:29. > :24:35.taken over China in 1949. The do We have any idea what this new leader
:24:35. > :24:40.wants to do? Do we have a sense of where he wants to take the country?
:24:41. > :24:45.Become more repressive? I think the Chinese leadership are very wise.
:24:45. > :24:49.Whatever form they come in. They know China is a trading country.
:24:49. > :24:56.They had taken 300 million people out of poverty by doing a lot of
:24:56. > :24:59.international trade and no one can afford to get involved in the
:24:59. > :25:06.conflict in a very profound sense. You must never do to them what
:25:06. > :25:12.happened to Japan in the late 1930s, keeping energy back from them etc.
:25:12. > :25:18.Provoking them. But they are very aware that they need trade with the
:25:18. > :25:22.West. They are aware they need to work with the Americans. The
:25:22. > :25:26.Americans owe them a lot of money, but the Chinese don't want to press
:25:26. > :25:31.it too hard because they still want to sell things. If you own the Bank
:25:31. > :25:37.of pound, they've got you but if you owe the bank a million pounds,
:25:37. > :25:41.then they owe you. China are looming ever-larger in Australian
:25:41. > :25:46.foreign policy and pushing you closer to the Americans. Ironic,
:25:46. > :25:50.isn't it? The South East Asian countries feel that, too. The
:25:50. > :25:56.Chinese have been unsubtle in their aggressive rhetoric, haven't done
:25:56. > :25:59.so much about it recently with the South China Seas, so, ironically,
:25:59. > :26:05.that Philippines kicked out the Americans 10 years ago and are now
:26:05. > :26:08.asking them to come back and re- establish naval facilities there.
:26:08. > :26:13.It's a part of the world which, although historically for colonial
:26:13. > :26:19.reasons, we have the knowledge. But it's a part of the world where
:26:19. > :26:23.neither Britain nor continental Europe brings any assets or
:26:23. > :26:28.advantages to the Americans or the Australians. You bring assets of
:26:28. > :26:32.advantage to the Chinese. Germans in particular, the UK less
:26:32. > :26:38.so, are very big trading partners with the People's Republic of China.
:26:38. > :26:43.We actually have quite a significant role collectively and
:26:43. > :26:50.individually to play with a Chinese and, given that, there is a
:26:50. > :26:55.significance to us from the point of view of the Americans and
:26:55. > :26:59.neighbours to China. The thing I find interesting about China, it's
:26:59. > :27:02.in a classic situation you always find in Russia, economic
:27:02. > :27:07.development has gone way ahead of political development so how do you
:27:07. > :27:16.bring the two things into Cink without the top blowing off too
:27:16. > :27:21.. They don't have an answer to that any more than we do. Let me go back
:27:21. > :27:28.to Australia. In northern Australia at the moment, there are US forces
:27:28. > :27:35.training. It's not an official base, I don't think. It's not like
:27:35. > :27:40.American bases in the UK, or Britain has bases in Cyprus but, it
:27:40. > :27:46.is training nonetheless. Is there a consensus in Australia over this or
:27:46. > :27:52.is it a matter of argument that an alliance with America is the best
:27:52. > :27:57.safety from an aggressive China? Barack Obama made the announcement
:27:57. > :28:02.in Canberra. It has bipartisan support and actually it was like
:28:02. > :28:04.witnessing the Munro document being and unseat for the first time. I
:28:04. > :28:07.think the Americans are pretty ensconced in the world.
:28:07. > :28:13.Particularly in our area of the world and we should be happy with
:28:13. > :28:19.that. The real danger not just for Europe, Australia, his American
:28:19. > :28:23.withdrawal. After their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, an
:28:23. > :28:29.American withdrawal from the world would be the worst thing. Is there
:28:29. > :28:33.a fear of China in Australia? lots of people at business
:28:33. > :28:37.relationships. We can do both democracy at the same time,
:28:37. > :28:42.maintain friendships with all of the advanced countries of east Asia,
:28:42. > :28:48.Europe, USA, democratic countries but still have a good commercial
:28:48. > :28:53.relationships. They want our steel, iron ore, energy, Cole. It's a
:28:53. > :28:56.third cheaper than it perhaps be transported from Brazil. But also
:28:56. > :29:00.makes you are rich target as well. Australian defence spending is
:29:00. > :29:05.still pretty robust and like in Europe and I assume you're not
:29:05. > :29:13.spending all this money to defend yourself from New Zealand? Probably
:29:13. > :29:17.true but wise caution into the future would mean, according to an
:29:17. > :29:21.hour passed Defence white paper, we will have links with British crews
:29:21. > :29:25.by the way or not being employed here at the moment, and we will be
:29:25. > :29:31.buying quite a few of those American Joint Strike fighters like
:29:31. > :29:41.Britain will be. Was Australia happy with the Chinese and Japanese
:29:41. > :29:42.
:29:42. > :29:49.war games in the South China Seas? No, we are pretty unhappy with it.
:29:49. > :29:54.Japan and America had war games? The Japanese American war games in
:29:54. > :29:59.the eerie with these two little bits of rock are in dispute.
:29:59. > :30:02.underneath those lie very rich oil resources. China is energy
:30:02. > :30:08.dependent and that's why they are very sensitive, along with a long
:30:08. > :30:14.history of, remembering 55 Days at Peking, the famous film. Charlton
:30:14. > :30:18.Heston. Western colonialism us. We have to be careful we don't do that.
:30:18. > :30:23.How long before American and Australian forces are involved in
:30:23. > :30:28.war games? We played together all the time. We are serving with you
:30:28. > :30:32.in Afghanistan, we lost 40 people. I meant Australian and American war
:30:32. > :30:36.games in the Pacific region. They happen all the time. Northern
:30:36. > :30:46.Australia, East and Australia. Thank you for being here. Good to
:30:46. > :30:53.
:30:53. > :30:58.Last week we got Charlotte Harris has dug she discussed her fell with
:30:58. > :31:06.Neil Wallace. He is deputy editor of the News of the World and it got
:31:06. > :31:09.a bit heated. Are you planning to actually screen as partial and
:31:10. > :31:18.distorted a piece like that about the case against statutory
:31:18. > :31:25.regulation? Are you going to broadcast a distorted partisan
:31:25. > :31:30.piece like we have just seen? did not think he had got the
:31:30. > :31:36.concept of that. To help him understand, he is his take on how
:31:36. > :31:43.he thinks the pressured operate. Britain has enjoyed press freedom
:31:44. > :31:50.for 317 years. It was finally won from that lot in 6095. Many have
:31:50. > :31:55.literally died to protect it ever since. Why are so many people
:31:55. > :32:03.wanting to give it away? What is press freedom? Not the right to
:32:03. > :32:09.hack phones, a black medical records and wrongly rep -- wreck
:32:09. > :32:16.reputations. The UK already has laws against bad - a libel laws,
:32:16. > :32:20.privacy laws and criminal laws. -- against that. Press freedom it is
:32:20. > :32:27.the right to publicly demand answers to inconvenient questions
:32:27. > :32:29.that those in power do not want aired. That is why an unsavoury
:32:29. > :32:34.alliance of celebrities, politicians and lawyers are trying
:32:34. > :32:39.to con you into giving it up. They call for legally controlled
:32:39. > :32:46.statutory regulation of the media while claiming that some have the
:32:46. > :32:53.press can still remain independent. -- somehow. It is simply a life.
:32:53. > :32:55.The word state control and free press cannot live in the same
:32:55. > :33:00.sentence. If it happened, politicians would get depressed
:33:00. > :33:07.they want and not the press they deserved. Oppress they can control.
:33:07. > :33:11.In Greece, the journalist was arrested. -- a press they can
:33:11. > :33:16.control. In France, successive presidents were able to use tax
:33:16. > :33:24.pair managed to pay for mistresses and secret children pulled up here
:33:24. > :33:30.we have ongoing for NP expenses scandals. -- secret children.
:33:30. > :33:36.Statutory regulation is the thin end of the wedge. When in place,
:33:36. > :33:41.politicians will be freed to amend, change, tweak, clarify, fix the
:33:42. > :33:47.press laws to silence the questions they do not want to answer. A free
:33:47. > :33:53.press does make mistakes. It gets things wrong, including behaviour.
:33:53. > :33:58.That can hurt. The alternative is worse. To paraphrase, democracy is
:33:58. > :34:06.the worst form of government, until you consider the others. It is the
:34:06. > :34:16.same as self-regulation and press freedom. Let them steal it at your
:34:16. > :34:17.
:34:17. > :34:23.peril. We're also joined by Sir Christopher Meyer. And so has
:34:23. > :34:29.Charlotte Harris. How do you answer the complaint that if we go to
:34:29. > :34:34.statutory regulation, which or newspapers will be enforced to
:34:34. > :34:39.subscribe to by law, you have state licensing of publishing? Quite
:34:39. > :34:43.easily. The way the argument has been framed has been very
:34:43. > :34:49.convenient. That is not simply a situation where you have a free
:34:49. > :34:53.press versus state regulation. That is not state regulation. It is an
:34:53. > :34:58.independent regulator. The only part of government control in
:34:58. > :35:05.theirs is that the Government comes in and recognises the authority of
:35:05. > :35:10.the body. On one hand, you have a self-serving job for boys - self
:35:10. > :35:14.regulation - which is the same as it was before off. You will need a
:35:14. > :35:22.state licence to publish. All you need is the Government having the
:35:22. > :35:27.same enabling factor as it has Ofcom, the ASA and the judiciary.
:35:27. > :35:32.If I am a newspaper publisher and I say, I do not want to be part of
:35:32. > :35:37.this operation but it is the law of the land, I cannot publish that
:35:37. > :35:44.newspaper, correct? Not necessarily. It means you are in a position
:35:44. > :35:48.where you have to sign up to this. If you do not want to sign up to it,
:35:48. > :35:53.then you are in a position where you are not covered. If you look at
:35:53. > :35:59.the different models... Of the different incentives. Am I still
:35:59. > :36:04.allowed to publish? Everyone is allowed to publish. Whether or not
:36:04. > :36:09.you are in a position... Wine with newspapers signed up if they do not
:36:09. > :36:16.have to? They would have to sign up. If they do not sign up, you cannot
:36:16. > :36:22.publish was up it depends on the model. We do not know. -- you
:36:22. > :36:30.cannot publish. You are making it overly simplistic. No one is
:36:30. > :36:34.suggesting that. I want to start a newspaper tomorrow. I would be
:36:35. > :36:41.economically mad to do so but supposing I am. I do not want
:36:41. > :36:43.anything to do with your state regulation. I am an anarchist
:36:43. > :36:49.publisher. Am I still allowed to publish the newspaper if I do not
:36:49. > :36:53.join? There is no suggestion you would not be allowed to publish.
:36:53. > :36:59.You would also have to be accountable. The Irish model is a
:36:59. > :37:06.model where I understand a lot of people are looking at. The air is a
:37:06. > :37:13.lot of thinking to be done on this. There are lots of models. -- ed
:37:13. > :37:18.there is a lot of thinking. We in the publishing media has had
:37:18. > :37:24.decades to put our houses in order. We have had decades to put it right
:37:24. > :37:29.and decades of abuse. It has culminated in the hacking business
:37:29. > :37:36.at News International. There is no escape for us. We should have put
:37:36. > :37:41.our own house in order years ago. You even had the editor of the
:37:41. > :37:48.daily Melk in charge of standards. I am actually quite happy for
:37:48. > :37:54.Charlotte to continue talking. -- the Daily Mail. The answer is, you
:37:54. > :37:59.are right, you were a journalist. Journalists get things wrong.
:37:59. > :38:04.Getting things wrong is simply part of what happens in life. The
:38:04. > :38:11.hacking was covered by the criminal law. We have a libel laws and
:38:11. > :38:17.privacy laws. We have something like 40 odd statutes that can
:38:17. > :38:23.impinge upon newspapers. I will help you with that frog in your
:38:23. > :38:33.throat by interrupting you. You cannot say that we, as an industry,
:38:33. > :38:33.
:38:33. > :38:38.have put our house in order. Sorry, I'm just trying to clear my throat.
:38:38. > :38:42.No one is suggesting the status quo. You look at what the industry has
:38:43. > :38:51.done. They have recognised a problem and come up with a series
:38:51. > :38:55.of proposals that, actually, if the statutory regulation lobby would
:38:55. > :39:01.actually part that their obsession with getting the Government to
:39:01. > :39:09.control this, they would find a lot of this applies to what we are
:39:09. > :39:17.talking about. Black and Hunt in that proposal, it really is the
:39:18. > :39:27.problem and not the solution. are referring to Lord Black...
:39:27. > :39:31.black and Lord Hunt. It is a non statutory regulation. The answer to
:39:31. > :39:34.that is you cannot have industry figures deciding who their chairmen
:39:34. > :39:40.will be from a self regulatory point of view because you will not
:39:40. > :39:45.have independence. Your figures do not suggest that the stop if you
:39:45. > :39:52.read the proposals, they do not suggest that at all. -- suggest
:39:52. > :39:59.that. It is very clear there are no Sevinc editors. There are former
:40:00. > :40:04.industry figures. -- serving editors. The majority are late
:40:04. > :40:10.editors. The main editor is a non industry figure. He is chosen in
:40:10. > :40:15.the same way as a senior NGO figure is chosen - independently. All of
:40:15. > :40:25.these things are answered. You have an obsession with getting the state
:40:25. > :40:29.
:40:29. > :40:34.to regulate. To end 317 years of press freedom and it is madness. It
:40:34. > :40:39.is your proposal. If you really cared about free press, or what I
:40:39. > :40:44.would like to note is, at what point would you say there should be
:40:44. > :40:52.some cap on media ownership? Why are you not talking about
:40:52. > :40:55.plurality? That is a different issue. I'm not sure it is. It is
:40:55. > :41:04.interesting that you want to broaden it into that. You seem to
:41:04. > :41:09.be on a campaign against the media. Why was the PCC useless? Can I
:41:09. > :41:13.bring the wisdom of Solomon into this. It was not useless and that
:41:13. > :41:18.that it was not was be tested by the thousands of people who came
:41:18. > :41:23.every year to get remedies. It did not stop his colleagues in the
:41:23. > :41:29.tabloids to -- behaving disgracefully. I'm talking bag
:41:29. > :41:35.relentless intrusion into people's lives that went unregulated by the
:41:35. > :41:39.PP -- the PCC. What did you do about it? A hell of a lot about it.
:41:39. > :41:46.All you have to do is read the witness statements, put him by
:41:46. > :41:53.their former director of the PCC, Stephen Abel. -- put in by the
:41:53. > :41:57.former director. My point is very brief. If I was chairman, there is
:41:57. > :42:03.a bunch of stuff I would do to strengthen it. A new statute is not
:42:03. > :42:08.the answer. All the statues have been spelled out already. A statute
:42:08. > :42:14.would not have dealt with phone hacking. Above all, what it will
:42:14. > :42:17.not do is, it is all very well in bringing in the traditional media
:42:17. > :42:24.into the system that you have for the internet publishers and fair.
:42:24. > :42:29.That is what it does not deal with. I need to come to you for equal
:42:29. > :42:34.time. It is not statutory regulation will start I am trying
:42:34. > :42:39.to give you time to get your case across. -- statutory regulation.
:42:39. > :42:45.What is the answer about the rules to want to be followed are not
:42:45. > :42:50.covered by the new media? It is important that we worked towards
:42:50. > :43:00.global understanding. You asked me to answer at it and this is what I
:43:00. > :43:00.
:43:00. > :43:02.am saying. Of course there will be a problem in terms off what we have
:43:02. > :43:08.in eight global communication environment. It does not mean what
:43:08. > :43:15.you say is right. We will just continue to let people's lives be
:43:15. > :43:19.intruded. The people who are the winners here, with the PCC plus,
:43:19. > :43:26.are the industry. Actually not all journalists, who I think would like
:43:26. > :43:33.to be free from the proprietors. It is not statutory regulations. You
:43:33. > :43:38.have already said to me and accuse me of having an attack on the media
:43:38. > :43:42.industry. -- accused me. It is not what we are looking for in terms of
:43:42. > :43:46.a statutory underpinning. It is about freedom and transparency so
:43:46. > :43:55.we can live in a democracy and not be in a position where you framed
:43:55. > :44:05.the argument as statute against Free Press. No one is saying that.
:44:05. > :44:08.
:44:08. > :44:11.We should have a third round. Spinach and mushroom tart, followed
:44:11. > :44:13.by English venison, and then a traditional German cake for pudding.
:44:13. > :44:16.That was the menu for David Cameron's little supper with
:44:16. > :44:18.Chancellor Angela Merkel last night. The State Dinner is often a vital
:44:18. > :44:21.opportunity to negotiate seemingly unpalatable matters, from one
:44:21. > :44:25.nation to another. In this case, ultimatums over just who exactly is
:44:25. > :44:27.going to pick up the EU tab. As we can see, from last night's Downing
:44:27. > :44:33.Street shindig, it wasn't guaranteed to cure Mrs Merkel's
:44:33. > :44:39.indigestion. Experience tells me that if someone confronts you with
:44:39. > :44:42.an ultimatum, he may be confronted with another one. If you have 27th
:44:42. > :44:50.interests in the European Union that we want to reconcile, it is
:44:50. > :44:55.not a great idea to start with an adulteration. -- ultimatum. The
:44:55. > :45:02.need to find a common foundation. The more we have the less able we
:45:02. > :45:07.will be to find agreement. There were not share in this discussion.
:45:07. > :45:10.-- I will not share. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at that dinner
:45:10. > :45:13.party! Christopher Meyer has had a ringside seat at many of these
:45:13. > :45:16.events. And, in researching his new book on the subject, Matthew Parris
:45:16. > :45:18.has heard more anecdotes about them than you've had. Well, small, round,
:45:18. > :45:28.ambassadorial chocolates. Anyway, before we discuss the matter, we've
:45:28. > :45:30.
:45:30. > :45:34.Which UK delicacy, served at the British embassy in Paris, failed to
:45:34. > :45:42.win over the French? Spotted dick. Toad in the hole. Jelly. Bubble and
:45:42. > :45:50.squeek. Do have a guess. Which would fail to win over the French?
:45:50. > :45:58.I would say all of them up. Spotted dick. No, you are both wrong. It
:45:58. > :46:07.actually jelly. The lady ambassador could never get the consistency
:46:07. > :46:10.right. Not that she made it, anyway. OK, number two. According to Chris
:46:10. > :46:19.Patten, what did the Chinese serve at a dinner for the World Wildlife
:46:19. > :46:29.Fund? Oh dear. Grilled marmoset. Bears' paws. Stewed dolphin. Puffin.
:46:29. > :46:30.
:46:30. > :46:38.I can't imagine any of those went down well at literally. I will go
:46:38. > :46:43.for bear's paws. Well done, it is that. Can you imagine the reaction?
:46:43. > :46:45.Maybe they didn't recognise them. Maybe this one will suit you more.
:46:45. > :46:52.How many bottles are kept in the Government's special wine cellar
:46:52. > :47:01.near Whitehall? 10,000. 40,000. 400,000. Not known. 400,000. 40,000
:47:01. > :47:03.for that not as many as you would think. A-night! Concentrate, please.
:47:04. > :47:06.What present did John Major receive from the President of Turkmenistan?
:47:06. > :47:12.200 large yellow water melons. A pregnant camel. A race-horse. A
:47:12. > :47:17.dancing bear. A racehorse. watermelons were there to pay the
:47:17. > :47:24.railway guards who had brought the racecourse -- racecourse to Moscow.
:47:24. > :47:30.Yes, they had to use that to get their fair back. -- race course.
:47:30. > :47:35.The sad thing is there were armed bandits who stole many of the
:47:35. > :47:40.watermelons. They tried to steal the horse, so they stole the
:47:40. > :47:47.watermelons instead. What was John Major's reaction? Absolutely
:47:47. > :47:51.furious. What can you do in these situations? His reaction to getting
:47:51. > :48:00.the horse? He was delighted. Astonished. The President gave him
:48:00. > :48:04.a carpet with his own face embroidered on to it. So John Major
:48:04. > :48:09.told me you knew where to wipe your feet and then he was presented with
:48:09. > :48:16.a picture of a horse and realised he was going to get an actual horse.
:48:16. > :48:23.It sounds like Harry Potter. lives in north Wales. As David
:48:23. > :48:31.Cameron been riding? What about your favoured ambassadorial dinner?
:48:31. > :48:35.My favourite was one I went to Paris with Geoffrey Howe and he was
:48:35. > :48:41.entertained by the French minister, who was a gourmet of the most
:48:41. > :48:46.exquisite kind, wonderful food was supplied and superb wine. We would
:48:47. > :48:51.eat in a chateau outside Barrett -- Paris and then fly back to London.
:48:51. > :48:59.And then Geoffrey would say, what did we discuss? And none of us
:48:59. > :49:06.could remember. What happens if you're a fussy eater? If you had to
:49:06. > :49:11.deal with these situations? I once had an ambassador whose wife, she
:49:11. > :49:18.didn't like what she was drinking and eating, and would put it on my
:49:18. > :49:23.plate and switch glasses. The food? Yes. What is your favourite
:49:23. > :49:28.anecdote? Ambassador wides will conduct proxy wars on behalf of
:49:28. > :49:35.their husbands and was almost wives until recently, very few female
:49:35. > :49:38.ambassadors, and there was a dinner by the French ambassador and there
:49:38. > :49:42.was a diplomatic war going on but in Britain and France and the
:49:42. > :49:47.British ambassador said to her French hostess, marvellous dinner,
:49:47. > :49:51.my dear, such a shame about the souffle. And the two women never
:49:51. > :49:55.spoke after that and neither did the husbands. In terms of the
:49:55. > :49:59.business done at these dinners, Angela Merkel and David Cameron may
:50:00. > :50:06.or may not have taught at great depth about the Budget but they are
:50:06. > :50:09.important, aren't they? Yes, you can do serious business if you have
:50:09. > :50:15.an interpreter. You can quickly stuff through down your throat so
:50:15. > :50:21.you don't have to speak to the opposite number, spitting on them
:50:21. > :50:25.up. That's the problem you have in the USA way you speak the same
:50:25. > :50:29.language and have to read and speak at the same time. With the Germans,
:50:30. > :50:34.there is a respectable time to eat and get your point over. In terms
:50:34. > :50:39.of leaders you have dealt with and entertained, who is good around the
:50:39. > :50:46.dinner table in terms of talking politics? You have really floored
:50:46. > :50:52.me with that one. Does it make a difference, Christopher, if a
:50:52. > :50:57.minister is particularly good, sociable, hospitable? Does it alter
:50:57. > :51:02.the flow of international relations or not? It is the icing on the cake.
:51:02. > :51:07.The only thing which makes it float is that you have a convergence of
:51:07. > :51:17.hard interests. Soft sentiment and soft food won't do it but it's a
:51:17. > :51:17.
:51:17. > :51:22.kind of lubricant. You obviously enjoyed quite a few. He would give
:51:22. > :51:26.us beautiful wine. I dunno how many points we gave away to the French
:51:26. > :51:31.in the politics as a result of the excellent support. Thank you very
:51:31. > :51:34.much indeed. Now how do you keep an effective military force at a time
:51:34. > :51:36.when the Army is having its strength cut by 20,000 to just
:51:36. > :51:39.82,000 regulars? Well, the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has this
:51:39. > :51:42.morning set out plans to boost the role of reservists in future
:51:42. > :51:46.deployments. He wants to double the size of the Territorial Army from
:51:46. > :51:51.15,000 to 30,000. And he says the changes would mark a radical shift
:51:51. > :52:01.in the way the TA helps deliver the nation's security. Here's what he
:52:01. > :52:01.
:52:01. > :52:06.had to say earlier. Under our proposals with a balanced defence
:52:06. > :52:10.budget and an additional �1.8 billion of investment, about
:52:10. > :52:15.reserve forces of the future will be better trained, better-equipped,
:52:15. > :52:19.and better resourced than ever before. Collectively, they will
:52:19. > :52:24.take on greater responsibility and benefit from greater reward and
:52:24. > :52:29.greater respect. In the years to come, we will have Army, Navy and
:52:29. > :52:33.Royal Marines and the Royal Box Hilary if force sitting at the very
:52:34. > :52:39.heart of the defence of our nation. Reserve forces of which we can be
:52:39. > :52:43.proud, supported by employers to whom it we will owe a deep debt a
:52:43. > :52:45.national gratitude. And from the commons to our studio. The Defence
:52:46. > :52:47.Secretary, Phillip Hammond is with us now. And John Cridland, the
:52:48. > :52:54.Director General of the Confederation of British Industry
:52:54. > :52:59.is also here. Welcome to both of you. You're having to boost the
:52:59. > :53:02.role of army reservists as a result of cuts to the armed forces.
:53:02. > :53:07.have to reduce the size of the regular army as part of the process
:53:07. > :53:11.of dealing with this fitted billion pounds black hole that we inherited
:53:11. > :53:15.in the defence budget. We've had to go up some capabilities we would
:53:15. > :53:22.have preferred to have kept, accept smaller armed forces to protect the
:53:22. > :53:25.equipment budget, so those armed forces will be properly equipped,
:53:25. > :53:30.protected for the job that we want them to do. And by increasing the
:53:30. > :53:35.reserves, that's the way we buy back capability we otherwise might
:53:35. > :53:38.have lost from having smaller numbers of forces. You do need that
:53:38. > :53:43.capability clearly and will fuel the accusation you're doing it on
:53:43. > :53:47.the cheap. It's an assertion, state and, at the heart of what we're
:53:47. > :53:53.doing. The reserves will no longer be something peripheral, but at the
:53:53. > :53:59.very heart of the armed forces, essential to its functioning and
:53:59. > :54:01.integrated with it in a way that emphasises that essential role.
:54:01. > :54:04.will fuel the accusation you're doing it on the tube, they are not
:54:04. > :54:08.going to be there in the same capacity in terms of the amount of
:54:08. > :54:13.time they can commit, so how much training will be available to these
:54:13. > :54:16.people when they are sent off to Afghanistan for example? First of
:54:16. > :54:20.all they will do basic training and once they had done that in the army
:54:20. > :54:25.reserves, they will need to do 40 days a year of continuing training
:54:25. > :54:29.but anybody who will be deployed into an operation will be called up
:54:29. > :54:31.months in advance of their deployment and given mission
:54:31. > :54:37.specific training. I want to correct something else, an
:54:37. > :54:41.impression that this is somehow doing the army on the cheap. All of
:54:41. > :54:45.our English-speaking allies, the Americans, Australians, Canadians,
:54:45. > :54:49.have a much larger proportion of reserve forces in their total force
:54:49. > :54:53.mix than we do. The Americans in Afghanistan have a larger
:54:53. > :54:56.percentage of national guardsmen in the deployed force than we do
:54:56. > :55:00.Territorial Army soldiers, so we are moving back to something more
:55:00. > :55:06.like the norm across our major allies and something more like our
:55:06. > :55:10.historic position where, if you go back to 20 years, we had 72,000
:55:10. > :55:13.Territorial Army soldiers. There will be a knock-on effect for
:55:13. > :55:17.employers if you're asking people to increase the time they're going
:55:17. > :55:21.to have to give to be called up, it will have a knock-on effect on
:55:21. > :55:26.employers. Are you happy about the fact the Government would increase
:55:26. > :55:32.the number of days for reservists? I think this is the right thing for
:55:32. > :55:35.the Government to do. Is it good for business? It's a huge change
:55:35. > :55:39.which will require a change in partnership between the MoD and the
:55:39. > :55:41.business community. We shouldn't think this is tweaking the numbers
:55:41. > :55:47.on the existing relationship which exists between some employers and
:55:47. > :55:51.the MoD. This will then be many more employers begin to release
:55:51. > :55:56.people more regularly for longer periods. But that's a huge pressure.
:55:56. > :56:02.How is it double? It used to working years gone by and it works
:56:02. > :56:05.in America and other countries. For small employers, it will be the
:56:05. > :56:10.equivalent of managing maternity leave, sufficient notice, adequate
:56:10. > :56:15.cover, consequences when people come back. We know how challenging
:56:15. > :56:20.employers find covering maternity cover, although they fully support
:56:20. > :56:24.women having a year off. Can you see a small empire faced with a
:56:24. > :56:29.reserve has come in for a job saying, I'm going daft hat and you
:56:29. > :56:33.will lead and 40 days of, and then not being taken on on that basis.
:56:33. > :56:39.If we get it wrong, that's where we will end up. What do we need to do
:56:39. > :56:45.to get it right? Compensation for employers? I'm suggesting a public
:56:45. > :56:50.and private agreement, to model this with employers are equal
:56:50. > :56:54.partners at the table. If they are listened to and can help to design
:56:54. > :56:57.a model, it will require a relationship with government.
:56:57. > :57:02.you have come out with these proposals but how much consultation
:57:02. > :57:06.have you done with business? already have consultation, a
:57:06. > :57:10.partnership or talent, with a number of significant employers
:57:10. > :57:16.working with us around support for the reserves, but I published today
:57:16. > :57:20.are consultation, the beginning of a process, not the end. The number
:57:20. > :57:26.of days that employers would be expected to release reservists for
:57:26. > :57:31.training is 16 days in the year. Two full weeks and the rest of it
:57:31. > :57:35.is done at weekends and evenings. The Federation of Small businesses
:57:35. > :57:40.said compensation would be imperative. We haven't ruled out
:57:41. > :57:45.the possibility of financial support for small employers. There
:57:45. > :57:48.is a model the Australians used which gives financial incentives to
:57:48. > :57:52.small employers. The current situation already provides
:57:52. > :57:56.financial support for employers when reservists are called up and
:57:56. > :58:01.an important part of the package we have announced today is about
:58:01. > :58:05.giving employers more certainty so they will know. How much notice
:58:05. > :58:10.will they have? We are going to define the period of call-up for
:58:10. > :58:14.army reservists as a six-month period of deployment once in every
:58:14. > :58:18.five years, and it could be up to one year, including pre- deployment
:58:18. > :58:23.training and recuperation. But the employer will know in advance when
:58:23. > :58:27.that period is going to occur. And the focus, again, on the mutual
:58:27. > :58:31.benefits of military training, vocational skills people will
:58:31. > :58:34.acquire and working with employers to make sure we extract the maximum
:58:34. > :58:41.mutual benefit from this arrangement. The thank you both
:58:41. > :58:45.very much. We have to leave it there. The One O'Clock News is
:58:45. > :58:48.starting over on BBC One now. I am back tonight for This Week on BBC
:58:48. > :58:52.One with Piers Morgan, Simon Schama, Denise Welch, Sarah Smith, Michael