:00:10. > :00:15.Tonight, could Ed Milliband's new position on Government cuts split
:00:15. > :00:20.the Labour movement? The GMB union, courted by Ed Milliband when he ran
:00:20. > :00:24.for leader, threatens to cut ties with the party. Is Labour's policy
:00:24. > :00:28.even coherent, David Grossman is on the case. Is Labour, in seeking to
:00:28. > :00:31.both oppose the Government's cuts, and not promise to reverse them,
:00:31. > :00:36.really, I don't know. Trying to have it both ways!
:00:36. > :00:39.We will hear from the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls. The striken
:00:39. > :00:45.Italian cruiseship, we have new revelation about how close it came
:00:45. > :00:49.to rocks on a previous voyage. Rare access to the work of Arab
:00:49. > :00:54.League monitors in Syria, swamped by opposition crowds, as they
:00:54. > :00:57.present evidence of atrocities. Everyone knows the Arab League, the
:00:57. > :01:00.international body, with the best chance of influencing the Syrian
:01:00. > :01:04.Government. That is why people are so desperate to have their voice
:01:04. > :01:10.heard today. The Government wins the vote to
:01:10. > :01:20.abolish adult disability living allowance, we debate whether the
:01:20. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:26.most vulnerable will suffer, with Tanni Grey-Thompson and our wests.
:01:26. > :01:36.WikiLeaks takes down its website to protest on plans for against on-
:01:36. > :01:39.line piracy. Good evening, being in opposition
:01:39. > :01:42.is never easy. Being in opposition during the worst economic crisis in
:01:42. > :01:46.the lifetime of most voters, and probably with three years to wait
:01:46. > :01:50.for an election, has proved extremely bumpy for Ed Milliband in
:01:50. > :01:54.recent weeks. Tonight he faces a new test, a row which cuts to the
:01:54. > :01:58.heart of the Labour movement. Trade union leaders are furious with Mr
:01:58. > :02:02.Miliband, for backing the Government policy of capping public
:02:02. > :02:06.sector pay, and refusing to commit to reversing any coalition cuts.
:02:06. > :02:10.Since the unions give Labour almost 80% of its funding, not from public
:02:10. > :02:20.sources, threats by one major union to split away are being taken very
:02:20. > :02:24.seriously. As we will hear from Ed Balls in a moment.
:02:24. > :02:30.The philosophical battle over how to rescue the economy has never
:02:30. > :02:40.been more entertainingly presented than in this brilliant video. Has
:02:40. > :02:48.there been another convert to the side, is Labour abandoned
:02:48. > :02:55.Keynesianism. They have changed their tune significantly since the
:02:55. > :02:58.Shadow Chancellor said they would not reverse cuts and exercise pay
:02:58. > :03:08.represent. Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the Unite
:03:08. > :03:24.
:03:24. > :03:28.union, has written a scathing Len McCluskey is entitled to his
:03:28. > :03:32.view, but he's wrong. Because I'm changing the Labour Party, so that
:03:32. > :03:37.we can deliver fairness, even when there is less money around. That
:03:37. > :03:40.requires tough decisions. It requires tough decisions to put a
:03:40. > :03:44.priority on jobs over public sector pay, for example. It also requires
:03:44. > :03:49.us to say, yes we do believe the Government is going too far and too
:03:49. > :03:52.fast with their cuts, but we're not going to make specific promises to
:03:52. > :03:55.reverse those cuts, unless we are absolutely sure that we know where
:03:55. > :04:01.the money is coming from. unions say they accept that Labour
:04:01. > :04:05.has to keep its options open. That it can't give a blanket promise to
:04:05. > :04:10.reverse all of the coalition's cuts. But what's particularly angered
:04:10. > :04:15.them right now is the language that Ed Balls turned to at the weekend.
:04:15. > :04:19.He said he's afraid we will have to keep all of these cuts. Not, I will
:04:19. > :04:23.see if the money turns up and see if we can do something to reverse
:04:23. > :04:27.some of them, if we get back into power, no, we have to keep all of
:04:27. > :04:30.the cuts. Ed Milliband needs to go back to the drawing board to re-
:04:30. > :04:35.think through a coherent deficit reduction plan, which he should
:04:35. > :04:39.have, but one that has some real meat in it. Not these vague
:04:40. > :04:43.statements. Public sector workers, and especially low-paid public
:04:43. > :04:47.sector workers, need to keep their spending power, as part of the
:04:47. > :04:51.recovery of our economy. It is the only way for this country into the
:04:51. > :04:56.future. The anger does appear to be widespread. As well as Len
:04:56. > :05:06.McCluskey from Unite, Paul Kenny, the leader of the GMB, has written
:05:06. > :05:12.
:05:12. > :05:16.The hint is clear, no affiliation would mean no subs to the Labour
:05:16. > :05:21.Party, this matters, of course, because of how dependant Labour is
:05:21. > :05:27.on union funding. In the past four quarters that we have figures for,
:05:27. > :05:35.Labour raised �21.5 million in donations, �19.8 million, or 92% of
:05:35. > :05:39.that, came from the unions. The GMB gave �1.8 million, and Unite, �4.2
:05:39. > :05:43.million. Huge sums of money that Labour won't want to lose. Among
:05:43. > :05:46.the unions, there is a particular sense of betrayal at Ed Balls, the
:05:46. > :05:50.Shadow Chancellor. Whilst he was pitching for their and other Labour
:05:50. > :05:56.votes in the leadership contest, he said very clearly that he thought
:05:56. > :06:00.even Alistair Darling's deficit reduction plan was too fast.
:06:00. > :06:03.argued in 200 within Government, to both Gordon Brown and Alistair
:06:03. > :06:08.Darling, that whatever the media clamour at the time, even trying to
:06:08. > :06:12.cut the deficit in half in four years was very difficult indeed, a
:06:12. > :06:16.mistake, it was too severe to be credible or sustainable. Now, his
:06:16. > :06:20.critics accuse him of taking a completely contradictory position,
:06:20. > :06:23.signing up to the coalition's plans. Meanwhile, some Labour supporters
:06:23. > :06:27.think it is completely pointless to have this discussion at all.
:06:27. > :06:32.think it is a strategic disaster, the problem is, most of the public
:06:32. > :06:36.is not going to pay much attention to what is basically a very narrow
:06:36. > :06:39.positioning for mostly the Westminster media, who are obsessed
:06:39. > :06:43.with what should be the deficit reduction Plan B. Most people in
:06:44. > :06:47.the country are worried about jobs, they are worried about standard of
:06:47. > :06:51.living and other issues. I think the Labour Party has to focus on
:06:51. > :06:54.them and address their concerns, and right now, what we are doing is
:06:54. > :07:01.basically still focusing on having a technocratic, macro-economic
:07:01. > :07:07.discussion. The Fed sets rates low, are you
:07:07. > :07:10.starting to get it. The ideolgical debate continues, it may not be a
:07:10. > :07:14.philosophical switch that Labour has signalled, but the unions are
:07:14. > :07:19.promising a fight. The question is, will voters even notice Labour's
:07:19. > :07:24.new position. If they notice l they understand it, if they understand
:07:24. > :07:29.it, will they approve? Earlier tonight I met the Shadow
:07:29. > :07:32.Chancellor, Ed Balls, at his office in Westminster.
:07:32. > :07:36.How concerned are you about the anger amongst some trade unions as
:07:36. > :07:40.to what you were doing in effectively joining the Government
:07:40. > :07:44.in agreeing to cap public sector pay? I'm concerned at the rising
:07:44. > :07:48.unemployment, a flatlining economy, the inheritance that Labour will
:07:48. > :07:53.face in three years time, which is very difficult, and the need for us
:07:53. > :07:57.to face up to difficult choices. We can't now make commitments on
:07:57. > :08:02.spending or tax rises to reverse what the Conservatives are doing.
:08:02. > :08:06.But nor can we say, with any credibility, in the next two years,
:08:06. > :08:10.we think, that higher pay, for public sector workers, should come
:08:10. > :08:14.before jobs. We can't make that argument. I'm afraid, George
:08:14. > :08:18.Osborne, I think, contended not to continue with his pay freeze, his
:08:18. > :08:21.policy has failed. I'm afraid there is now no choice if we are going to
:08:21. > :08:26.keep unemployment down in the future, to say, jobs will have to
:08:26. > :08:29.come before pay. As you well know, you will lose friends over this,
:08:29. > :08:34.lose supporters, you will lose people who back your party to the
:08:34. > :08:39.tune of 80% of what your party needs to just survive. Because
:08:39. > :08:42.that's where the unions come in. Why should trade unions agree to do
:08:42. > :08:48.that, pay you, while you are doing what the Government are doing to
:08:48. > :08:51.them for free? We're the opposition. The Government, a Conservative-led
:08:52. > :08:54.Government, is making terrible mistakes on the economy, they are
:08:54. > :08:58.cutting too far and too fast. Unemployment is rising, it is
:08:58. > :09:03.having a very difficult impact upon people working in the private and
:09:03. > :09:06.the public sector. You are agreeing with their policy, broadly. Labour
:09:06. > :09:10.cannot, from opposition, change that, until we are in Government.
:09:10. > :09:13.To be in Government we have to set out an alternative, it has to be a
:09:13. > :09:17.credible alternative. If we come along and say, we could be popular
:09:18. > :09:22.with the trade unions today, by saying we will spend more, tax less,
:09:22. > :09:25.pay people more. If people say that doesn't add up, that doesn't make
:09:25. > :09:31.us credible, it makes us less credible. What we have to do is say
:09:31. > :09:34.there is a better way, a fairer way, to get the deficit down, to get the
:09:34. > :09:38.economy moving, to get growth and jobs back. A five-point plan for
:09:38. > :09:43.jobs and growth, tough decisions on pay, but also done in fair way.
:09:43. > :09:48.Just on the specific point, do you take seriously the threat from the
:09:48. > :09:52.GMB to disaffiliate from the Labour Party? I don't want the GMB or
:09:52. > :09:57.Unite to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. You take it
:09:57. > :10:00.seriously? I want people to be working together for stronger and
:10:00. > :10:04.fairer futures for our country. We can't make our policy on the basis
:10:04. > :10:08.of that. We have to make our policy on what will be the best way
:10:08. > :10:14.forwardor the country, and what could show Labour in a credible way,
:10:14. > :10:18.can make difficult decisions, when we will be faced with clearing up a
:10:18. > :10:21.very difficult Tory economic mess, that we can see at the moment.
:10:21. > :10:24.you understand why there is personal anger at you, for many
:10:24. > :10:29.people, particularly in the trade union movement, not confined to
:10:29. > :10:33.that, you were the golden boy for the case for Keynesianism, you were
:10:33. > :10:36.the one that said these cuts were wrong and will choke off growth.
:10:36. > :10:39.You were the one that said even Alistair Darling's cuts might be
:10:39. > :10:46.too far, too fast. Now you are saying your starting point is to
:10:46. > :10:50.keep all the cuts. That is a big u- turn? No, I am saying today, as I
:10:50. > :10:56.said a year ago and two years ago, the deficit must come down, there
:10:56. > :10:59.have to be hard choices on tax and spend, but if you go too far and
:10:59. > :11:02.too fast, as I warned consistently over the last year-and-a-half, the
:11:02. > :11:05.danger was it wouldn't work, the economy would flatline,
:11:05. > :11:12.unemployment would go up. In the Autumn Statement, George Osborne
:11:12. > :11:17.had to admit, not only all that, that he's borrowing �158 billion
:11:17. > :11:20.more. The problem is I can't wave a magic wand and blow away that
:11:20. > :11:24.inheritance. Our task, as Labour, will be to clear up George
:11:24. > :11:28.Osborne's economic mess. You also said in a speech to Bloomberg in
:11:28. > :11:30.August 2010, when you were running for the leadership of the party,
:11:30. > :11:35.adopting the consensus view might be the easy and safe thing to do,
:11:35. > :11:38.but it doesn't make you right. Now you are adopting the consensus view,
:11:38. > :11:42.the view held among the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives,
:11:42. > :11:46.effective low, that there is no alternative to these cuts --
:11:46. > :11:50.effectively, that there is no alternative to these cuts? That is
:11:50. > :11:55.100%, emphatically wrong. I think George Osborne should change course
:11:55. > :11:58.now. His cuts are too far and too fast. He is crushing growth. The
:11:58. > :12:03.reason our interest rates are so low is because's getting it wrong.
:12:03. > :12:08.Unemployment is going up. He should have now, as we have advocated, a
:12:08. > :12:11.temporary cut in VAT, boost public investment, repeat the bank bonus
:12:11. > :12:15.tax. Why is it the unions don't get it distinction, Len McCluskey
:12:15. > :12:20.saying today, the real points of differenciation between Labour and
:12:20. > :12:23.the Government on the economy are very hard to identify, he's saying.
:12:23. > :12:27.You have even sophisticated union leaders who don't understand what
:12:27. > :12:31.you are doing? I have read that article, and on that, Len McCluskey
:12:31. > :12:34.is plain wrong. I argued for action now, to boost growth and jobs. I
:12:34. > :12:38.argued for long-term reform, to make sure economy stronger and
:12:38. > :12:44.fairer. On the one hand you are saying, I'm against these cuts in
:12:44. > :12:49.general, they are wrong, but in specifics you can't tell us any one
:12:49. > :12:53.you would reverse, that is complicated message to get across
:12:53. > :12:57.to people? Abolishing the Future Jobs Fund and the EMA, looked as if
:12:57. > :13:00.it would save money, but it has contributed to rising youth
:13:00. > :13:05.unemployment, costing the country more in benefits. You would reverse
:13:05. > :13:10.that? That is why we are saying, have the bank bonus tax now, the �2
:13:10. > :13:13.billion, and use it for youth jobs. I can't make a commitment now, I
:13:13. > :13:16.will not know how much money there is, and less in three years time.
:13:16. > :13:21.If you pursue that, you will have to say we will see how things turn
:13:21. > :13:24.out in three years time, why should we listen to you in the next three
:13:24. > :13:27.years? Because George Osborne is doggedly sticking with a plan that
:13:27. > :13:31.is failing. He should have changed course six months ago, he still can
:13:31. > :13:35.today. He still can in the run up to the budget. I will say to him,
:13:35. > :13:40.day by day, week by week, the approach he's taking, too far and
:13:40. > :13:44.too fast, is unfair and not working. The longer he persists, the bigger
:13:44. > :13:46.the pain, the bigger the damage, and the greater the damage in
:13:46. > :13:50.inheritance we will face, because of his mistakes, that is the
:13:50. > :13:53.position. Let's look at one specific issue coming up today, the
:13:53. > :13:57.question of disability living allowance. The Government says by
:13:57. > :14:01.getting rid of this they will save some 20%, they hope. You can't say
:14:01. > :14:05.to us tonight, that you would reverse that in three years time?
:14:05. > :14:09.If I said that to you today, you would say, rightly, how do you know
:14:09. > :14:13.what you will be able to afford in three years time. You are opposing
:14:13. > :14:17.it today, and getting MPs and peers to oppose it, isn't that a very
:14:17. > :14:20.difficult message. That is my point, you are saying we oppose it, but we
:14:20. > :14:25.can't say we will reverse it? Another example, the VAT rise last
:14:25. > :14:29.year to 20%, was an unfair tax rise, which choked off the recovery, and
:14:29. > :14:33.flat lined the economy, it will probably lead to more borrowing in
:14:33. > :14:38.the economy, it was the wrong thing to do. They shouldn't have done it,
:14:38. > :14:43.we are calling for a temporary VAT cut now. Can I say to you and to
:14:43. > :14:50.viewers, I promised -- promised as Shadow Chancellor in three years
:14:50. > :14:55.time I will definitely reverse that. I can't promise anything until I
:14:55. > :14:58.know the state of the economy. Byrne says, the basic line and gut
:14:58. > :15:02.issue for most supporters f you can't help the disabled, the poor
:15:02. > :15:05.and most deserving people in this country, many Labour Party
:15:05. > :15:09.supporters will say what's the point. You can't commit to that?
:15:09. > :15:12.three years time, absolutely not. As a Shadow Chancellor, I have to
:15:12. > :15:16.know that our manifesto is being properly costed, in the context of
:15:16. > :15:19.the times, and can be paid for. I think what they are doing on
:15:19. > :15:23.disability living allowance is a big mistake and unfair. The
:15:23. > :15:27.benefits cap will lead to more homelessness, the way it is
:15:27. > :15:31.designed. The abolition of the Future Jobs Fund, will make youth
:15:31. > :15:34.unemployment higher, taking tax credits away from families on
:15:34. > :15:40.�25,000, hitting women harder, is unfair, wrong and damaging. The
:15:40. > :15:44.question you are asking me, is can I to your viewers make promises
:15:44. > :15:47.about three years time. Nick Clegg made promises, the promise not to
:15:47. > :15:51.raise VAT, he broke his promises straight after the election. I
:15:51. > :15:55.won't make that mistake, that is wrong and not the right way to do
:15:55. > :15:59.politics. I won't make that mistake. Thank you very much.
:15:59. > :16:02.Newsnight has uncovered new evidence tonight, relating to the
:16:02. > :16:08.sailing patterns of the striken Italian cruiseship, Costa Crociere,
:16:08. > :16:11.it ran into rocks off the coast of Tuscany. What have we found out
:16:11. > :16:15.tonight? There seems to be a bit of a mismatch between some of the
:16:15. > :16:19.statements made by the company that owns the Costa Crociere, on the
:16:19. > :16:24.routes taken by the ship over the last few months. It is best
:16:24. > :16:29.illustrated by a map. This is a map showing the incident and the route
:16:29. > :16:36.taken last Friday by the Costa Crociere on the red line. You can
:16:36. > :16:41.see in the circle where it hit the rocks, it cruised on for a few
:16:41. > :16:45.hundred metres, it doubled back to a bay where it could get passengers
:16:45. > :16:50.closer to land. Look at the route taken last August by the exact same
:16:50. > :16:53.ship, it went very, very close to the incident from last Friday, very
:16:53. > :16:59.close indeet. If you go to the top of the map, you will see it went
:16:59. > :17:02.close to land before sailing off. 230ms according to the public data.
:17:02. > :17:06.That is crucial, the company said in a statement yesterday, that
:17:06. > :17:10.their ships don't travel any closer than 500ms to the shore. We know
:17:10. > :17:18.this because the technology tracks these ships exactly to where they
:17:18. > :17:25.go. Lloyd's look very carefully into it, I spoke to the editor,
:17:25. > :17:29.Richard Meade. We have discovered that the company saying that the
:17:29. > :17:34.captain taking a rogue master and individual position, this is not
:17:34. > :17:38.true, the ship took this position a year earlier, and the master would
:17:38. > :17:40.have known that, that this was a safe route and the ship had done
:17:40. > :17:44.this before. This evidence does stack that up. Very interesting.
:17:44. > :17:47.What are the company saying about this? We were only able to reach
:17:47. > :17:50.them an hour-and-a-half ago. They say they are looking into it, and
:17:50. > :17:56.verifying this. Crucially they are standing over the statements made
:17:56. > :18:00.by the chief executive, Foschi, yesterday. What happens to the
:18:00. > :18:04.captain in charge on Friday, was also the captain last August, we
:18:04. > :18:08.don't have that, that is the known unknown. We learned some more about
:18:08. > :18:11.the aftermath of the disaster as well? There is an extraordinary
:18:11. > :18:18.audio tape out there now, a conversation between the coastguard
:18:18. > :18:21.and this captain, Schettino, when he appears, the coastguard appears
:18:21. > :18:26.to be ordering, Francesco Schettino, to get back on the ship to ensure
:18:26. > :18:29.all passengers are off the ship. We have audio from that. Are you
:18:29. > :18:33.refusing to get back on board the ship, tell me why you are not
:18:33. > :18:41.getting on board. I'm not going, because there is the other lifeboat
:18:41. > :18:44.that has stopped. Get on board, that is an order. It seems to be a
:18:44. > :18:48.pretty angry exchange between the coastguard and the captain.
:18:48. > :18:51.captain was arrested over the weekend. He was brought before a
:18:51. > :18:58.judge today. Now he's facing manslaughter charges. So far there
:18:58. > :19:02.is an investigation under way, 11 confirmed dead so far.
:19:02. > :19:05.Syria, today was the last day that Arab League monitors were to
:19:05. > :19:09.continue their investigations of alleged human rights abuses, before
:19:09. > :19:13.writing their report. Newsnight's reporter travelled with the Arab
:19:13. > :19:17.League team inside Syria, and found they were mobbed by protestors,
:19:17. > :19:19.desperate to show the world, what they believe is incontravertable
:19:19. > :19:25.proof of the violence unleashed by the Assad Government, against
:19:25. > :19:29.civilians. Pursued by reporters, they are
:19:29. > :19:35.racing off for a last spot inspection. One of the Arab
:19:35. > :19:40.monitoring teams checking Syria's compliance with a deal to end the
:19:40. > :19:43.violence here. Today they are visiting a place near Damascus, an
:19:43. > :19:48.opposition stronghold, ringed by soldiers. They are barely out of
:19:48. > :19:53.their cars before they are accosted by a grieving mother. TRANSLATION:
:19:53. > :19:57.In the name of God, let me kiss your hand, my son has been arrested,
:19:57. > :20:05.his name is Mohammed, Assad's gangs killed my other son, right in front
:20:05. > :20:15.of my eyes. Already emboldened by the monitors'
:20:15. > :20:21.arrival, demonstrators are gathering. Their slogan" the people
:20:21. > :20:24.demand the hanging of the President".
:20:24. > :20:28.The observers' presence in Syria hasn't achieved much, more than 400
:20:28. > :20:34.people have been killed in the uprising since the mission started
:20:34. > :20:37.last month. But it is the only independent force these people have
:20:37. > :20:41.access to. Everyone knows the Arab League is the international body
:20:41. > :20:49.with the best chance of influencing the Syrian Government. That's why
:20:49. > :20:53.people are so desperate to have their voice heard today.
:20:53. > :20:56.Down this street, they say, Government snipers have been firing
:20:56. > :21:03.on protestors. Soldiers are positioned on a roof top, even
:21:03. > :21:07.today. Here, apparently, is the evidence of their work.
:21:07. > :21:10.TRANSLATION: They shot him from the roof of the building, military
:21:10. > :21:16.officers live there. My friend, Mohammed, he was about to finish
:21:16. > :21:21.school. He was walking in the street when they shot him. This
:21:21. > :21:26.woman says she has recorded another crime, a 13-year-old boy, shot dead
:21:26. > :21:32.in front of her. TRANSLATION: was an only child, he went out of
:21:32. > :21:37.the mosque, the sniper shot him in the eye. Bashar al-Assad, may the
:21:37. > :21:44.same thing happen to your children. I filmed this myself, house wives
:21:44. > :21:47.like me have become journalists. And suddenly the monitors, supposed
:21:47. > :21:52.to be neutral, have become the heros of this crowd. Everyone wants
:21:52. > :21:57.to believe they can help. But they won't say whether they
:21:57. > :22:03.will or not. TRANSLATION: No we're not allowed to speak to the media.
:22:03. > :22:08.I can't give you my impressions. Some don't trust them. TRANSLATION:
:22:08. > :22:14.Are you working with the regime? They tell us you are with the
:22:14. > :22:18.regime, lime like your son, tell us the truth. This young man won't
:22:18. > :22:25.dare show his face. Now I am sure when you go out from here, they
:22:25. > :22:30.will come to here to banish us and kill us. Can the Arab League help?
:22:30. > :22:37.They do everything for Libya, they do everything for Tunisia, for
:22:37. > :22:42.Egypt, and now for Yemen, but for Syria, no. Why?
:22:42. > :22:45.This is a tiny bubble of free speech that has been created around
:22:45. > :22:48.the monitors, with but everyone is afraid what will happen after they
:22:48. > :22:53.have left. Even the monitors themselves are warning people that
:22:53. > :22:59.they will have to disperse pretty fast. The monitors have gone, he
:23:00. > :23:03.says, now they will kill us. They will kill me. At the end of
:23:03. > :23:09.the street soldiers wait. They have got a different story to tell the
:23:09. > :23:12.monitors about the protest we have just seen. Tran These young men who
:23:12. > :23:17.come out on the streets -- TRANSLATION: These young men who
:23:17. > :23:22.come out on the streets, they don't know what they want, they are being
:23:22. > :23:27.incited by armed gangs. These holes we have seen in shutters, in walls,
:23:27. > :23:32.these are holes from bullets from Government snipers? TRANSLATION:
:23:32. > :23:38.The Government never shot anyone in the street. It was armed gangs that
:23:38. > :23:42.did it. The army is here to protect the citizens. Then, the monitors
:23:42. > :23:46.were gone. And so were the protestors.
:23:46. > :23:49.Tension returned to the streets. Now Syrians wait to hear what the
:23:49. > :23:55.monitors will say in their report later this week, and what further
:23:55. > :24:01.action, if any, the Arab League will take against President Assad's
:24:01. > :24:07.regime. What is certain is for now, the people here are again alone,
:24:07. > :24:12.against the power of their state. We're all in this together, has
:24:12. > :24:15.become one of the cliches of the age of austerity, but by all of us,
:24:15. > :24:19.the Government means people with disabilities. Earlier tonight the
:24:19. > :24:22.Government won a vote in the House of Lords, on a bill that would
:24:22. > :24:27.scrap disability allowance, and replace it with a new scheme, aimed
:24:27. > :24:30.at cutting spending in this area by 20%. The Government victory by the
:24:30. > :24:34.slender margin of 16 votes was a relief for the coalition. But the
:24:34. > :24:44.row over what campaigners see as penalising some of the most
:24:44. > :24:45.
:24:45. > :24:50.deserving in our society, is far from over.
:24:50. > :25:00.DLA is my independence, every day going out, shopping, going to
:25:00. > :25:04.
:25:04. > :25:07.socialise, visit people. To live and work independently, Analise
:25:07. > :25:12.needs help. Her disability living allowance means she can pay for
:25:12. > :25:15.transport to go to the office, do the shopping and see her family.
:25:15. > :25:19.the allowance was cut, I wouldn't be able to do the things. I would
:25:19. > :25:25.have to rely on friends and family to pick me up and take me places
:25:25. > :25:29.and help me. I love my independence. I want to be independent. Changes
:25:30. > :25:37.to disability living allowance are part of deep reforms to the welfare
:25:37. > :25:41.state. Aiming to cut �18 billion of spending. More than �2 billion of
:25:41. > :25:47.that will come from replacing DLA with a new personal independence
:25:47. > :25:51.payment. It will affect two million claimants of working age. That is
:25:51. > :25:55.16-64. The Government has announced the change, but given very little
:25:55. > :26:00.detail, not least how much the new benefit will actually be worth. And
:26:00. > :26:04.the uncertainty is adding to the resistance. Everybody receiving
:26:04. > :26:09.disability living allowance, is worried that they are going to be
:26:10. > :26:15.affected. The number of working age people claiming DLA, has risen from
:26:15. > :26:21.1.65 million in 2002, to two million in 2010, and is projected
:26:21. > :26:26.to reach 2.2 million, by 2015. But the Government says the change to
:26:26. > :26:31.the new scheme will slash that number to 1.7 million. Taking
:26:31. > :26:35.500,000 people off the benefit. Reformers say the change is overdue.
:26:35. > :26:38.At the moment people can actually get the benefit just by filling in
:26:38. > :26:41.forms. There isn't a medical assessment to tell whether they are
:26:41. > :26:46.telling the truth. The Government takes it on trust you are telling
:26:46. > :26:50.the truth. In fact, there is a cottage industry of firms, who, for
:26:50. > :26:55.a fee, will show you how to fill the forms in and get the been fits.
:26:55. > :26:58.The number of people claiming DLA has trebled since it was introduced,
:26:58. > :27:02.the Government is spending �12 billion a year on that. All the
:27:02. > :27:05.payments, very important for people with really severe disabilities
:27:05. > :27:10.will continue, but there will be a medical assessment, to make sure
:27:10. > :27:13.those getting it really need to get it. But the assessments are
:27:13. > :27:18.controversial and led to the latest confrontation between peers and the
:27:18. > :27:23.Government over welfare reform. Tonight Baroness Grey-Thompson, the
:27:23. > :27:28.paralympian, narrowly lost a vote to delay the new benefits
:27:28. > :27:30.introduction. I have had nearly 600 e-mails from different disabled
:27:30. > :27:33.people, saying they are terrified of the changes going to happen. It
:27:33. > :27:37.is really important that the assessment process will properly
:27:37. > :27:42.record, if losing DLA has a negative impact. Disability groups,
:27:42. > :27:46.like the Papworth Trust, where Analise works on reception, five
:27:46. > :27:51.mornings a week, accept the case for reform. Currently no allowance
:27:51. > :27:55.is made for the fact that people's levels of dependency can change.
:27:55. > :27:58.But they are highly suspicious about the fact the Government has
:27:58. > :28:03.determined how much it will save before a single person has been
:28:03. > :28:07.assessed. It feels, to a lot of the disabled people commenting to us,
:28:07. > :28:11.that their concern is they are trying to create an assessment that
:28:11. > :28:15.achieves a reduction in finances, rather than trying to create an
:28:15. > :28:21.assessment which fairly evaluates what people need, and then takes
:28:21. > :28:27.the cut at whatever that level might be. Analise and her partner,
:28:27. > :28:30.Keith, manage their lives with help from the DLA and regular visits
:28:30. > :28:33.from their carer. The Government says all those who need the new
:28:34. > :28:43.benefit will get it. For Analise this is a time of insecurity over
:28:44. > :28:44.
:28:44. > :28:50.the things she values so highly. Her ability to live independently.
:28:50. > :28:53.Listening to that report with me were Tani Grey-Thompson, the
:28:53. > :28:56.Paralympic athlete campaigning against Government plans in the
:28:56. > :29:01.Lords, and Harriett Baldwin, on the Work and Pensions select committee.
:29:01. > :29:05.Can I begin with the point that was made there, this is being done to
:29:05. > :29:08.save money, laudible, but because you have said it will be 20%
:29:08. > :29:12.savings, perhaps 500,000 people won't get it. It sounds as if you
:29:12. > :29:15.have made the decision and trying to fit everything else into the
:29:15. > :29:20.money-saving needs of this country? I'm glad that we are having this
:29:20. > :29:23.discussion, because I'm on the select committee that scrutinises
:29:23. > :29:28.the DLA transfer at the moment. We are taking evidence from people on
:29:28. > :29:33.this particular issue at the moment. I just really want to reassure
:29:33. > :29:36.Analise and people like her all over my constituency and other
:29:36. > :29:40.constituencies, that this personal independent payment that is coming
:29:40. > :29:44.in, the change is, effectively, that there will now be a face-to-
:29:44. > :29:48.face assessment. Secondly, that the benefit will be assessed on a
:29:48. > :29:54.regular basis. I think one of the things that is characteristic about
:29:54. > :30:00.the current DLA, is 70% of the awards are on a permanent basis,
:30:00. > :30:04.and never reassessed. Of course people's conditions can fluctuate
:30:04. > :30:08.over time. It is estimated �630 million is currently paid to people
:30:08. > :30:11.who no longer need it. You accept presumably the overall case for
:30:11. > :30:15.saving money where we can, and people shouldn't get benefits when
:30:15. > :30:20.they don't need it. What are you worried about? There is no doubt
:30:20. > :30:23.that DLA did need reform, nobody is arguing against that. There is a
:30:23. > :30:27.massive fear amongst disabled people about who will get cut.
:30:27. > :30:31.Especially when things like 20% are bandied around. It is 20% of
:30:31. > :30:34.numbers, 20% in funding. The figures released yesterday, that up
:30:35. > :30:39.to half a million disabled people could be affected is just
:30:39. > :30:43.terrifying, DLA is used as a benefit, it is not an out of work
:30:43. > :30:48.benefit, it is available for everyone. It is used to paper over
:30:48. > :30:53.the cracks, NHS support, or local social service support, people use
:30:53. > :30:57.it to help make their homes accessible and buy the right
:30:57. > :31:01.seating and equipment. It helps people get to work, it is a very
:31:01. > :31:05.important benefit. My fear is f those people get cuts, disabled
:31:05. > :31:08.people will find it hard to stay in work. Without a deep assessment
:31:08. > :31:12.process, we could be pushing a very large group of disabled people into
:31:12. > :31:16.an I can't remember where they have much more severe needs and more
:31:16. > :31:21.cost. Is this 500,000 a target, where did you get that number from,
:31:21. > :31:24.that worries people, people looking at it saying it is possibly me?
:31:25. > :31:28.That is terribly important. The points that were made there, are
:31:28. > :31:32.really an important thing. This is a very valuable benefit to people,
:31:32. > :31:36.which is paid whether you are in work or out of work. A large
:31:36. > :31:41.percentage of people who receive it actually don't even realise that,
:31:41. > :31:46.it is a benefit that is paid to help people with the additional
:31:46. > :31:50.costs of either care or mobility. In terms of when you say our target
:31:50. > :31:54.is to save 20%, it could be 500,000 people who come off it. When the
:31:54. > :31:56.Government says that, doesn't that give you, as somebody scrutinising
:31:56. > :31:59.this, pause for thought, that is the important thing for the
:32:00. > :32:03.Government, and perhaps that is the wrong way to go about it. You
:32:03. > :32:06.should go about reform, face-to- face interviews should take place,
:32:06. > :32:13.and you should take some time, and then figure out how much you are
:32:13. > :32:18.going to save? The amount paid out is �12.6 billion, the amount her
:32:18. > :32:23.projecting to pay out by 2015 -- they are projecting to pay out by
:32:24. > :32:27.2015 is broadly what it is in 2009/2010. There has been quite a
:32:27. > :32:31.large increase in the number of people receiving this benefit. That
:32:31. > :32:35.is logical f you assume that no-one who has been receiving it for a
:32:35. > :32:38.long time has been reassessed. There may be people whose
:32:38. > :32:43.conditions have improved, but without that reassessment. I do
:32:43. > :32:46.agree with you, it is not helpful to be having this against the
:32:46. > :32:50.particular backdrop of budget pressures. This is a reform that
:32:50. > :32:57.would have to happen, irrespective of what kind of conditions the
:32:57. > :33:01.economy was in. Are there any things that could be done which
:33:01. > :33:05.would retain the principle, you said it has been there for 20 years,
:33:05. > :33:09.it needs reviewing perhaps. That could keep the principle of review,
:33:09. > :33:12.but make people a lot happier about face-to-face interviews, which
:33:12. > :33:17.presumably are quite an ordeal if people think what would be
:33:17. > :33:20.involved? They can be a huge ordeal, especially people who have
:33:20. > :33:24.fluctuating conditions on daily basis, or people whose conditions
:33:24. > :33:28.aren't going to change. A long time was spent discussing at committee
:33:28. > :33:30.and report, is trying to make decisions about who should have
:33:30. > :33:33.face-to-face interviews, what should be able to use medical
:33:33. > :33:37.evidence to support it. It is making sure we get the right
:33:37. > :33:46.process. I think there is a lot of fear amongst disabled people.
:33:46. > :33:50.People who have been through transition from IBE to ISA feel
:33:50. > :33:54.quite distrustful of the process, ESA has a high turnover appeal, a
:33:54. > :33:57.very high appeal rate, people want to feel a little bit more
:33:57. > :34:03.comfortable that the consultation is being carried out, that disabled
:34:03. > :34:08.people are involved. One of the things that Lord Freud said tonight,
:34:08. > :34:11.is they wouldn't be using the social model of disability to
:34:11. > :34:14.decide this, lots of disabled people feel they will be locked
:34:14. > :34:18.away and ghettoised without a way of getting into society. Is there
:34:18. > :34:23.any way you can see of keeping it, trying it out in certain areas to
:34:23. > :34:27.see if it works, anything that would ease people's fears without
:34:27. > :34:34.conceding the principle? I think the current application form, which
:34:34. > :34:39.is 60 plus pages, isn't it, is also not exactly a really easy way to
:34:39. > :34:44.apply for this benefit. I think face-to-face could be something
:34:44. > :34:47.that really reassures people over time. But I do accept that when the
:34:47. > :34:50.work capability assessments were brought in, under the previous
:34:50. > :34:54.Government, for people on Incapacity Benefit, that process,
:34:54. > :34:58.when it first started, didn't work very well. There were a lot of
:34:58. > :35:01.appeals. Hence the suspicion that has been talked about? That is the
:35:01. > :35:06.backdrop and frame of reference that people potentially are going
:35:06. > :35:11.through this new change and are viewing this with. There is no
:35:11. > :35:16.question that the Government has brought in Professor Harrington to
:35:16. > :35:18.make improvements to the work capability assessment. He's on his
:35:18. > :35:21.second review now our select committee reported on ways that
:35:21. > :35:25.process could be improved. Briefly, do you think there is some way that
:35:26. > :35:30.the opposition can go now, that you can still push this? We still keep
:35:30. > :35:33.pushing it. I think what was very useful about today was that Lord
:35:33. > :35:37.Freud came a lot further forward in terms of what he's proposing. One
:35:37. > :35:40.area of concern I have is the assessors will still only have a
:35:40. > :35:44.broad education in disability, we need to make sure they have the
:35:44. > :35:48.right education to assess people properly as a disabled person we
:35:48. > :35:52.will keep fighting and try to protect those half a million
:35:52. > :35:55.disabled people. If you are planning to research
:35:55. > :36:01.something on Wikipedia tomorrow, you might be better to do so after
:36:01. > :36:05.you have heard our next item and before you go to bed. Tomorrow
:36:05. > :36:09.Wikipedia will be on strike for reasons, its co-founder, Jimmy
:36:09. > :36:13.Wales, will explain in a moment. It is to do with proposed new laws in
:36:13. > :36:20.the United States to clampdown on internet piracy, which opponents
:36:20. > :36:23.say, threatens freedom of speech. January 1th, the birthday of Cary
:36:23. > :36:31.Grant, the anniversary of the founding of Bentley motors, field
:36:31. > :36:37.hockey was born, and James Cook discovered Hawaii. From 5.00am
:36:37. > :36:42.tomorrow, a self-imposed blackout on the site will happen for 24
:36:42. > :36:47.hours N the words of the co-founder, Jimmy Wales "do your homework
:36:47. > :36:53.earlier". The blackout is in opposition to the Stop Online
:36:53. > :36:57.Piracy Act, and Protect IP Act, both bills want to tackle on-line
:36:58. > :37:01.piracy by preventing American search engines from directing users
:37:01. > :37:07.to sites with stolen content. The bills would allow individuals or
:37:07. > :37:10.companies to sue if their copyright is infringed. One of the main
:37:10. > :37:15.backers of the legislation has been Hollywood. With recent convert,
:37:15. > :37:20.Rupert Murdoch, tweeting about what he calls the piracy leader, Google,
:37:20. > :37:25.over the issue. Similar web blackouts will be planned by other
:37:25. > :37:30.sites. With 20 million planned visitors, he hopes the action by
:37:30. > :37:34.Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington. The approaching
:37:34. > :37:39.darkness hasn't been embraced throughout the Internet. Twitter's
:37:39. > :37:42.chief executive said closing the Internet on a single issue was
:37:42. > :37:45.ludicrous. It could be shelved after the White House said it could
:37:45. > :37:47.not support law that is would reduce freedom of expression and
:37:47. > :37:56.undermine the Internet. President Obama could use his presidential
:37:56. > :38:03.veto.? I'm joined by the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and
:38:03. > :38:07.Shaun McAleer from the Picture a-- and my other guest. Explain why you
:38:07. > :38:12.are so opposed to the moves by Congress. Internet piracy is piracy,
:38:12. > :38:17.it is still left, isn't it? Yes, absolutely. You know, for us, we
:38:17. > :38:21.are quite strong defenders of copyright, within our community, we
:38:21. > :38:24.have very rigorous policies inside our community. It is not so much
:38:24. > :38:28.about that. For us it is that these bills are very badly written, and
:38:28. > :38:32.don't really address the problem in the right way. I think a useful
:38:32. > :38:35.analogy might be, if you hear that there is this great invention
:38:35. > :38:39.called the automobile, and two years later you find out the
:38:39. > :38:43.automobile is being used by bank robbers, the answer is not to
:38:43. > :38:51.regulate and ban automobiles, the answer is to deal with that problem
:38:51. > :38:55.directly. In search engines were directing
:38:55. > :39:03.people to website where is they could buy crack, people would think
:39:03. > :39:07.it is awful, your automobile analogy is wrong, there is some
:39:07. > :39:11.responsibility for the search engines? We have a good set of
:39:11. > :39:17.rules in the United States about you know, the takedown provisions,
:39:17. > :39:21.the digital and copyright act has been in place and is working well.
:39:21. > :39:25.We don't need toen gauge in the things these bills contemplate,
:39:26. > :39:33.things like constructing DNS blacklists, so people can't access
:39:33. > :39:37.sites. It is about how sloppy the legislation is, than the goals.
:39:37. > :39:42.Michael O'Leary, sloppy legislation in Washington, I'm shocked, do you
:39:42. > :39:45.think the main point, that he's against theft and believes people
:39:45. > :39:49.have intellectual property rights, but you can't have sloppy bills
:39:49. > :39:52.that interfere with our freedom to research things on the internet
:39:52. > :39:55.freely? I would disagree with the characterisation that the bill does
:39:55. > :39:59.any of the things mentioned in the set up piece or my friend from
:39:59. > :40:03.Wikipedia. The simple fact of the matter is this bill doesn't shut
:40:03. > :40:07.down websites or make them illegal. It is simply focused on websites
:40:07. > :40:11.that are engaged in criminal activity, stealing the product of
:40:11. > :40:14.American workers and profiting from it. If you are a legitimate site
:40:14. > :40:19.like wick peedia, there is nothing to be concerned about. The second
:40:19. > :40:22.point I would make, if they share the goal of deal be with piracy,
:40:22. > :40:25.the best approach, is to come forward and offer solutions. I
:40:25. > :40:29.think shutting down a legitimate business for one day, while it
:40:29. > :40:32.draws a lot of press attention, it is a cute gimmick. It doesn't solve
:40:32. > :40:35.the underlying problem. One of the things the White House said this
:40:35. > :40:39.weekend in their statement, they would like to see interested people
:40:39. > :40:43.to come forward and craft reasonable solutions. So we're
:40:43. > :40:48.happy to meet him half way on the argument that he is against piracy,
:40:48. > :40:55.but we're not 100% clear how shutting down a website for a day
:40:55. > :40:59.to draw attention to that really advances that cause in any way.
:40:59. > :41:03.1234 Make a suggestion how this could be redrafted in language we
:41:03. > :41:05.understand, that would make it better for you and everybody?
:41:05. > :41:10.absolutely strongly support the concept that we should come
:41:10. > :41:13.together in a peaceful, thoughtful way, to craft legislation that
:41:13. > :41:17.actually carves out the real problems here, and avoids burdening
:41:17. > :41:23.everybody else. For me one of the biggest issues here is the question
:41:23. > :41:27.of follow the money. If we can look into who are these major criminal
:41:27. > :41:31.pirates, how are they profiting and so forth, go after the money, don't
:41:31. > :41:34.go after freedom of speech, don't force us to stop telling people
:41:34. > :41:38.where the sites are and that kind of things. Go after the money?
:41:38. > :41:42.think that is a half measure, frankly, I think you yourself said
:41:42. > :41:46.it in your set up, when you were saying don't the search engines
:41:46. > :41:50.bear some responsibility for making the Internet safe and legitimate
:41:50. > :41:54.for everyone. What this is really about, frankly, is excluding the
:41:54. > :41:58.search engines and putting all of the onus on other parts of the
:41:58. > :42:00.ecosystem. The simple fact of the matter is everyone who plays a role
:42:00. > :42:06.in the Internet has a responsibility in making it safe
:42:06. > :42:09.and leg depit mit, there are search engines that -- legitimate, there
:42:09. > :42:13.are search engines that play a role in that. We haven't seen their
:42:13. > :42:18.willingness to do that. That is unfortunate, what is lost mind the
:42:18. > :42:20.gimmicks and blackouts is there are tens of millions of American
:42:21. > :42:24.workers harmed by piracy, they deserve the attention and response
:42:24. > :42:28.they are not get anything that debate. That may be correct, but
:42:28. > :42:33.search engines are search engines, they are not web policemen, they
:42:33. > :42:36.couldn't do it? That is absolutely inaccurate, the search engines have
:42:36. > :42:40.a much greater understanding of what they are doing out there.
:42:40. > :42:45.Google, for example, their entire model is predicated on where you
:42:45. > :42:48.come up in the search results. They have ad programmes predicated on
:42:48. > :42:53.that. The notion it is simply a search request going in and there
:42:53. > :42:56.is no way of knowing it, it is not accurate. If they are told by a
:42:56. > :43:00.court order a neutral federal court in the ufpl states, that they
:43:00. > :43:05.should not be taking con-- in the United States, that they should not
:43:06. > :43:09.take consumers to a site because it is engaged in piracy, they can do
:43:09. > :43:14.that. In the US this is where we get into serious first amendment
:43:14. > :43:19.issues. What you are saying, is if Google knows where criminal
:43:19. > :43:22.activity is going on, they are not allowed to tell people. In the US
:43:22. > :43:26.that doesn't fly. Thank you very much. A quick look at the front
:43:26. > :43:29.pages. The Times says a revolt over Labour
:43:29. > :43:33.raid on its local party activists, they are forced to give up
:43:33. > :43:40.they are forced to give up ownership.
:43:40. > :43:50.They have fashionable picture there of Ian Hislop, appearing at the
:43:50. > :43:50.
:43:50. > :44:57.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 66 seconds
:44:57. > :45:00.That's all from Newsnight, from all Good evening t may be frosty at the
:45:00. > :45:04.moment over parts of England and Wales. Temperatures rising through
:45:04. > :45:08.the night. A mild start to the morning, a damp and murky start as
:45:08. > :45:10.well. Mist, fog and a lot of rain too. Brightening up through
:45:10. > :45:13.Scotland and Northern Ireland, through northern England through
:45:13. > :45:18.the second half of the day, temperatures dropping away through
:45:18. > :45:23.the afternoon after highs of 10 in the morning. Into southern England
:45:23. > :45:27.is itth stays cloudy and damp through much of the day. Drizzle
:45:27. > :45:34.light and patchy, dismal day, breezy as well. Temperatures here
:45:34. > :45:38.probably around 11-12 at best. Misty and murky across the south.
:45:38. > :45:40.The north coast brightening up briefly, before the afternoon is
:45:40. > :45:44.completely through. Northern Ireland, temperatures here will
:45:44. > :45:48.have dropped through the day. But we will see the return of sunshine
:45:48. > :45:53.after a cloudy, damp start. A few showers across the northern and
:45:53. > :45:57.western areas. They could turn increasingly wintry on the tops of
:45:57. > :46:01.the mountains. Milder and colder, and cold and breezy day on Thursday
:46:01. > :46:04.across many parts of northern UK. There will be sunshine here. Not as
:46:04. > :46:09.much sunshine further south. More than we will see on Wednesday, but
:46:09. > :46:13.Thursday will start cloudy and damp across many southern areas, the