23/01/2012 Newsnight

The Government gets a poke in the eye from a bishop's crook.

How come the Government can decide that this woman should have her

benefits capped, but not this banker's pay? The Business

Secretary declines to tell what he thinks is fair pay package for a

banker. By what right does an unelected

bishop frustrate the will of Government?

Beijing's Forbidden City is forbidden no longer. But the

country remains an enigma to the west. Increasingly prosperous and

increasingly confident. What does it want in the world. We have asked

citizens there. Who does the 21st century belong

to? Most people say it is China. wonder what the Chinese ambassador

to Britain will have to say about that.

It has been a while since you could honestly call the Church of England

the Tory Party at prayer. The bishops in the House of Lords

certainly don't merit the title tonight. They led the defeat of

Government plans to cap the amount of money people can claim on

benefits. Earlier the Business Secretary had been dragged before

the Commons to lay out his plans to curtail the amount of money being

paid to senior business people. Significantly, no figures were

mentioned in that plan. Claptrap and dribble were a couple

of the more printable words used by some of Vincent Cable's

Conservative comments in Government, to describe his ideas. Both issues

touch a public nerve. The political challenge is to stay on the right

side of the argument. Before we talk, David Grossman reports.

1234 this is game of strategy and tactics. Involving castles, only

affordable, we are told, for the very rich, or those on overgenerous

welfare benefits. Involving bishops, speaking out, against the

Government. Lib Dem knights, or at least Lords, speaking out against

the bishops, and not to forget the pawns faced being moved out of more

expensive accommodation. The Prime Minister was turning the tables on

Asda employees in Leeds today. He was trying to sell them something.

On offer he had the Government's plans to reform benefits. No

household, he says, should get more than �26,000 a year. That is

equivalent to a salary of �35,000. Many people in this audience here

who are not earning �35,000, are you happy that your taxes are going

towards families where no-one is working and they are earning over

�26,000 in benefits. Is that fair? No, I don't think it is fair either,

that is why it is right to have, thank you for that! How much money

is at stake here. The Government says it would make savings of �290

million in 2013/14 by introducing the cap. It will affect 67,000, who,

on average, will lose �83 a week. The Government is achieving two

things, they are hitting those with high levels of housing costs, and

taking money away from families with very large numbers of children.

If you think either one of those is the problem, maybe you would have

been better limiting housing benefit payments or limiting the

amount you give for fifth or subsequent children. Given this, it

is not exactly clear who is the target. This is a sharper political

message? It is clear when you are saying, �26,000 a year, that is all

you can get. If you say we will reduce the child supplement for the

fourth child is Working Tax Credit, that is less salient. Tonight,

though, the Government were defeated in the House of Lords, an

amendment led by the bishops. The cap, they said, should not include

child benefit. It is important that those people who are already in

difficulties, because their benefit has been capped, do not also face

having their child benefit removed. It is a very simple amendment. It

preserves child benefit as a universal benefit. Ministers have

let it be known they are not actually that bothered about

today's defeat in the Lords. They promise to overturn it in the

Commons and, in any case, I think they have rather successfully

managed to manoeuvre Labour on to the wrong side of public opinion.

However, this is really only half a political message. So much for the

economic pawns getting something for nothing on benefits.

What about the economic kings making all the money, squeezing the

middle, the other side. A report today looks at all those

in the middle, one all the parties are trying to target. The report

says those in the middle have become more and more squeezed over

the years, and spend 40% on essentials, 15% on housing costs,

13% on food and drink, and 13% on transport. If you look at how the

costs have changed, the middle has got more squeezed. Household fuel

has gone up 110% from 2000 to 2010. Council tax, over the same period,

up 67%. Gavin Kelly, of the Resolution Foundation, says all

parties are struggling to know how to help this group. For so many of

these people, to help them through the tax and benefit system, would

you need a lot of cash. You would have to find the cash from

somewhere else be clear where it is coming from, it won't be flowing

into the Treasury coffers through higher economic growth at the

moment. It takes to you the politics of distribution and hard

choices, that is not what any political leader wants to talk

about now. What about top pay? Today the Business Secretary gave

the Commons details of his plans to curb excessive pay. Business and

investors recognise there is a disconnect between top pay and

company performance, and that something must be done. His recipe,

more transparency, combined with more shareholder power, didn't

exactly go down too well with all of his coalition partners.

liberal, left-wing claptrap he has announced today, which even Labour

didn't do in 13 years. He has some how got through the coalition, in

the hope of a good headline, it has doing done nothing to increase

growth or employment in this country. This is a long political

game, the Government hasn't come up yet with a winning move. But

believes it has the right strategy. Assuming, of course, the bishops

don't get in the way. Earlier this evening I went to the

Department of Business to talk to Mr McCabe. What does it say -- Mr

Cable. What does it say that this Government is prepared to tax

people's benefits, but not willing to set a level for senior bankers'

pay? We are dealing with pay, both for bankers' and executives

generally. I was introducing a statement today on the wider issue

of the pay of senior executives. That has got out of control. That

is way in excess of performance and workers' pay. We have introduced a

set of measures, more clarity, and paorncy, votes for pension funds

and shareholders, and other rules that will change the culture.

is the appropriate ratio to senior executives' pay to average pay in

the country? It is not for me to define ratio. Why not? The reason

why not is that what's right and what's sensible varies in almost

every company. If you take two examples, retail company, employing

unkilled workers, you will have a big ratio. If you have another

company, outsorsd, all of its unkilled work -- outsourced, all of

its unskilled work to India, it has a good ratio. What is the ratio?

What is a good ratio, you have used the term? It is for the owners of

the companies to decide when they see it alongside a lot of other

information, which we will require them to publish. You don't have a

view? I would have a view about a particular company, if I had shares

in it. Which is why we are giving shareholders the responsibility of

deciding how their companies are actually being run. These changes

you have announced today will not, by themselves, cut a single

bankers' bonus, will they? Not in themselves, it will require the

shareholders of the banks to act on the information that will be out

there, and to vote on it. Yet you are willing to cut the benefits of

67,000 people in this country by an average of �4,000 a year? The issue

of benefits and executive pay are different issues, and need to be

tackled in a different way. Done by the same Government, on the same

day? The thing they have in common is the issue of fairness and

inequality. But the way we deal with major inequalties of income in

society is through taxation measures. Executive pay, which is

what I'm dealing with, is one corner of a much bigger problem.

you think Steven Hester should get a bonus of estimated over �1

million? What I have said and what the Prime Minister and other senior

ministers have said is he and other senior executives in the RBS,

predominantly publicly-owned, to exercise restraint over their

bonuses. They haven't come to a decision yet, the board. We are

making it clear they have to look at the wider context, that people

are suffering hardship and we expect restraint from them. What,

do you think will be appropriate? Let's get nearer the time when they

come up with their proposals, and the Government, as a predominant

shareholder can react to them. We haven't had them. The tax-payers

own this company? They do. You are our representative? Absolutely,

there are good reasons for exercising restraint. You said

putting in a restraint on executive pay was above your pay grade, whose

pay grade is it? From the top of the Government down we have

expressed a view that we expect restraint on pavement I don't

personally have direct responsibility for RBS. -- on pay.

I don't personally have direct responsibility for RBS, but along

with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor expect restraint. So it

is within the Prime Minister's pay grade? Absolutely. So the Prime

Minister can express a view on what Steven Hester should get, but you

can't? He has already expressed a view. I was trying to be jockular

in a somber occasion. Are you willing to intervene to stop

something you disapprove of? never back ward in expressing a

view in Government and outside. I have made it very clear, some of my

colleagues have made it clear, we expect restraint. We are already

seeing it. The bonuses are much reduced from what we have seen S

The tax-payers are the major shareholders, whittering on outside

won't get us anywhere? Government will express a view. The

other aspect of the management of RBS, as you know, the structure set

up kept the company, the bank, at arm's length from Government.

you know what the slogan is above your reception desk downstairs?

we talking about the department for growth. In this building, it is

"ripping up red tape", it says that in big letters in a red poster

above your reception. All you have done today is create more red tape?

This is something we have pursued in consultation with the business

community and the investors. The measures which we are proposing,

they consider to be something that is necessary, and they are happy to

work with. This is additional red tape, isn't it? There is sensible

regulation, which has been brought in. There is nothing inherently

wrong with regulation, we need it to protect consumers, the

environment and the work force. Where it is a problem is when it

becomes very bureaucratic. final point, also on this question

of fairness, what's happened to the mansion tax? It's under active

discussion. Is it going to happen? I can't tell you that. I know it is

a good idea, I have advocated it, my party has advocated it. It is

very fair, economically efficient, and contribute to Government

revenues. It is a debate going on. You have not won it yet? No, no.

But I always argue my case, and my party colleagues do too. Vincent

Cable, thank you. With us now is Liam Byrne, the

Labour Work and Pensions spokesman, and in a minute the Bishop of

Leicester and Margo James MP. Liam Byrne, most of the peers who

voted down this cap tonight were Labour peers. Is the party in

favour of the cap on benefits or not? Yes, we are. So these Labour

peers were, out of control or what? No, we think the bill is so badly

thought through, that there is a real risk that this policy, which

is a good idea, in principle, will backfire and dump council tax

payers with a new bill for homelessness. We want a few more

safeguards written in, before coming fully behind it.

expressed your support for the principle by voting against it?

principle of the bill was not voted on today. Labour put down Anne

mendment which said hang on, let's not -- an amendment which said hang

on, let's not put it through like that. Somebody has to pay for the

bill, and that person is the council tax pair, we don't want

that to happen. You think �26,000 a year in benefits may be too low a

cap? We think it is a good place to start. You have just voted against

it? What we did is put down an amendment which said, before the

cap kicks in, local authorities have to make an assessment if the

family will be made homeless, somebody has to pick up the tab for.

That the figures we released today will show housing benefit going up

over this parliament by �4 billion. That is driven by the Government's

failure to get people into work. Isn't this why your party is

suffering a credibility problem with the public, you say you

support things in principle, but when it comes to anything difficult

in prakti, you don't know what to do? We are very -- practice, you

don't know what to do? We are very clear on this. The Tories want to

pay party politics, and say it is a black and white issue, it isn't. It

is a complicated bit of legislation, with good idea at its heart, we

don't want the good idea to backfire, creating a whopping great

bill for homelessness, that the good hard honest taxpayer has to

clean up. When it goes through, it is a will when it comes back to the

House of Commons, where the Government has a healthy majority,

when it goes through, and it becomes law, an in coming Labour

Government would reverse it, would they? No, we would look at the

impact on homelessness, that is the risk we want to guard against.

would find out what you were talking about after someone had the

courage to make the decision? what we're saying is we think it is

foolish to proceed with a bill that your own Secretary of State for

Local Government has said...You Have just said you don't know what

the impact will be? In three years time when a Labour Government has

been elected we will know the impact, and what kind of mess in

terms of the homelessness bill we have to clear up. You might reverse

it or not? If the worst happens, which is what we fear. We think

there will be a big spike in homelessness, we think that will

put families, and children, out of their homes, and we think that is

going to present a big new bill for council tax payers. You would then

reverse it? We think the Government can see this coming. They are

playing politics with it a bit, we are saying don't play politics with

this, think it through, put in the right safeguards now. Do you think

the general public understands your position? We have to work hard to

explain it. Look, I don't make any apology for thinking through the

policy, rather than plunging ahead blindly. I think that is what we

are paid to go to work to do. with us, we have the Bishop of

Leicester here and Margo James, Conservative MP. Now bishop what is

it that gives you the right to obstruct a policy that clearly

seems to have terrific public support? The bishops have the same

right to speak and vote in the House of Lords as any other peer.

Indeed I think we have more than a right, we have a duty to speak

there. Particularly if, arising from situations in our own diocese,

we see there is something of an injustice being committed,

particularly to the children of the poorest families. Has it occurred

to you, if you want to frame laws, you might perhaps go to the

inconvience of getting elected? That is a debate about whether the

whole House of Lords should be reformed, and a fully elected House.

There is a draft bill, no doubt it will come before House in due

course, as it has the parliament functions as it has for 700 years

with bishops in it. With what authority do you obstruct the will

of Government on a policy that as tremendous public support?

amendment carried was carried by a majority of 20, which required 250

peers to vote. There were five bishops, 245 other peers. This was

not something just concocted by the bishops. Or create bid the bishops.

But the bishops sponsored the amendment because we saw it as a

matter of profound social justice. What do you think of what's

happened? I disagree in the Lords in passing this amendment. I think

the Government has wisely set the cap at average earnings, so let's

not forget there is a huge number of people who are going out to work

every day and earning less than this proposed capped amount.

Do you know how many children will, for whatever reason, as a

consequence of this, have to leave the family home, move house, in

some respect? I don't think many people have to move house.

don't know, do you? In the vast majority of areas. Do you know

bishop? I think we have every reason to suppose a Signum. It may

be thousands, ten -- a significant number. It may be thousands, tens

of thousands who can't continue living where they are. The majority

parts of the country have enough affordable accommodation in the

private and social housing sectors, to accommodate most people. In the

sad case where someone has to move, that is not something the ordinary

working family is immune from. In a family where both or one partner is

working, sometimes, when conditions get difficult, people have to move

house. They have to make choices, all we're saying is that those

choices should not be just the preserve of people who are working.

They have to make choices. People who are earning have to make choice

about where to live what they can afford to do. Don't forget this cap

is set at average earnings. point about the amendment is people

who are earning have the right to have child benefit. If you lose

your job, under these proposal, you are quite likely to have your

benefits capped and to lose your child benefit as well. That seems

to penalise the children of the poorest families. What do you say

to the people in your diocese, who are working hard, and who are

earning less than people are getting on benefits, what do you

say to them? I say to them, and I have this conversation with a

number of them. People who are in work, and who might fall out of

work, through no fault of their own, have every reason to suppose that

at that point the state will support them to a minimum standard

were they can at least keep their children housed and at school and

in their networks. At the moment a very significant number of families,

through absolutely no fault of their own. There was a great deal

of talk in today's debate about incentivising people back to work.

With three million unemployed you can't do that for everyone. We have

to support people through this very difficult period. No-one would

disagree with having to support people when they lose their job.

That is what the welfare state is for. That is why the cap has been

set as high as it has been, on average earnings. If you don't have

children, there is no way you would have benefits anything like to the

tune of �26,000 a year, the cap is bearing in mind that a lot of

people do have children. You are entirely comfortable with the

position your party has taken, where you can be specific about

pounds and pence when it comes to people on benefits, because you

refuse to be specific when it comes to bankers' bonuss? They are two

different things. We are taxing banks, the bank levy has brought in

more than the last bank bonus tax did. As you have seen from McCabe's

announcement today, there is a lot of -- Vincent Cable's announcement

today there is a lot of pressure on bankers' bonus, they are 40% in the

last two years. The majority of those working for state-controlled

banks are having their bonuses capped at �2,000. That is a lot

less than it used to be. Not the investment bank, that is not true,

of course, is it? �2,000 at RBS is the standard. I think it is

absolutely clear that the inequalties in our society are

widening all the time. Some of the poorest families are being

extremely hard hit, while they see the people at the other end of the

scale, getting richer and richer, faster and faster. The effect on

the general well being of our society is extremely damaging.

Thank you all very much indeed. For the Chinese community across

the world, today is the beginning of the new year festival, so the

rabbit gives way to the dragon. Dragon years are considered

exciting and unpredictable. Given the state of things in the world,

this might be one of the rare occasions when primitive

superstition matches reality. Nowhere is better place today face

challenges than the People's Republic of China. Where over a

billion people live under a communist Government in a country

that grows richer every day. It poses enormous challenges for the

rest of the world. I have just been there.

In 1793, Britain sent an official trade mission to Beijing. It didn't

go well. Britain was emerging as the

greatest power on earth. Inconveniently, inside the

Forbidden City, the Chinese Emperor was under the impression that was

his role. The leader of the trade delegation,

George Viscount McCartney, was keen to open up a massive New Market for

British manufacturing. -- new market for British manufacturing.

When he got there he brought forward Wedgwood pottery,

Birmingham metalware, the finest of instruments and a minature

planetarium. The Emperor was splendidly

dismissive. He looked at the cream of European science and

manufacturing, and he said, we have no need of things ingenious or

mechanical. China had everything if could possibly -- it could possibly

want, the trade mission was a disaster.

The Emperor may have been secure in his palace, but soon Britain could

afford simply to ignore the old boy. When the Chinese tried to stop

British merchants, the Royal Navy sent in gun boats. At the end of

the conflict, Britain could trade where she liked. Hong Kong was

her's, and the Chinese were embarked on what they called their

century of humiliation. There is a fourth opium war in 1880,

the second one in 1860 and after that it is the collapse of the last

Chinese dynasty. As Britain rose, China fell. Liu Jing is trying to

tell his country's past in comic book form. So you could say the

experience China had with western powers, especially Britain, in the

19th century, is very unpleasant. The hardest thing for a European to

appreciate is how very long the perspective is. Rise and fall. A

history of dynastic cycles that last thousands of years.

Periods of war and foreign invasion brought to an end by strong

Government. Whose policies sow the seeds of their own destruction.

Dynasties collapse, and the whole process starts again. So where are

we now? There is a very strong central Government. There's an

overall stability in society. People's living standards are

improving. There is the development that is very fast. So this is,

according to the history point of Chinese people really never have

had it so good. The gospel according to the Party is at the

end of a century of humiliation, was the achievement of Chairman Mao

moo and the communists. -- but and the communist, but fear

of dynastic collapse is hard to shake.

The old summer palace of the Chinese Emperor's, took generations

to construct. Then, in this supposed earthly paradise, a

Chinese Emperor had the temerity to seize and torture two British

envoys. If you ask the average British citizen what Britain did in

China, 150 years ago, but the chances are he or she couldn't tell

you. In fact, what Britain and France did was this. They took the

Emperor's summer palace and they destroyed it. They destroyed it

because the Emperor wouldn't agree to the demands of western kalalism.

The British may have -- capitalism, the British may have forgotten that,

but the Chinese haven't. The generation who will forge the

historically aware society, are in no doubt about the story the ruins

tell. Do you remember this as humiliation? Yes. For give but not

forget. China is become -- forgive but not forget, China is becoming a

very strong economy. In the west they fear that China will bully

them. We Chinese don't think so. you think China will become a

superpower? In the future, in the 21st century. Probably. I think,

yeah. As a Chinese, I would like to see it. You would like to see China

as a superpower? That means more responsibility, more influence on

this world. It doesn't mean more military threat to this world.

All this destruction was done in the 19th century, the 19th century

really was the century of the European imperial powers, the

British, mainly, but also the French. Who does the 21st century

belong to, do you think? For most people they say it is China's.

China can make the rise continue for another 15-20 years, and China

will inevitably become another superpower, because of the size of

its population. But the fear of chaos in this enormous country is

ever present. Even university professors believe the antedote is

firm Government. Which means the question of world status is a

political one. It is really decided by the Chinese Government, or the

Chinese political leadership. If the Chinese leadership can provide

a strong and creative leadership, for this country, and then this

country will move in that direction. If the political leadership is a

weak and directs the country in the wrong direction t may collapse at

any time. And where does this leave Britain? In the garden shed,

according to this animation. This seems to be how the Chinese see us

now. It hasn't gone quite to plan, the scheme was for the

manufacturing to be outsourced to the world's most populist nation,

while the clever, creative stuff, stayed in Europe. Not any more.

Britain likes to call itself the design capital of the world. Well,

get this, even the animations for the London Olympics are made in

China. The young people here don't see themselves as labourers, they

have set their sights on the clever, creative stuff done in Europe and

North America. This is not how complacent, western Governments saw

things developing. And history shows that economic gain is

generally the forerunner of political and military power.

My view is that when China gets the military capability, larger than

the US, the leadership will inevitably fall on China's shoulder,

no matter if they like it or not. Increasingly, the lucky ones in

China's megacities, live a life of unequivocal modernity.

The ambitions are grand, that China becomes a global centre, not just

for commerce and design, but for power and influence.

But can you have the freedom to create without the freedom to

think? My internet access only limited to the website which the

Chinese Government allows me to visit. In the cultural revolution,

Mao Yushi, was sent to be reeducated in the countryside and

almost starved to death. Mr Mao shares the same name as the great

leader. But Mr Mao has been named as a party menace, his offence? He

has written a book criticising the cult of Chairman Mao. If people

cannot even challenge history, can China really challenge the west? Do

you think that China will become a superpower in the sense that the

United States or the Soviet Union, as was, were superpowers? I don't

think so. China doesn't provide any hope, any hope for the ordinary

people in the world. Nobody would migrate to China. People want to

migrate to yuen Europe or Canada or Australia or the United States.

It doesn't have any attraction. So I don't think China can be a

This current dynasty looks likely to remain unchallenged, as long as

it continues to provide a level of comfort, unimaginable to China's

ancestors. For ordinary Chinese, the country's

international status is a lot less important than the prosperity

brought by this strange marriage of communism and capitalism.

There truly never has been a time in Chinese history, when the

country has got so much richer, so quickly. The industry of the world

has come calling, and this time, it's been allowed in. The world has

yet to see what China expects in return for its labour. But expect

something it certainly will. Viscount McCartney's trade mission

scuttled away from Beijing with what dignity it could. Claiming

there wasn't a single proper lavatory in the entire company.

That sort of abuse won't work any longer, and nor will military

adventurism. It is maybe time for the rest of the world to learn

something about the cycles of Chinese history.

Tomorrow night in another film I will be exploring what it is like

to live under a Government which allows people to get filthy rich,

but denies them the chance to change their system of Government.

But before that, our diplomatic editor and economics editor are

both here. First off, the amount of trade that the rest of the world

does with China, how big are the figures? There are two challenges

that face China, one is trade, the other one is the balance of what

drives its own economy. Let's have a look at the famous trade

imbalance. This is in manufactured goods, Chinese trade in balance

with the USA takes off when they join the WTO, $150 billion a year,

falls back in the recession. This drives the demand for the Chinese

currency to be freed up so Chinese goods can become dearer and

Americans can get their jobs back. But it is complicated, let's

animate the second line. This is China's trade balance with the rest

of the world, excluding America. So that includes Japan and the

European Union, it is not so bad. This is because, in part, China

itself is a massive importer. The actual complexity of this. It is an

America-China thing, we should remember that, more than China

versus the rest of the world. Now let's look at the internal balance.

This line shows the proportion of the chine naes economy that is

driven which investment -- Chinese economy that is driven, which

investment in housing, railways, by the Government, prie. Investment T

has approached 50% in the anti- crisis period, the fiscal stimulus,

their response to the crisis was to boost railway building and road

building. Let's have a look at consumption. This is Government and

private consum. As you see it has - - consumption. As you can see it

has fallen. China wants to boost its private consumption, so people

you saw in the film can start buying holidays and cars and

financial products. They agree they have to do it. Along the way, the

question, who gets what? Do the Chinese workers on �70 a month,

eventually get a kind of wage that makes western workers able to

compete with them. Mark, are we seeing this

translating into national, political power? Yes, there is a

tremendous raft of issues where western countries want to co-

operate fruitfully with China, particularly in the UN Security

Council, where China is one of the five permanent members, veto powers.

So on a whole raft of issues, from should sanctions on Iran be

extended, through to what do we do about Syria. All these things are

vietia. You talked about the cycles of history, the current party is

still among the view that Mao espoused, great power politics.

They rejected that, they saw themselves as leaders of the Non-

Aligned Movement against the packs- American piece. China has stood in

the way of votes on military action. The fascinating thing will be as

they develop more of a sense of themselves in a great power in the

coming years, whether they are moving away from being against

packs-America, to creating their own vision.

Have we any clues to that? Some people would say, in the region,

that they are rather concerned. They look for example at some of

the trappings of great power status that China is beginning to acquire.

Some of them harmless enough. The space programme. Scientific

progress, all of that kind of thing who could object to that. The

substantial increases in military spending do cause more concern. The

fact in recent months China's aircraft carrier has been at sea.

We can see some of the satellite images. This was a carrier the

Russians couldn't afford to finish that China bought and is now

commissioning. Some regional powers are worried about this. They are

thinking will China be exacting a more nationalist influence in terms

of China minorities and in the specific region. The Chinese

Government insists it is a taking a more full part in international

affairs, contributing to UN peacekeeping and that kind of thing.

But are some of these trappings of great power status going to be put

to more traditional, almost nationalistic objectives. If you

would be happy for a lifetime, grow flowers. The man attending to

Chino-British flowers is the Chinese Ambassador, he's with us

now. Happy new year. Let's try to define

the terms, are you a communist? we think China is the ruling party,

the ruling party is the communist party, but the communist party only

constitutes, and now we have 17 million party members. But you have

to remember that China is a country with 1.3 billion in its population.

I don't think you can call China a communist party, a communist

country. Are you a communist? as you would not call the UK a

Conservative country. You could call it capitalist country?

could say China a socialist country, with a Chinese characteristics.

That is a difference. Talking to young people in particular in

Beijing, I very strongly got the impression that they were pretty

optimistic about China's international role. They saw this

as a century which was developing very much in a way that was going

to make China a much more significant force in the world. Do

you think that? China will certainly contribute its part for

maintaining peace, prosperity of the world. But we do not see China

as a superpower. I would characterise China as the largest

developing country, which increasing international influence

and responsibility. But people look at what China does on the Security

Council, for example, over the question of, for example, you

opposed sanctions on Syria, sanctions on Iran, and they wonder,

you know, what you are trying to achieve? That's not correct

impression. In fact, China voted four times with other members of

the Security Council, on the issue of Iran. China is strongly opposed

to the Iranian nuclear programme. On the other hand, we believe

diplomatic and peaceful solutions are the most beneficial solutions

to the problem. It is in the interests of maintaining peace and

stability in the region. But do you accept that Iran is a potential

threat to world peace, a nuclear- armed Iran? I would say Iran with a

nuclear weapon is not in the peace, not in the interests of peace and

stability in the region. That is why China makes it very clear, from

day one, that we are strongly opposed to nuclear weapons

programme of Iran. That has been reaffirmed by the Chinese premier

in his recent visit. Why not impose sanctions then? There is already

sanctions in place, we don't think sanctions for the sake of sanctions

serve the purpose. We also encouraged diplomatic negotiations,

to engage Iran for a peaceful settlement. Do you think China has

a moral role in the world? I think China has a role to play in terms

of a voice for our opinions for a more peaceful, harmonious world.

What are you trying to promote, the United States, for example, says it

promotes, and will go to war, to promote democracy. What are you

trying to promote? We are promoting a harmonious world. We believe the

world will be more peaceful, prosperous, if all countries

respect each other, rather than to immos their own ideas and systems

on to others. Which believe mutual respect -- impose their own ideas

and systems on to others. We believe mutual respect and

accommodating, and mutual work for a common good and security are in

the interests of peace and stability of the world. We are

strongly opposed to any military sanctions. Military solutions.

What about economic power, China sits on this mountain of thrillions

of dollars worth of foreign exchange, what is that for? What's

that for. You know China is still relatively a poor country. Though

China now is number two in terms of GDP, after only the United States

now. But per cap at that GDP, China is still behind 100 countries.

There is several hundred billion living in the countryside. There is

still 155 million people living on under $1 US a day. This is a huge

poverty line. There is an enormous responsibility for the Chinese

Government to improve the livelihoods of those parts of the

population of China. Let as talk a little bit about the difficult

matter of human rights. Now Leymah Gbowee, the well known artist, says

-- Mr Wei Wei, the well known artist, says without free speech

you are living in barbaric world. Do you understand what he's

getting? I think he has the freedom to express his view, otherwise how

could you get his opinion on this. He has been in prison, of course?

He has been under investigations for his evading of tax, destroying

his accounting books. In any country this is, you know, if you

are in a country that is ruled by law, you have to respect, you have

to abide by the law. Nobody in the country ruled by law should be

above the law, or outside the law. Even this called well known artist,

he has to abide by the law. When he violated Chinese law, he should be

punished. There is no doubt about that. Even in Britain. He should be

free to say what he likes, shouldn't sne I think so. Otherwise

--? I think so. Otherwise how can you know his opinions on this issue,

if he's forbidden for voicing his opinions. Mr Ambassador, thank you

very much. Well now, that's it for now if you

are among our more northerly viewers, you may want to look out

the window for the glimpse of Northern Lights, they were seen as

far south of Yorkshire last night. We will leave you with some

# People think style # Rules our life

# Some people think otherwise # Where did you go

# On that big black night # Did you take the coast road

# Back through your life # She's the sand

# The moon the stars # That shine a light

# And say # And say

# They will do all right for me. Pretty cold outside overnight

tonight. As wet weather arrives, we will see snow for the morning.

Across the hills of southern Scotland into northern England.

Even at lower levels there could be snow, possibly as far south as

Lincolnshire and East Anglia. It shouldn't last long, but it will be

a cold grey day across the east. Temperatures 3-4. Miserable across

much of East Anglia and the south- east. Expect dull, cold and wet

conditions to last well into the afternoon. It is a bit milder

further west, temperatures reaching double figures, it is still grey. A

lot of mist around the coast sitting over the hills and the

moors, dull, damp, drizzley conditions persisting on the west

coast of Wales throughout the day. It is milder here, it is for

Northern Ireland, 10-11 Celsius, but a grey, dismal day. The west

coast of Scotland also grey and damp, in the east there could, for

a time be snow flurries. The weather will get milder for all

places, even the east, by the time we get to Wednesday. It is still

looking pretty grey. Cloud around, further outbreaks of rain on

Wednesday, particularly across Scotland and Northern Ireland. The

rain will slowly creep into parts of England and Wales. Much of

England and Wales, dry on Wednesday, but still dull. However, on

Wednesday, eastern areas will see much higher temperatures,