26/01/2012 Newsnight


Analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark. Cutting taxes and not just spending. Does Nick Clegg's pledge to help families amount to an economic Plan B?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The Deputy Prime Minister says the pressure on family finances has


reached boiling point, and tax cuts now are the answer.


In trying to rebuild the Lib Dem brand, is Nick Clegg tearing up his


loyalty card. In terms of Government policy, this


is, very definitely, an unexpected item in the bagging I can't


remember.Is the coalition cracking -- area. Is the coalition cracking,


we debate who is the fairest of them all. The shadow Health


Minister quits the committee, Dorries and Diane Abbott here.


Why do so many great and possibly not so great Britains turn down


honours. I think the whole honours system is pathetic and received by


pathetic people, except for my friend, Michael Cain. It all


started here, will the next war be fought with keyboards and hard


drives, that is what Britain's former spy chief thinks. We have to


be super alert, super informed, have the highest level of expertise


and make sure we are applying that. Good evening, budgets used to be


secretive affairs, even prime ministers and Sunday newspapers


were only told of the contents a few days in advance. Those days are


long gone. In his speech Nick Clegg set out what amounted to a Lib Dem


shopping list, with raising tax flesh holds right at the very top.


He said -- thresholds right at the top. He said the Government had to


choose whether tax breaks favoured the many or the few. Which begs the


question of which sides the coalition partners are on.


The Deputy Prime Minister was clearly in the mood to take risks,


like bypassing a supermarket checkout with a bottle of water in


his hand a chap got six months over the summer for. That no suggestion


the water wasn't his, however, he is accused of trying to loop the


budget. I don't believe George Osborne signed this off. I think


he's trying to bounce the Conservatives. We do want the tax-


free slice to go up to �10,000, it is in the coalition agreement,


there is a time and place to do it. He has clearly said something to


upset, let's rewind and find out. On this visit to a supermarket this


morning, Mr Clegg said he wanted a tax break for those on low pay


have taken big steps to make sure basic rate tax-payers have money


back in their pocket by April, the point at which they pay income tax


will be raised. I want it raised further and faster to give more


money back into the pockets of millions of working families in


this country. The coalition is already committed to making sure


nobody pays tax on their first �10,000 of income, by 2015. Now Mr


Clegg says he wants to go further and faster. But, like the checkout


staff, we are entitled to ask, how would you like to pay for that,


Sir? We have to pay for it from the top. Ask people at the top, and


there are many, many allowances and loopholes and exemptions at the top


that only benefit very wealthy people, to pay a bit more, to pay


more of their fair share, and use that money, penny for penny, pound-


for-pound, to put money back in the pockets of hard working, hard


pressed families in this country. Mr Clegg wants to bring in a


mansion tax on homes worth more than �2 million. That is long been


a Lib Dem policy. He wants to close unspecified loophole, but including


higher rate tax relief on pension contributions. He will struggle to


win over Conservative backbenchers. I worked in the Treasury in the


1990, I tell you, every Chancellor since then has been told by Civil


Service number crunchers we can get X billion by abolishing top rate


pension relief. Every Chancellor has said no, for a simple reason,


it is toxic. It hits the striving middle-class who want to save and


do the right thing. That wouldn't get past Conservative backbenchers


in a hurry. Talk to people close to Nick Clegg and ask, has this been


cleared with the Treasury and there is a pause. The Treasury, they


point out, is no longer a monolit, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,


a Lib Dem thinks it is a wonderful idea. OK, you say, has it been


cleared by the Chancellor? It has been shared with him, they say. Is


it Government policy, you ask, Government policy, another pause,


Government policy, we are still very much learning how this


coalition business works. I think we can take that as a no. It is all


nonsense, the idea that a tax cut of any size can be funded without


actually hurting anyone, or increasing borrowing, which is what


Ed Balls wants to do. It is nonsense. In that sense, how much


George Osborne thinks it is nice to give people tax cut, it won't make


the budget if it can't be funded? This is positioning to put the


Liberal Democrats on the right side of the one issue that actually has


any cut through or salience, which is they are in favour of a tax cut


that favours the lower paid, even if it doesn't. But people like it,


and so Nick Clegg is positioning himself to looks a if he's pressing


George Osborne to go further and faster in giving tax relief to the


lower paid. The debate about tax fairness is


never very far away. But the Deputy Prime Minister picked a good day to


talk about taxing the rich, because today we heard, Stephen Hester, the


CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland, is to be paid a bonus worth


�963,000. If Stephen Hester wants to leave RBS and set up a fantastic


business, let's say here in Plymouth, which ends up employing


2,000 people, and makes him extremely rich man, great, go a do


it. If he's so brilliant, let him go and do. That's working for a


company which is five sixths boind the taxpayer, he has to think like


a public servant, not one lining his own pocket. There may not be


much overlap of a millionaire public sector banker, and your


average hard-pressed supermarket shopper, today, though, the deputy


fraim Prime Minister came up with a policy he thinks deals with both.


Whether in reality it can work, that is another matter. With me now,


the Conservative MP, Matthew Hancock, Norman Lamb, the chief


political adviser to Nick Clegg, and shadow Treasury minister, Chris


Leslie. Matthew Hancock, it is highly irregular la, but you are


delighted I'm sure, it -- irregular, but you are delighted I'm sure, it


must seem as if this is ready-made? It was there in the coalition. The


two parties want to raise the tax threshold and get money into


pockets. We are saying it will be up to �10,000 in this budget?


is not what Nick Clegg is saying. But the direction of travel is very


clear, It is widely supported on the Conservative benches. If it is


not going to be by 2015, is it this year, this budget, the next budget?


Nick Clegg set a very large bright kite flying today, which indicated


to most ordinary people, that, guess what, it could happen in the


next budget? Who knows, the budget hasn't been written. Presumably


Nick Clegg didn't do this without any consultation? As the film said,


it has been shared by the Treasury, with the Treasury. It is


about...Did George Osborne say it was OK for Nick Clegg to say this?


It is not a question of having to be cleared. Nick Clegg, as Deputy


Prime Minister, can say what he wants about Liberal Democrat


priorities. This was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, one of the key


priorities at the election. It went into the coalition agreement.


was agreed in the coalition, as far as I understand, is it would be


implemented by 2015. If that was so, why the urgency n a supermarket


this morning? I will tell you why. Here and now families on low and


middle incomes are being squeezed. That is what he said, if that is


the case, isn't he giving them false hope, if it is not going to


happen in this budget, there is no point in telling family it is 2015?


We are urging for it to be implemented quicker than previously


thought. Because of the challenge ordinary families are suffering now.


I know what your reason is. What I'm asking you is how quickly,


there is no point in doing it today. Nick Clegg is either desperate for


a headline or he's on to something? We want significant movement in


this budget. We want to get as much as we can of this raising of the


threshold, as quickly as possible. He's trying to bounce him? No, this


is a negotiation. Is he trying to bounce him? Let me make this point.


It is a setting out of Liberal Democrat priorities. And I will


tell you this, it is also creating a real incentive to work for people


on low pay, if you cut the tax rate, that they are bearing at the moment.


Are you the dog in this hunt, Chris Leslie? It is beginning to dawn on


them that some action is needed to help those squeezed at the moment,


fine, it is about time they realise they needed to take action. Do you


support this. Norman Lamb, the question you are asking is do you


support this? The question to you is, when is it going to happen. I


presume Chris Leslie does support the idea of raising the threshold


to �10,000, but when? Some action is needed whether it is this, we


would prefer VAT reduction, temporarily to help people. Nothing


was done. Do you support this? There are benefits, but it doesn't


help pensioners or all those people unemployed you are putting on the


dole. We would have to look at the details of it. It shouldn't have


taken the economy going into reverse to wake up Nick Clegg.


There is panic here in the Government. This was what was on


offer, would you support it? will not vote against a tax change,


except for the fact we would prefer the VAT removal. Labour did


nothing...You Have a lot of voters who voted for the coalition, who


didn't vote for the coalition but have a coalition. This is like a


dog's breakfast. It sounds like Nick Clegg goes to the supermarket,


thinks better get one over George Osborne on this, make sure I'm


ahead of the pack, I might have it signed off, but I will nail it as


it is. You are frustrated there is a lot of coalition unity on this,


it is palpable. We have a Labour representative over there, when


Labour cancelled the 10p tax rate, doubling tax on the low paid.


start bringing that in. We both want to help low paid people.


you get to the threshold of �10,000, it will cost between �9-�10 billion.


Nick Clegg said today, the coalition has to decide where it


stands, it is not about helping the wealthy few but the hard working


many. These are the signals he's sending out, how will it be paid


for? It has to be paid for, it can't be paid for by borrowing. The


top 1%, the incomes and wealth of the top 1% have soared away. What


about a bankers' tax. He said he was happy with the filthy rich.


What about the bankers' bonuses. closing the allowances the wealthy


exploit. Is that what you want to do, get the top 1% and make them


pay for it? I'm very proud that this Government is putting almost a


billion pounds into tackling tax avoidance, and making sure the


people at the top pay their fair share. I agree that should be part


of it. We have to find the money. We know you have to find the money


to do these things. For instance, you can't both support it, as Chris


pro-ports to do, and not crack -- purports to do and not crackdown on


benefits. Are you going to raise it to �10,000? Ter tackling tax


avoidance at the top and tapping benefits at the bottom. Chris


Leslie, the VAT cut, is that all you have to offer, the VAT cut?


want urgent help now, VAT would be good. This is a synthetic row


between two Government members of power. They have increased VAT and


cut tax credits. We have to get the the chaos of the last Labour


Government. Let's look at fairness, if it was a Labour Government,


would Stephen Hester be getting �963,000 bonus? No, I will tell you


why, because the share price of RBS has fallen by a third. Their main


job was to lend to businesses, I want to hear Matthew Hancock


justify the decision of the Prime Minister, by the way, to award �963


though though can you justify it? Justify it please? The way this


bonus was signed off, was set up by the Labour Party. The board had to


sign it off under the system set up by the Labour Party. Are you happy


with it? I wish that it was lower. I'm not in favour. Are you happy


with the bonus that Stephen Hester was handed? I like most people


would feel deeply uncomfortable with a bonus that side. It is a


public bank? I don't know the details of the contractural terms.


It was clearly established to provide a significant bonus under


the last Labour Government. going to have to stop you there, it


is right out of time. It may be unfair, but we have to stop.


A row over abortion counselling has been rumbling around Westminster


since September, when MPs voted against proposals to stop abortion


providers offering counselling. But today, the shadow health


spokeswoman, Diane Abbott, quit the cross-party committee set up after


that vote to set up abortion services, claiming it was a front


for driving through the anti-choice lobbyists' preferred option. You


have been following this. Why the explosion today? It goes back to


Nadine Dorries's amendment originally, she wanted independent


advice for women wanting abortions, not from the provider, before an


abortion. The question is what is independent advice and does it


exist. We investigated that back in August. We looked at the groups


considered by the Government. In lots of cases the advice they were


giving was anything but impartial. We accessed the training manuals of


the biggest provider Care Confidential, and abortion was


described as a sin and a wickedness. Will these groups still be


considered? At the moment women in England can


have an abortion from a clinic, run by charities like BPAS, and Stopes


stop. But pro-life groups argue there is -- Marie Stopes. But pro-


life groups argue there is a leaning to recommend abortion.


Nadine Dorries tried to stop these groups advising pregnant women.


They said if women were made to have independent advice first, they


could cut the abortion rate by 60,000 a year. But who qualifies to


offer truly independent advice? We investigated the UK's biggest


independent abortion counsellors, Care Confidential, the group is


supposed to offer impartial and non-directive counselling. But


Newsnight had access to their After our programme the Nadine


Dorries amendment suffered a heavy defeat in the Commons, in a cross-


party abortion group was set up. As she walked out today, Diane Abbott


hinted at a hidden agenda. She said it was just a front for the old


plan. But tonight the public Health Minister, Anne Milton, tried to


reassure the public, that the Government would not force women to


get called independent counselling. This is only about improving


services for women, there is no hidden agenda, and as I say, I'm


extremely disappointed at Diane's actions. What we need to do is make


sure women have an offer of counselling, if they want to take


it up, it won't be mandatory, but it is available. Tonight the issue


became mired in war of words, with Diane Abbott calling Nadine Dorries


a Tea Party Tory, and her opponent dismissing her as simply bizarre.


Here now are Diane Abbott, the shadow Health Minister and MP for


Hackney, who quit the cross-party group today, and Nadine Dorries,


from mid-Bedfordshire, who is still very much on it. Storming off, I


mean really, should you not just have stayed to fight your corner?


didn't storm off, I wrote Anne Milton a letter. We have to begin


by understanding that women are offered counselling. The Royal


College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BMA and the


Department of Health have elaborate guidelines for counselling. All the


clinics are inspected and monitored. But nobody is presumably suggesting


at the moment, certainly not Anne Milton, that women are forced into


independent counselling. It seemed the tenor of the conversation in


the committee wasn't to your liking? We were drawing up a


document, the last draft I saw, we were offering three options, the


last option was where the clinics wouldn't be allowed to do the


counselling. Didn't like the behaviour in the committee, you


didn't like Diane Abbott's behaviour? I have no problem with


Diane Abbott's behaviour. She didn't write to Anne Milton, she


wrote to the press. Anne Milton hadn't received the letter by the


time she was contacted by the press. You had an unprecedented


opportunity to influence that consultation document, Labour peer,


Baroness Gould is on the committee, a well known pro-choiceer,


FrankField, Labour is on the committee. There are more pro-


choiceers on the committee. There were three meetings, you arrived


late for one, and slept through the other. You had no interest


whatsoever. You slept through the first one? You know, I think it is


really important that we have a rational debate about this. Of


course I didn't sleep through a meeting. You did, it has been


verified by the members of the committee. If you really want to


comment on this committee, should have taken part and attended, you


stormed off, thrown your toys out of the pram. This is not about you,


it is about women who are vulnerable, no access across the


country to any kind of counselling. You have tried to put across the


message this is mandatory counselling, it is an offer. There


are lots of women, articulate, and well educated, who go straight to


the abortion clinic, that is great for them. This consultation


document is talking about very vulnerable groups, Diane claims to


support and represent, who have no friends, nobody to talk to, and no


access to counselling. This is exact lie the debate around


abortion we don't want to have. There is a pro-choice consensus in


parliament. What people don't want is a very kind of Americanised


debate, which sperpblised and sensational, and you know, --


Americanised, sensational, you know, Sarah Palin type. I was worried


that it was more about a fix for internal problems. According to


Nadine Dorries you weren't at the last committee meeting? I was.


weren't at the second one, and asleep at the first one.


weren't at the third one. If all you could do. You have walked out


of the committee you didn't attend. Nadine is seeking to personalise an


issue which is actually really important to hundreds and thousands


of women. In which case, why not stay in the committee and have the


discussion? Far from the people on the committee being pro-choice,


they were not. I worry we still have Nadine's option on the table


and the consultation is a front for putting it through. Let's ask you


about it being a front. This is a consultation document, which is


being decide by a cross-party group of MPs, two other Labour MPs have


sat on that committee and have contributed to every meeting very


positively, both pro-choice. Baroness Gould, on the Marches in


the 1960s for pro-choice. Both ardent pro-choice MPs. They have


put into the consultation document. It is up to us, it is a public


consultation document, it is going to the public. Three options, two


keep it as it is now, and the other two about offering counselling at


various stages. The British pregnancy advisory service, and


Marie Stopes offer advice about abortions, do you want them to


continue? I would like anybody who has a financial or any kind of


interest in a woman's abortion, to declare that interest. They take


�130 million of Government money. Do you want independent counsellors


to declare whether they are against abortion or not? Yes. You want to


be clear, the Government will not go for any mandatory decision on,


that that is what Anne Milton said, you accept that? Absolutely. There


is nobody who should be in a room with a woman, who is in a crisis


pregnancy, who has any agenda whatsoever, religious or financial.


You are suggesting that Marie Stopes has an agenda? I'm not


suggesting that. I'm saying there are lots of women in this country,


in crisis pregnancy, who would like an offer of somebody to talk to.


Can I just say, one of the reasons why this document has been


developed, is the Department of Health has done a lot of research,


they have discovered that in some parts of the country women do get


offered counselling from Marie Stopes and B pass or whatever, in


other parts of the country the situation is dire. It is a postcode


lottery. This is a political fix with this consultation, this was


voted down in the House of Commons. I would also say that far from me


not understanding what is going on in the committee, there are other


members of the committee who are as concerned as I am about the way it


is going. Like who? It is not for me to say. Other people are


considering their petition. Women's lives are too important to be


pieces on a political chess board. Thank you very much.


A trip to Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, or hole road


castle, to see the Queen, and be honoured for our contribution to


British life. Who could want anything else. According to a list


released today, after a freedom of information request, quite a lot of


prominent people have turned it down, CS Lewis, Roald Dahl, and


even those who have painted portraits of the Queen. We have


tried to find out why. What would you say to ag ong? It was no thanks


from this long line. The author, JB Priestly, he declined a Knighthood,


as did Henry Morre. Francis Bacon said no to a decoration, so do


Lewisian Freud, who died last year. And LS Lowry, who spuorned titles a


record five times -- spuorned titles a record five times. A


painter of industrial landscaped, he immortalised Salford, once a


poor area of Manchester, putting up with a big part of the BBC now. A


former student of Lowry, remembers discussion the honours list with


the big man. He said what do you think of the system? I said I think


it has its purposes and a lot of people are elevated by it. He said


as far as that elevation was concerned he won't be going up in


the list. He felt there was possibly, at times, a political


entity with it. He was not comfortable with it. It was simply


the fact he didn't wish to have something that would change his


name to the general public. Giants of British cinema have shrugged off


a royal tap on the shoulder. Including Trevor Howard, Alfred


Hitchcock, Michael Winner. Michael winner? It's true, the director --


Michael Winner? It's true, he turned down the OBE, as he


confirmed it when he granted Newsnight an interview at his


official London residence, or the ver Rwanda. I said this is the


award they give to people who clean toilets, it was taken wrongly and


taken as a ci.. The only thing I would have accepted it was a Lord


sh. Then you can put on silly clothing and speak to a load of


people who are half dead. And what you say might be carried by the


media to a wider audience, rather than 20 people asleep in the House


of Lords. It is not like that at all, many of the peers are wide


awake. Many think hats off to the likes of Lord Mandelson, happy to


accept a title, it is better than turning one down, says a Brit


decorated by the French. I love the English honours system, it is a


fabulous demonstration of our national genius, for snobbery. I


have adored today's stories about the fabulous arabesque post turgs


of the self-important people. -- posturings of the self-important


people. It is an Hon nor to accept it rather an reject it. Snobbery


will be involved in one way or another in accepting or rejecting.


There is an individual choice. There are some who will wish to


make a political statement, or highlight some issue they are


particularly interested in their life. This is perhaps an


opportunity both in accepting or in rejecting.


One of the surprising names among the refusals is that of Hu g hie


Green. Can you imagine Simon Cowell declining a gong, why did Green say


no, perhaps, he like other showbiz legends, were holding out for


something better. What would your style be, Lord winner of -- Lord


Winner of Winnerville! Yes. I am joined by my guest who was awarded


a Knighthood for services to art and education, and my guest who has


turned down an MBE for services to writing.


Journalists should never ask a "how do you feel" question, but I will


ask it, how did you feel when the sword came down on your shoulder?


It is liker roll flin on the deck and the sun glinting on the sword.


It is wonderful thing. Do you like being called Sir Christopher?


like the arts getting a pat on the back. People say it is for the


great and the good and the privileges and the wealthy. The


arts don't get much of a pat on the back from establishment, and art


institutions, it is jolly nice when it happens. What is wrong with it.


Do you have to have a coat of arms? You don't have to. You have chosen


it? I got some of the students to help me. Nobody has ever put a dodo


on the top, because it is exstibgt. You have to have a motto, it


translates to "go ahead punk, make my day". Sir Christopher gets a lot


out of it? A lot of people are offered them and it is not clear


why. It is a really snobbish system. It is interesting that people


accuse you of snobbery if you reject them. Actually there are all


these grades. When you get a letter, which says the Foreign Secretary is


minded to recommend to the imaginationry that you be admitted


to the honourary Order of the British empire. Will you be a


member, officer, commander. Well there are people who actually want


nothing more in their lives than to be a chander of the British Empire,


I'm not in that group -- commander of the British Empire, I'm not in


that group of people. Do you take the point that turning it down you


are more snobbish than accepting it? That is a cheap point and easy


to make. One of the reasons I turned it down was when I wrote


back I said thank you very much, it is very nice of you to offer this,


but why can't we have an honest system which is inclusive and


modern. Why do we have to have all the gradeations. Christopher


accepted it because it was art being recognised, your work on


human rights was being recognised. All your colleagues would get the


reflected glory as well? People always say I'm not accepted it for


me but my mother. I accepted it for me and the institution. In art he


had gaigs it is extremely rare for somebody to -- education it is


extremely rare for somebody to get it. Art education comes in through


the tradesmans' entrance, and now it was in the palace. You talk


about it in British terms, tradesmans' entrance and now the


palace door. Is it a very British thing, even the language as was


said about how the letter comes out? Nine British traditions out of


ten date from Victorian times. All this goes back to the Normans, all


the gradations. The thing that is wrong with some of the gradations,


it relates to the controversy about the bank at the moment, is some of


them, you do a roll and by virtue of doing that role, you expect to


get an honour. I think it should be related to doing it well, rather


than just inhabiting it. Stephen Baley has the French awards, do


others have the same problem with awards that we have? I'm not


against awards, per se, I'm against the things that go with it. After I


was awarded an MBE for human rights, somebody I like who makes shoes,


and I have several payers of their shoes, but they got an OBE for


services to fashion, why is fashion on a higher rung than human rights.


Dame Joan would have been OK for human rights? Not at all. A friend


was broken hearted because he wasn't awarded a certain honour.


Look at the swathe of those who have turned it down and now dead,


up until 1999, an awful lot in the arts community thinking it is not


for them? The romantic view of the artist, outsider status, it is bad


for your image as an artist to get into bed with the establishment.


That goes back to the early 1th century, that is why Lucian Freud,


Lowry, Piper, surprisingly, are all on the list. I don't think it is


right, the reason why so many people in the arts have turned it


down is they have a strong sense of identity of who they are, they


don't need the recognition. The arts is rather democratic and


modern part of society. So it is you that is out of step in the


community? Some do some do tell that to others, it is a personal


choice in the end. We will have to finish it there, maybe something


will drop through the mat for one of our audience next time.


Albert Einstein said he didn't know which weapons would fight the third


world war, but the fourth would be fought with sticks and stones. At a


cybersecurity conference today, they think they do know, wars will


be fought in signer space with armies of hackers on each side.


Computer worms and cyberattacks we have been getting used to, we don't


know exactly by whom. Earlier I asked the American signer defence


people who their role is. There is a silent battle on,


powerful forces on either side, from on-line activists to organised


crime to nation states. Cyberspace is the new frontline.


All around the world, cyberattacks are hitting the headlines.


Authorities in Australia have warned of a flood of attacks


against the websites of financial firms. This is a strategic issue.


Stop management have just got to be aware of the damage that can be


done. On New Year's Day, a multimillion pound cyberheist hits


hit banks in South Africa. cyber-heist hit banks in South


Africa. Nobody is doing the analysis to the level they need to.


Attacks claimed by anonymous cybergroups have hit Governments


and corporate business in protest over attempts to police the


Internet. Despite the best efforts of big business, international


intelligence and the law, the cyber-threat seems to be always one


step ahead. This is where it all began,


Bletchley Park, just north of London, home to Britain's famous


war time code breaking success. This is the world's first modern


computer, kollos sis, it was rebuilt -- Collosas, it was rebuilt


here at Bletchley Park, this is cyber-warfare at its inception. The


whole Bletchley project was kept secret for decades, remote from the


outside world. These days our lives depend on digital communications,


connecting us with the outside world, but leaving us vulnerable


too. Bletchley Park is at the very


centre of this whole issue. In the Second World War this, to put it


mildly, was a state matter. Now, of course, it is into


everything, everybody is affected by it. Sir John Scarlett, now chair


of the Bletchley Park Trust, and former head of MI6, has seen cyber-


crime increase. We have to worry about crime, terrorism, and state


activity, I have course, you have to worry about what is called a


hacktivist. I do repeat the state- to-state issue and the threat that


comes from the most capable states in this area, it remains a huge


issue. As cyberattacks go, the one


discovered in 2010 is arguably the most spectacular.


It is thought the US and Israel were behind the attack, targeting


Iran's nuclear programme by its systems.


This is a cyber-security analyst, who has been unpicking the


technology. He worries that technology is now out in the open.


The problem with it itself, whoever the actors were, they opened


Pandora's box, what they did was they allowed the world and the


community, the hacking community, and others, to peer into a world of


developing cyber-weapons. So when they compromised the see minute


architecture, deployed in the -- seemen architecture deployed in the


U kits. If someone could reverse engineer, and they have already


reverse engine neared some of it, they could reweaponise it to go out


there. Old battles are being fought in the new territory. Arab-Israeli


tensions are being played out in cyber-space. There is a month-long


offensive between pro-Palestinian, and pro-Israeli hackers.


In a series of escalating tit for tat attacks, Israeli hackers


published the credit card details of hundreds of Saudis, targeted the


Saudi Government's stock exchange and released details of the


Facebook accounts of 20,000 Arab users. For their part, Saudi teams


launched attacks on the Tel Aviv stock exchange, and Israel's


national airline. Israel's deputy Foreign Minister compared the


signer-attacks to acts of terrorism. When we - cyberattacks, to acts of


terrorism. When we spoke to Israeli former head of security, he


resisted that parallel. These attacks are nothing new, they are


not interesting technically or lodge gistically, and stragically


they are even boring, what makes them so important is the way we


responded to them wrecks meaning the people, the press and the


politician -- them, we meaning the people, the press and the


politicians, giving them more strength of character than they


actually had. Recent attacks, such as the Israeli-Saudi hacks, have


affected civilian targets, banks, airlines and credit card companies.


So far it is the military that is taking the lead on cyber-defence.


This London conference brings together military experts in cyber-


security. But there are clearly tensions. Both the Chinese and


Russian delegations accepted invitations to attend, but either


are here. In the US, the tone over the cyber-domain is shifting. The


US military is recruiting 10,000 cyber-warriors to patrol cyberspace.


But should nations be thinking about a different kind of presence


in the virtual world. We have seen cyber-incidents between Russia and


Georgia, that is still on going. We have seen incidents between


Pakistan and India, and that is still on going. The United Nations


needs to figure out how they can deploy peacekeepers in the digital


borders of a nation. The problem with cyberspace is


traditional borders no longer exist. The commercial world can protect


its interests with systems from companies like Sofos.


The challenge for the world of business is keeping pace with


cyberattacks. The sheer volume of those attacks, their fast-changing


nature, and where they are coming from.


We received a Spam message just outside Oxford. The Spam message


was actually sent from an infected compromised machine, just outside


Warsaw in Poland. When you clicked on the website, in the Spam message,


it took you to a location just outside New York. It then


redirected you to another location just outside Beijing in China, that


used a vulnerability in your browser to install a banking Trojan


that was hosted in Russia. Then when you entered your bank account


details, next time you logged on to your on-line banking, it collected


those details and send it to the bad guy sat on the -- sent it to


the bad guy sat on the beach in Brazil. Some people say we need to


make it easier for companies hit by cyber-attacks to talk about what


went wrong so others can learn. At the moment there is a tendency to


close up. You can't go back into your cook Koon and say we can't do


that, it brings too many threats it is impossible. Our whole future


prosperity depends on us being an open economy. At the same time we


have to be super-alert, super- informed, and have the highest


possible level of expertise. How the authorities respond to these


new forms of attack, will shape all our furtherures.


Earlier today I -- futures. Earl they are today I spoke to the head


of the cyberco-ordinator at the conference. I began by asking what


the US Government was doing about the threat of cyberattacks.


matter what the threat, whether a criminal group a nation state or a


terrorist, we haven't seen that threat yet. No matter who the


threat actor is, having strong defences in place will protect you


from that threat. Building a couple of things, which we have


increasingly seen done, building the technical defences in countries,


this is every country around the world should do this domestically,


having institutions in place to have better governance in the


country over the issue. For instance, in the US we have a much


better US Governmental structure where we are all involved in


talking about these issues. Having those strategic documents to think


and talk about it is important. The US that is in the political


military area, the law of conflict applies to cyberspace. How that


applies is something we needing to forward on. It is significant to


say there is principles of distinctions and proportionality


apply. It is largely believed the Americans were involved in some way


in the Stuxnet virus that hit Iran's nuke clier programme, were


they involved? I had no knowledge of that at all. What I would say


about that, is it simply illustrates how vulnerable systems


can be, and how we need to build defences. Have the US, as far as


you know, been involved in cyberactivities at military level,


up until now? Again I would defer to what the Department of Defence


might say, and what they have said in the documents you mentioned. As


far as we are saying in a strategic matter, we need to make sure we


have the full range of tools to respond. At the same time we have


to make sure we are looking at it as a whole Government approach.


Russians have been saying they have been trying to get rules of


engagment and a treaty, and the US has been resisting? They are right,


what they have been proposing, a cyberarms control treaty. There are


a couple of different things to think about. One is a cyber-arms


control treaty, it doesn't make sense. The reasons it doesn't is


the tools we are talking about can be used for offence and defence,


again, if that is not the right approach, and we fundamentally


don't think it is, we think it is not really looking at the impacts


and how nations can deal with each other, then you have to pursue the


idea about the norms and rules of the war should be, rather than the


artificial treaty concept. All laws can be final well, and well


constructed, what about the kids in the bedroom who don't realise what


they are getting caught up in? of it is education and part of it


is changing the culture, so people in all society understand there is


a cost here. This is criminal conduct what you are doing in the


bedroom. It is making them more aware of how vulnerable their


information is so they take better measures to secure that information.


The public is part of. That it is raising that level of awareness,


you have to make it part of the common understanding and common


dialogue in society. That's it tonight, Gavin will be


back tomorrow night, who knows what Showers continue through the night,


across western areas. An ice risk as well. Showers prevalent across


Scotland and Northern Ireland, working into northern England. Rain,


sleet, hail and snow. A dusting across the Pennines and the peak


district, from the north, things turning dryer and brighter before


the afternoon is kpwhrotly gone. Much of -- completely gone. East


Anglia and the south will stay predominantly dry, showers towards


the coast. Showers developing late in the day and through the evening,


across the south west a mixture of hail, sleet and snow. Nothing too


significant with snow concerned. A dusting across the higher grounds


of Wales, showers developing widely the second part of the day. An icey


cold wind for many, throughout Northern Ireland, clearing some of


the morning showers. For Scotland winds will be lighter. Most will


have a dry, bright, crisp afternoon, with sunny spells. The same will be


said as we go into Saturday, we start to lose the shower risk from


many areas, clearer skies developing. It will be an icey


start, same too in southern parts. Temperatures continuing to drop.


Winds light, and sunshine developing, an icey start, later in


the day the cloud will gather from the west. Particularly in Northern


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Cutting taxes and not just spending. Does Nick Clegg's pledge to help families amount to an economic Plan B?

And Michael Winner explains why he is among those revealed to have turned down an honour.

Download Subtitles