22/02/2012 Newsnight

Will it take the deaths of foreign journalists in Syria to stir the

conscience of the world? The indiscriminate shellings of

civilians by the Syrian regime, has all the characteristics of a war

crime, many more said to be killed today, including the Sunday Times

journalist, Marie Colvin. Do we have any choice, but to stand and

watch. We will debate intervention with in Syria with Paul Wolfowitz,

Rory Stewart and a leading figure in the Syrian opposition.

Austerity, is it the right prescription for Europe's sickness,

Sweden's Prime Minister is here to tell us what he thinks of that, and

David Cameron's euroveto. And dangerous dogs, Newsnight can

reveal, kenneling is costing the police almost �4 million, with a

tax increase -- attacks increasing, we will debate whether new laws are

needed. REPORTER: Are you aware your dog tried to bite the

cameraman? She tried to bite her leg? It looked like that, but she

didn't. Good evening, an Arab people,

unpopular dictator on his way out and shelling of civilians, when

that happened in Benghazi it led to the west bombing them out of power.

In the last interview yesterday, Sunday Times reporter, Marie Colvin

asked the question we will explore tonight, how can the international

community continue to watch what she described as war crime. Our

diplomatic editor, Mark Urban is with us, talk us through this.

Since a failure at the UN to get a diplomatic solution, the battle has

been the focus of the struggle. We can look in more detail now. Syria,

many different types of people there. It is a multiconfessional

country, if you like, President Assad, basis his support on his own

Alawite sect of the Shi'ite community and the Christians. Those

two groups are concentrated in the area we have shown in red. The

flourishing of armed opposition has been in the area of Homs, one place

where the called Free Syrian Army first appeared, and up there on the

Turkish border in a town called Idlib. All orders of escalation in

activities has happened in recent months, that has seen the

Government's forces, which on paper have hundreds of thousands really

hard pushed. Why? Because the effective mobile forces they have

are much smaller than that. You have the Republican Guard division,

the real last line of defence, if you like, in Damascus, protecting

the Government itself. But because opposition groups appeared in the

suburbs of the city, the fourth mechanised division under the

President's brother, has engaged in the last few weeks between Damascus

and the Lebanese border, another mechanised division down near the

Jordanian border, near the city of Deraa, the 90th Brigade, pretty

much a be second rate lot have been left to try to work things out

militarily in Homs. Other forces have been sent up towards Idlib.

You can see they are very stretched. There is probably no more than

40,000 troops in all of those formations added together. The big

question is, can the Government regain control? They clearly think

they can by military means. There is so much evidence to the contrary.

If we look at the situation in the north of the country. Up there you

have that town of Idlib, the Turkish border I will emphasise it

with a yellow line. Proposals today from the French and others, that

Idlib be one of those places that a had you machinetarian corridor will

be opened, the Russians oppose that. In there patrols from the Free

Syrian Army, this is happening since April they have been asking

defectors to come into the northern belt of the country to create a

sort of safe haven. All the time the Syrian army has mounted serious

attempts to get up there and counter-attack, and it has failed.

In the last few days the Free Syrian Army has claimed hundreds of

defectors have come across, they have released images. Some people

doubt the voracity, some say it looks too farm for these people to

be there, when it is near freezing point. They also point out that the

Free Syrian Army, although it has the odd senior officer, I will put

the outline behind the Brigadier, said to have led the men across.

Most of these people, including some of the other officers in the

frontline of the photo, who have been put in there to make it look

like they are in authority, they are mere pip squeak Lieutenants,

they don't have the senior officers, who remain, by and large, loyal to

the regime. How is the conflict likely to develop now? It means

these very stretched Syrian army forces, the ones they can still

rely upon, are left moving about from one emergency to another,

never quite getting on top of it. The Free Syrian Army never quite

able to get the better of them either. They are trying desperately

hard in places like Homs, to seal in the revolt, put the Free Syrian

Army symbol on Baba Amr, the suburb of Homs, where there has been so

much trouble in the last few weeks. Many say most of their fighters

have left that area. The Syrian army, we know, has a large camp to

the south, it has mechanised forces. It is also using some of its armour

to spwra direct the countryside between Baba Amr and the will he

beties border, the infiltration routes, of course, it has been

using artillery against the suburb, for fear of sending its people in.

This picture of a gun line, released by the Americans a couple

of weeks ago. That is in the south of the city, where we showed you

the Government tanks are. If we go on further, we see some Government

tanks have approached close to Baba Amr. This is on one of the main

thorough fairs, it is a main cordon, trying to seal the place off. This

is second line stuff, they are not Keith guard formations, they are

from the second rate unit here Homs, quite old tanks. Lo and behold

pictures coming in south of where that photo was taken. What is

happening with the T-62s is the crew have defected. You put them

close to the opposition fighters, some will take their chance to

defect. Lo and behold we see the Free Syrian Army fighters have

taken the heavy machine gun off the top of the tank. That is the danger,

if they try to go into the places, their forces might fade away.

do we know about the death of the western journalists? Marie Colvin

and Remi Ochlik, both killed in Baba Amr, that place we showed the

centre of the fighting over the last 18 days, since the heavy

bombardment started. They were using a house, which some people

call a media centre, it seemed to be a sort of safe house for

visiting journalists, which the Free Syrian Army and other

opposition groups were taking people in and out of it. It appears

it was targeted, that is the suggestion. Several military rounds

came in accurately on the house, killing the two journalists,

wounding a few more. They are media organisations are now trying to get

them out this evening. Probably killing anything up to another two

dozen people in the neighbourhood around that house. So it would

appear to be a targeted strike, and the opposition groups say it is a

deliberate attempt by the Government to snuff out independent

reporting. With Russia and China vetoing

resolutions on Syria, is there anything the outside world can and

should. Do Joining me is the former US deputy

Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, a key player in the Iraq war, the

Conservative MP, Rory Stewart, and Syrian opposition leader, in London

for a few days before returning to Syria. Mr Wolfowitz, is there a

case for outside intervention in Syria, if so, what would it be?

Well, first of all, I think it is worth noting two remarkable facts,

one there is incredibly broad international support to see an end

to the Assad regime. Russia and China are the two countries

standing in the way, it is a very broad consensus. Secondly, the

Syrian people are incredibly brave, this fighting and bloodshed has

been going on for almost a year now, they show no sign of giving up.

There is a lot that can be done, the key goal has to be to try to

achieve a negotiated exit for the Assad regime. Sanctions aren't

going to have much effect when they are fighting for their life. What

will have an effect is strenening the opposition morally, politically

-- strengthening the opposition, morally, politically and materially.

Does that include arming the opposition, do you think? It is

interesting, everyone always jumps to that. Let's start with political.

It is incredibly important, if the opposition is given the opportunity

to speak with a loud voice to the Syrian people and to the world, and

to lay out an agenda that is reassuring, particularly to the

Alawite and Christian minorities, that is something that could hasten

defections are from the regime and hasten an end here. It is not just

about arming. When you come to material support, it is not just

about weaponry. My impression, and all of us are limited in our

information, thank heavens there are journalists as brave as Marie

Colvin to go in there and try to get the story out, she has paid a

terrible price. One of the things they need is

communications gear. Let me bring in Rory Stewart, Marie Colvin was a

friend of your's, you knew her. She said in the BBC interview that she

did yesterday, that no-one here can understand how the international

community can let this happen. She made the comparison to verb nisia.

Do we have to stand and watch this? She was deeply shocked by what was

going on. I would be very cautious, though, of what Paul is saying, in

terms of material support. I don't really see what, credibly, we could

do in terms of arming the rebels. At the moment they have weapons,

they appear to be getting support from places like Qatar. I think it

would be dangerous, it might undermine them to associate Britain

or the United States with them. I would like to take up Paul's

suggestion of focusing much more on the political. The key thing is to

give them a political voice and finding a political solution to the

programme, however nasty or messy that seems. You know your

constituents and others will be watching the TV pictures, and

reacting to Marie Colvin's death, and the death of 80 people today,

perhaps more, and saying this is absolutely terrible, in Srebrenica

we said it wouldn't happen again, and now it is happening again?

There are two things to remember. One of them is our power is limited,

our knowledge is limited, most importantly of all, we need to

listen to the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition. We need to ask

the gentlemen such as this, whether he really wants us to be arming the

rebels, and what that would mean for Syria. What do you want, what

do you need? First of all, I would like to ask peace for the soul of

the journalist Colvin and for the souls of thousands of Syrians that

are being killed every day in Syria. Secondly, we want an international

consensus. We want that the international community would help

us in making this agreement, making this exit. For the problem in Syria,

for this disaster that we are facing. It is not about something

like the friends of Syria, that will happen after tomorrow, those

larger groups of countries together can't make a real exit or real

solutions. Are there material goods, weapons, communications equipment,

political support, are there concrete things that outsiders can

do, that would really help you, given that the view outside is that,

at least, that the opposition is very fragmented, you have no-one

leader or one structure, you have many structures? The opposition is

fragmented, and also the Syrian society is fragmented, and also the

international community is fragmented. It is a problem on all

levels. We are working and we want that for the formation of small

groups of states that can help and make intervention on Syria,

especially with the collaboration of Russia. You can't put Russia

outside the formula or the equation. Let me put that to Mr Wolfowitz,

you can't put Russia outside the equation, yet they don't seem to

want the international consensus that is built? I think they don't.

What might bring them round is if they eventually saw this regime

would eventually lose. That means strengthening the opposition. They

are fragmented, and one reason is because it is very difficult to

communicate between different cities and groups. They are

fragmented in part because I think our contact with them is still

limited, it is growing, but it seems to me we should be meeting

with them much more often and much more conspicuously, and trying to

bring together as many different elements and sending a very loud

message about what the future of Syria might look like. In terms of

outsiders being involved, how involved do you think Iran already

is and Turkey already is, in the case of Iran in supporting the

regime? They are supporting the regime, they are well involved. We

have some media reports that maybe there is a real intervention for

them on the ground. They are on the ground. What I feel we don't want

to do, is end up as we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, with a

foreign-funded insurgency, taking place from a neighbouring country.

Everything we can do to try to avoid that we should. We may end up

there eventually, but at the moment really a political solution,

pushing Assad, and the Russians, and working with what the Syrian

people want, which is not a fragmented civil war and foreign-

funded insurgency at the moment. The other parallel would be Iraq,

you may have a sectarian civil war in Syria afterwards? There is so

much horror that we have seen in Iraq, we did, of course in Libya,

which is is a place where the population is a third of this size,

and made some progress, but it took months to make the progress. We

will not have that consensus in Syria. We need to be more cautious,

and follow this gentleman's suggestion, there needs to be a

Syrian-led political solution. Wolfowitz, you are worried about

Iran in a slightly different context, I wondered what you

thought Iran's involvement was here, and whether that was of concern to

you too? I think the Iranians just had a couple of ships visit a

Syrian port, and prob below deliver weapons. I'm not as comfortable --

probably deliver weapons, I'm not as comfortable with the idea that

Qatar is supplying the opposition. I don't see how one can expect any

good outcome if the opposition remains largely unarmed or armed by

people whose goals and objectives may be very different from our's. I

understand his concern about the Afghan President, but I would also

say the war in Bosnia went on for three bloody years, because we

insisted on keeping the Bosnians defenceless, eventually we had to

come in with foreign military forces, which it seems to me, we

ought to avoid. I think the goal should be strengthening and

unifying the Syrian opposition. Unfortunately I do think one has to

give the Assad regime a chance, if they leave peacefully, to leave

with their lives. On that thought, what do you make of the appetite in

Washington to get involved in the way in which you are suggesting?

think that the debate is open in Washington. It seems as though, I

mean scam Senator McCain and others have been on the idea of supporting

the opposition. Getting involved, we want to be very careful, nobody

wants to get involved in the way of Iraq. I don't think anyone is

suggesting getting involved in the way we are involved in Libya, there

are many, many things short of that, that could be done to strengthen

the opposition, and increase the chances and the speed of a peaceful

outcome here. The longer this terrible fighting goes on, the

worse the aftermath will be, of that I feel reasonably sure.

The Assad regime may be offered an elegant way out as Paul Wolfowitz

was suggesting, but they may do what Gaddafi did, and fight to the

bitter end? There is a difference, one of the differences is we have

managed to impose the sanctions and take away the oil. Gaddafi was

dealing with full NATO air strikes and hung on for months. We don't

know where that will go. We need to be careful not to make the

situation worse by funding strange factions of insurgent groups we

don't understand, and ending up in a situation in three or four years

time with a fractured and devastated Syria. More on Marie

Colvin, who died today, later, including an interview with a

friend and colleague. Now, at a time when Britain's

supporters at EU meetings on the eurozone crisis are sometimes

difficult to spot, David Cameron has been particularly impressed by

Sweden, and full of admiration for that country's Prime Minister, with

who we will hear from in a moment. Like Britain, Sweden is not in the

eurozone, and it has a centre right leader, who reregards himself as a

moderniser. And Swedes, like Britain, are suspicious of the

group bailout, and very sceptical of the prospect, if ever, of

joining the euro. The Greek bailout was finally

assembled this week, that averted or delayed a default in Athens, and

fears of widespread European economic breakdown. Sweden, like

Britain, remains outside the single currency, but it has profound

implications for the Swedes and its export market. Home of Saab and

IKEA, with fall in the demand for goods biting, growth is slowing.

David Cameron is known to have high regard for the economic and social

reforms implemented by Sweden's centre right Prime Minister,

Fredrik Reinfeldt. I very much admire what Sweden has achieved

under his leadership, the growth of the competitive economy, the

emphasis on green growth, the school reform, the welfare reform,

there is a lot Britain can learn from Sweden. Sweden has indeed been

seen in Britain as a potential ally in Europe, but after waefring over

negotiations on a new treaty in December, Mr Reinfeldt ultimately

distanced himself from the veto, leaving Britain in its isolation,

splend did or otherwise. Joining me is the Swedish Prime Minister,

Fredrik Reinfeldt, despite this week's bailout, how long do you

think it will be before Greece needs another bailout or out of the

euro? It is now in their own hands. They have had time to put in the

reforms they have promised but not followed through. They need a

surplus situation in the Greek economy. It is only in their own

hands to deliver it. When you look at Greece, do you think they are

set a task that is simply impossible, the austerity task

ahead of them is too hard for anybody to deliver? I could

understand if the Greek people feel like that. Ordinary people in

Greece, working, paying their taxes, feeling like they haven't done this,

but they have a great inequality in the society which they should

address. If you look to Sweden, and other countries that have been in

economic trouble, we found that the quicker you put in your reforms and

the more thorough you are in the beginning, the market reactions are

more positive. The criticism we have sometimes had towards Greece

is they have said a lot, but not always put in practice the reforms

they have promised. That is their plob blem. In terms of the Uri --

Problem. In terms of the euro, you are out of it, and committed some

time in the future, vaguely, to join the euro. We have a two-speed

Europe already, are you better out of it? It is a multi-speed Europe,

there are differences to the euro and the Shengen area as well. The

Swedish people said no in a referendum. Now the Swedish krona,

which used to be insecured currency 20 years ago, now is seen as very

stable, and also very strong. But this more reflects the reforms and

the key reforms done to get better order in public finances. Again it

is very much in your own hands. Swedish people have spoken, is

there any point in keeping up the facade that you will at some point

join the euro, your heart isn't in it, which is what we are saying?

respect the result and we will not alter it unless we see a shift in

the opinion polls. The latest opinion polls show a support for

joining the euro down at 10%. It is an enormous increase in support for

keeping the Crown that, because the Crown that in itself, is now very

strong. They like it t of course. As you know, David Cameron is an

admirer of your's, there are similarities between your policies,

why did he end up alone in December at the European Summit. Why did he

end up speaking for Britain alone and not views that you may share

with Britain, in terms of the veto? I'm not sure that we were that far

apart, actually. The eurozone want to have a fiscal compact, that only

should regulations followed by the 17 countries. Outside of that we

have ten countries, including the UK and Sweden. I felt that, well,

we can join this fiscal compact if we could legally stay outside, but

be present during meetings. That combination was interesting for us.

I felt that, well, to David Cameron, he was not as sure of the merits of

this, he wanted to skr -- to have other kinds of things, a clearer

message when it came to the financial sector in London, and in

the UK. That was not possible. So I think it was quite understandable

why he reacted as he did. You use an interesting phrase about being

in the meetings, is that a drawback for you that Britain isn't going to

be in some of those meetings, you will be present and people that you

agree with, Britain, outside? In my own interests I would welcome

the UK, and David to be there. Because I think we have a lot in

common. I think we want to see a well-functioning intefrpbl market.

I think we are very -- internal market. I think we are very open to

trade. We stand very close to each other. Sweden and the UK are two

countries with very large financial sectors, even there we could share

interests. You need to be there, in my belief, to be able to stand up

for your interests. Trade and a lot of these interests, you need to be

there. Was it a tactical mistake for David Cameron not to play the

veto in that way and to be excluded and exclude himself? Then again

that was understandable that he wanted to secure some points, this

was not possible, then we chose another path. I understood his

reasoning. Again, the financial compact in itself is actually only

done for the 17. I also think the feeling in the UK is that you are

more long-term will stay outside the euro, in my country we will

still have a discussion that we might alter this in the future.

There is probably a difference. Thank you very much.

Over the past few weeks we have been witnessing something new at

Westminster. A semi-open discussion, in Government, about what should be

in the budget. In their party political broadcast tonight the

Liberal Democrats repeated the call they made on Newsnight on Monday,

for income tax thresholds to be raised. They aren't the only wupbls

doing the pleaded and plotting d ones doing the pleading and

plotting. What is going on today? Today was the turn of the Tories.

We had Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, coming out, he called

for a reduction in national insurance on employers. Then this

evening and in tomorrow's Times, we have a senior Tory activist calling

for what can only be described as a mansion tax. But he's specific

about how he would do it. It would have been unthinkable a year ago to

have Tories calling for that sort of thing. What is interesting about

the negotiations before this the budget, if you think about how long

measures in budgets take effect, lots of people are thinking about

the next month's budget as the last chance to do something ahead of the

2015 election. That is why everyone is piling in to make a difference.

Given that is such an important step, politically, and there is

lots of ideas out there, do we have any senses of which ones will win

out in the budget? The Liam Fox one, eventhough viewers will be reading

and hearing a lot about this national insurance idea, when he

was on our programme on Monday night, David Laws ruled that out.

He said the priority, and the tax- cutting priority, in his language,

was what the Liberal Democrats want, which is the increase in the amount

of you can keep before paying tax. That is what they want and they

ruled out the NI. Some sources in Downing Street said it didn't work

in the opening stages of coalition. Eventhough they want it I'm not

sure they will go for it. There is work with wealth tax, behind the

scenes. One of the problems is the Government not only have to find

the pot of money for the Lib Dem idea, it is a joint idea but the

Lib Dems are pushing it. They have to find a way of fund the child

benefit, they have to lessen the impact, that is why we have to look

at ways to raise revenue. There is some movement on pension relief,

now we are listening to interesting ideas. It is budget by former

cabinet minister. What are the Treasury working on, do you think?

There is a range of options, one of them is this problem that the

private sector are sitting on healthy balance sheets, how do you

try to encourage them to get their assets out into the real economy,

rather than sitting and waiting for things to get better and coming in.

There is positive things going on in childcare and social care, there

is big battles but they are trying for good news stories. They have to

amealate some of the bad things, then there is the pension thing we

talked about before. It is complicated and high stakes, and

there is no money. We understood that.

Every day in Britain a dozen postal workers are attacked by dogs as

they deliver our mail. But because the attacks generally take place on

their owner's private property, prosecutions are almost impossible.

In the last year 6,000 adults and children were admitted to dopt

because -- hospital because of dog attacks. Keeping dogs in kennels is

costing the Metropolitan Police �4 million a year. Proposals will be

published next month. What should be done about dangerous dogs o

perhaps their owners. -- or perhaps their owners. We have

become a uby-election tus feature of modern life in Britain, dogs you

would hesitate to pet. Often known as dangerous dogs. They have been

linked to 6,000 attacks a year. Who needs them and what are we going to

do about them? It is amazing how one little person can affect so

many people, like, proper ripple effect, on people's lives. None of

us are the same people, your whole life just changes. You change as a

person, everything you knew is just gone, within seconds. Three years

ago Angela McGlynn's four-year-old son, John Paul, was attacked and

killed by a pitbull here in Liverpool. He was at his granny's

house at the time, the dog was a trusted family pet. She tried her

best to save John Paul, she couldn't, but she saved herself and

my other son, I could have lost all three of them that night. Angela

McGlynn's MP wants to see the law changed on dangerous dogs, at

present it is hard to prosecute owners over attacks which happen on

their own premises, she says, and the Government seems to have fallen

silent on the whole subject. With can't afford to see another

child die. We have seen six children lose their lives since

2006. What we are calling for is the Government to take some action

and respond to their very own consultation, which concluded 20

months ago, we have seen nothing from them, heard nothing, it is not

acceptable. It seemed everyone we met had a story to tell their MP

about an all too close encounter with a dangerous dog. A chap in the

next street got hold of the dog and threw it into the middle of the

road, pushed me into the news agents, and the dog shot off the

road, pushed the news agent's door and got me in the shop itself.

All right lads could we have a word with you for Newsnight about your

dog. Sorry. You got him under control there? Yeah. What is your

dog? What breed is it? A staff crossed with a whippet? It is four

years old. Are you aware your dog just tried to bite our cameraman?

She is just barking. She tried to bite her leg? It looked like, but

she never bite nobody. What have you got a dog like that

for? I just got her. You know. She looks how she looks, aggressive,

but it is absolutely sweet dog. I introduce your local MP. Do you

have any thoughts about this creature and our friend here.

your local member of parliament, I'm campaigning against dogs that

might impact or might hurt or affect other people. I come to this

park every day. (dog barking (she plays with the other dogs, and you

know, never have a situation like this. Would you let her near any

children? No. Are you worried your dog could bite someone? Yeah, any

dog can bite someone. What did you make of that? That is the very

thing I'm concerned about. That man said he was the fifth owner, there

was four previous owners of the dog, he didn't know if he necessarily

had the skills to look after that animal. We saw the dog off the

leash, I was quite scared by the dog, we saw it go for the cameraman,

my concern is about a child in the park, another adult or another dog.

He just walks off to work or whatever he's doing. What on earth

is anyone, including you going to do about that in reality? That is

why we need to see a very, very quick change in the law. The law as

it stands isn't robust enough to deal with that. If there was a dog

warden in the area, or someone from the council, or someone from the

police, they could serve a dog control notice so that owner was

then responsible for ensuring his dog was kept on a lead at all times,

rather than off the lead, as we saw At the moment the law targets only

four breeds of dog. Regardless of what the animals may have done, or

not done. Owners may not be prosecuted over

dog attacks which occur on their own property.

The Freedom of Information by Miss Berger, has revealed the police are

spending almost �4 million on kenneling dogs. In her own area,

Merseyside, they spent almost 300,000, and in London the figure

was the best part of �3 million. The police impounded Bodie here,

because he's an illegal breed, eventhough he has never attacked

anyone. Denise Evans managed to get him returned. She says the real

problem is the way dogs are trained. There are vicious ones of these, I

wouldn't want to come across, they are strong dogs. If you own a dog

like this, you have to be a responsible owner, it is not the

dog but the owner who has to have control of the dog. We need powers

to concentrate on people who use dogs as weapons in the communities,

people seeking to use it as a status, in certain communities that

is of grave concern. We need robust legislation to tackle these

offenders and ensure they understand their responsibility.

The Government said tonight it would announce new proposals on the

control of dogs in the coming weeks. The Labour MP, is in favour of

changes to the current law, and Mark Littlewood, of the Institute

of Economic Affairs, is sceptical new laws are necessary. Do you

think the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is a waste of pays? The eight

speess -- space? The eight pieces of legislation need to come

together. That is why broad agencies, including enforcement

agencies, and trade unions, you mentioned postal Work In Progress

By A Life In Progressers, and animal welfare groups, we need an

urgent change in the legislation. That is why we needed a

consultation about the legislation. You said the Government said in the

coming weeks. I have heard the Government say it will respond to

its own consultation in the coming weeks for the past 20 months. We

need urgent response from the Government. Why are you against

more legislation on this? We have to put this into context. There is

horrific stories in the package we have seen, but it isn't an enormous

problem. It is if you are bitten? The same number of people die from

wasp and bee bites as from dog bites. It is harrowing if it

happens, but let's not build it out of proportion. We need clear

responsibility on the owner, both criminal conduct, if your dog

attacks another member of the public, and compensation, if there

is an injury. Once you have got that sorted, the last thing we need

is microchipping, local bureaucrats with dog control orders or anything

else. That is not going to make us much safer? This question of

private property, what do you want to see done on that, do you think

it should be the same whether you are bitten by somebody in a garden

by a dog or somebody on the street, is that what you would like to see?

That is one of the five key things we are calling for. That the law

should be extended to cover private property, so victims can get the

justice they deserve if they are attacked on private property as

much as a public place. There is very little powers falling to the

police to pursue anyone if someone is bitten. You pension the postal

workers, every single day 15 postal workers are attacked delivering

mail, social workers visiting houses, there is no resource for

those people. I do think the point about private property, you can

take risks and people can decide to enter it. If you enter my house you

will be encountering smoke, and we have leads everywhere, if there is

a dog you may choose not to bring your children round. There is a

risk for postal workers, you have to say this postman will not visit

41 Dawes of a dangerous dog. I don't think you should -- 41

because of a dangerous dog, I don't think you should apply that to all

private property. If you punch somebody in the street that is a

crime f you punch somebody in your front garden that is a crime, but

not your dog? That is not a comparison. If you punch somebody

in your living room it is accused of a crime, this is a question of a

health and safety risk that might run out of control. If you

deliberately feed the neighbour's kids to the dogs this is a crime,

it is more a negligence and health and safety issue, it is important

that doesn't extend to the living room of private property.

Absolutely disagree. We don't have that power already, and certain

people are not afforded protection, people are disfigured and disabled

every day. It is around 6,000 people hospitalised every year,

that doesn't include people going toe their GPs or accident treatment

centres. 11 deaths I think is too many. That in itself requires a

change in the law. Also for those thousands of people injured. What

about the other things saying, making people having to chip dogs,

many dog owners do. Is that really the problem, or is it bad owners?

It is about encouraging responsible ownership, and beyond the breed to

the deed. There is very little preventive powers extended to the

police or councils to deal with the problem before an attack takes

place. We mentioned before about the cost that the police forces up

and down this country are incurring, they are doing a fantastic job

under very difficult circumstances. They need all the support and

powers afforded to them so they can take action so we don't see another

person die. We don't need to give the police that support, we need to

make it plain the owner bears the responsibility. If it rips yours

jacket the owner has to pay, if it harms you, the owner has to pay

compensation and possibly facing a criminal offence. As long as we

shift responsibility clearly and plainly on to the owner, and don't

make it the responsibility of the police or the local council. Is the

answer licensing, if you are a bad owner you get your license taken

away? In the same way we have compulsory insurance for people who

drive motorcars -- motorcars, there might be compulsory insurance for

certain breeds of dogs. Keep the responsibility with the owner, not

with Of-dog, or whatever bureaucratic agency they want to

set up? It is about empowering owners to be responsible and help

them look after their dogs and make sure they don't cause problems or

attack anyone. Would you be in favour of some licensing system, in

other words, if you didn't look after your dog couldn't have one,

the Government would tell you that? The five key things we are looking

at don't extend to that, I'm open to all options, we just want action.

We have seen action in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and Wales are

going to introduce new legislation by the end of the year. I want this

Government to introduce legislation to consolidate the acts as they

stand, and afford our police and councils additional protections so

we don't see anyone else die. Not surprisingly tomorrow morning's

newspapers have a great deal to say on the death of Marie Colvin. Her

photograph is on the front pages. There is a quote from a speech she

gave in November 2010, giving a service to commemorate war

reporters who died. She's on the front page of the Guardian, she

wanted to finish one more story is its take on the story. The

Independent has the heroic face of journalism, we have seen some of

the other faces of journalism, this is the heroic face. The Telegraph

has baby girls aborted and no questions asked. Joining us to

discuss Marie Colvin's life and work is a fellow reporter, Janine

di Giovanni. How will you remember her? As an incredibly tenacious,

brave, courageous reporter, the one that was always first in and the

last to go. She would stay much longer than anyone. She was

incredibly determined to tell the story, to get the story out, often

at great risk to herself, whether Chechnya, East Timor, or Kosovo.

She really came from that great tradition of reporter of James

Cameron, Martha Gellhorn, whom she greatly admired. I just hope, and I

truly believe that, especially for women, she kind of set the bar for

journalism, for real journalism. And telling the truth and bringing

a Joyce to people who didn't have a voice. -- a voice to people who

didn't have a voice. She was a great crusader of bearing witness,

which is what she called it, for people to tell their stories. She

often said if they want to tell you, they will tell you, and they want

to tell you, they want you to know the truth. She and you more than

anybody, you know the risks you run in those situations. The big

question that people will be asking is why did she do it? With Homs

there is terrible resonance of Sarajevo, a city isolated and the

civilian population is going through hell. There are some

journalists there but not many. She believed that this was a crucial

story to tell, that the world needs to know what's happening, and she

was someone that had the ability to do that. She had the courage, and

she certainly had the experience. She was doing this for more than 25

years. It was a story that needed to be told. You mentioned Martha

Gellhorn, you said that she was a great roll model for journalists,

particularly for women too. Is it different for women in a warzone,

is it easier or more difficult, do people talk to you more? This is

always a question that is asked. I think that there is pros and cons,

obviously a story like this, where she would have had to be smuggled

in to get in, and would have been incred difficult for -- incredibly

difficult for a woman, win she went to Chechnya and was smuggled in,

she had to hike over mountains. Women are not as physically strong

as men, biologically, I think there is that. On the ground women can be

absolutely just as tough and tenacious, and courageous as men. I

think she really was the role model for an entire generation of women

and men, and young reporters, who really want to carry the truth, and

to bring the truth to a wider audience. To go somewhere where one

of our colleagues said to shine a light in the darkest corners of the

world. She was very, listening to that BBC interview that she gave

yesterday, not just very, very motivated, but very committed to

bringing some kind of peace to the people she saw suffering, and to

make us understand that eventhough we live many hundreds of thousands

of miles away? With passion, she had tremendous passion, she once

said she can't write about something unless she was passionate

about it. She was someone, whether it was the Middle East, that was

really her area, and she would hold on to something, and she believed

in it. I remember once saying to her, do you ever let this story go,

she said not when you are in the middle of it, she was living in

Jerusalem at the time. She just lived for her work, she was

completely devoted to it. She would spend months staying somewhere.

Libya, she called it a health farm, because she was there for so long,

and she, at great cost often to one's private life doing this, it

is a very difficult job. She is someone we will never forget.

Thank you very much for paying tribute to Marie Colvin. That's all

for tonight, Kirsty will be here tomorrow, one last piece of news,

tonight at the Royal Television Society News Awards, Newsnight won

news programme of the year, our Good evening. Cloudy, misty and

mild night tonight for many. Particularly misty across these

western areas, foggy start, slowing the commute, with the wind south-

westerly, many of these western and southern parts will remain grey

throughout. To the high ground, north-east England, certainly

through eastern parts of England, temperatures lifting in sunny

spells to 16 or 17. Not opening for too much in the way of sunshine

around the coast, in Torbay to the east of Dartmoor, sunnier breaks.

Through the moors, it is going to rain misty, foggy all day. The

white colours here across the hills and mountains of Wales. With that

thicker cloud comes patchy rain or drizzle. Maybe a little bit of

brightness across and down. Thicker cloud to North West later brings

the wettest spell of the day. Patchy rain or drizzle turning

heavier across the North West of Scotland. Things change across the

north, particularly for Scotland and Northern Ireland, into Friday.

Something brighter, but the temperatures drop, we will slowly

see temperatures drop across England and Wales too, a lot more

cloud on Friday, with patchy rain and drizzle, that comes from a cold