:00:12. > :00:16.Tonight, the political row over the rate-fixing scandal, reaches fever
:00:16. > :00:21.pitch as the Chancellor accuses his Labour opposite number of being
:00:21. > :00:26.complicit in the affair. If he has any integrity on this narrow point
:00:26. > :00:32.of his allegation, he should stand up now, withdraw the allegations,
:00:32. > :00:36.and apologise. The idea that I'm going to take lessons in integrity
:00:36. > :00:41.from a man who smeared his way through 13 years of Labour
:00:41. > :00:44.Government. I have been asking Ed Miliband
:00:44. > :00:48.whether the last Labour Government is to blame? It is the Chancellor
:00:48. > :00:52.of the Exchequer, if he has evidence about this, let him come
:00:52. > :00:56.forward with the evidence. Have you asked Gordon Brown? No I spoken to
:00:56. > :01:00.him in the last 24 hours. We were once one of the world's
:01:00. > :01:05.great military powers, but as the Government takes an axe to the army,
:01:05. > :01:09.can we remain so? The future shape of the army has been unveiled. And
:01:09. > :01:14.the scale of its ambitions has been trimmed back, in keeping with this
:01:14. > :01:20.age of austerity. I will be asking the Defence Secretary if we can
:01:20. > :01:22.still mount a mission anywhere in the globe. We will ask a
:01:22. > :01:32.distinguished panel what they think, and what it says about Britain's
:01:32. > :01:33.
:01:33. > :01:37.place in the world. Good evening. The level of rancour
:01:37. > :01:41.in the House of Commons today beat anything we witnessed as the
:01:41. > :01:45.coalition came to power. It was not a pretty sight. This was the bear
:01:45. > :01:49.pit and both the Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor's claws were out.
:01:49. > :01:53.George Osborne trying to put Ed Balls in the frame for the LIBOR
:01:53. > :02:00.scandal, and Ed Balls outraged with the allegation, but aware, that
:02:00. > :02:05.whatever the truth, the events happened in the banking crisis
:02:05. > :02:10.within Labour's watch. The atmosphere went from bad to
:02:10. > :02:14.worse after the vote went for a parliamentary action. It was
:02:14. > :02:18.vicious stuff? What was whites of the eyes politics. What you have is
:02:19. > :02:22.two of politics most fiercesome operators, they pride themselves at
:02:22. > :02:27.being vicious about it. The question they were debating is the
:02:27. > :02:31.big US one out there, which is who can handle the economy and banks.
:02:31. > :02:35.The Government has assessed they are not culpable in this scandal,
:02:35. > :02:39.actually very little will come out, so it is all to pin on the
:02:39. > :02:49.opposition. They want to plant firmly in the minds of voters and
:02:49. > :02:50.
:02:50. > :03:00.viewers the four Bs, Barclays Bank, Brown Balls. Once they could sort
:03:00. > :03:00.
:03:00. > :03:05.it out with weapons, now 200 years on, political empty still goes on.
:03:05. > :03:09.He -- Eminity. That lip curl in the Chancellor in the chamber today,
:03:09. > :03:16.says it all. This was supposed to be parliamentary debate about what
:03:16. > :03:21.type of inquiry for banking. It became a near brawl to decide the
:03:21. > :03:26.biggest question in politics, who best to run the economy. I have
:03:26. > :03:32.never seen the Shadow Chancellor and the opposition leader so
:03:32. > :03:35.rattled. The spark was this, in an interview with a magazine, the
:03:35. > :03:40.Chancellor named his opposite, Ed Balls. The House and the public
:03:40. > :03:46.will judge the integrity of a Chancellor, who cannot defend here,
:03:46. > :03:52.what he whispers to the Spectator Magazine. Mr Deputy Speaker. He has
:03:52. > :04:01.no evidence, and knows it. Because what he said is not true, and he
:04:01. > :04:06.knew that too Mr Deputy Speaker. We had one hour, one hour of an
:04:06. > :04:12.attempt by the City minister to defend his conduct when he was in
:04:12. > :04:20.office, and these scandals happened. And we have still not had from him
:04:20. > :04:24.a simple apology for what he did. His failure of regulation. Get up
:04:24. > :04:28.and say, not, we were all involved in this, there were Governments all
:04:28. > :04:34.over the world doing it, just get up and say, I was the City minister
:04:34. > :04:37.and I am sorry. I'm named, he has made an allegation, he has no
:04:37. > :04:41.evidence, because there isn't any, because it is untrue, and he knew
:04:41. > :04:48.there was no evidence, because he knew it was untrue, and he said it
:04:48. > :04:52.any way. Because that is the character of the man, Madame Deputy
:04:52. > :04:58.Speaker. The idea that I'm going to take lessons in integrity, from a
:04:58. > :05:01.man who smeared his way through 13 years of Labour Government, who
:05:01. > :05:07.half the people, whoever served with him, thinks he was a disgrace
:05:07. > :05:11.in his post, is another thing. But let him redeem himself, by not,
:05:11. > :05:15.today, blocking an inquiry into what happened under the last
:05:15. > :05:19.Government. Take part in the inquiry. You're not prepared to do
:05:19. > :05:22.that. Today's acrimonious events settled
:05:22. > :05:27.the question of what sort of investigation should be conducted
:05:27. > :05:32.into the behaviour of traders at Barclays Bank. Labour feared a
:05:32. > :05:34.short inquiry limited the exercise to just the years it was in power.
:05:34. > :05:39.A wider inquiry had a greater chance of reflecting what they
:05:39. > :05:44.believe is the hands-free, laissez faire instincts of the
:05:44. > :05:49.Conservatives on the City. Back in the chamber, as MPs
:05:49. > :05:53.streamed out to vote. Certainly one of the men in your screen rose in
:05:53. > :05:56.stature. Andrew Tyrie stood on the floor of the House and was press
:05:56. > :06:02.ganged, first by Ed Balls and then the Chancellor. Labour decided not
:06:02. > :06:05.to withhold their support from the Conservative inquiry, ensuring it
:06:05. > :06:08.was cross-party, and Tyrie chairing it. There was room for one surprise,
:06:08. > :06:13.the Attorney General, made a rare personal intervention, appearing to
:06:13. > :06:20.call for a judge-led public inquiry into the wider crisis.
:06:20. > :06:24.Because of the depais when parliamentarians were routinely
:06:24. > :06:31.lairy, the two chambers are a sword's length apart. Between Ed
:06:31. > :06:34.Balls and George Osborne today, it was probably quite a good job.
:06:34. > :06:38.Earlier I spoke to the Labour leader at Westminster. You don't
:06:38. > :06:42.vote for the parliamentary inquiry, and yet you say you will co-operate,
:06:42. > :06:47.it is politicing, isn't it, naked politics? No, it is about the
:06:47. > :06:52.family I met this morning, call the Hendersons, a small business,
:06:52. > :06:56.driven to the brink of bankruptcy because of what the banks' did. For
:06:56. > :07:00.them I wanted a full, open, judge- led inquiry, because I thought it
:07:00. > :07:07.was the only thing to get to all the issues. This one won't work
:07:07. > :07:10.then? To all the issues people are facing and get to the bottom of
:07:10. > :07:13.what happened and stop it happening again. We will co-operate with it
:07:13. > :07:16.because parliament has voted that way, it is the right thing for to
:07:16. > :07:19.us do. We will not defy the will of parliament. We will co-operate with
:07:19. > :07:24.the chair of the Select Committee, but I will continue to press my
:07:24. > :07:26.case for the open inquiry we need. I think it is still what the
:07:26. > :07:31.circumstances demand. Look at what was going on in the House today,
:07:31. > :07:35.you said in your leadership speech of 2010, you said, let's be honest,
:07:35. > :07:40.politics isn't working and people have lost faith in politicians and
:07:40. > :07:44.politics is broken. The practice and the reputation and the
:07:45. > :07:47.institutions, you are in and and you find it depressing? I find that
:07:47. > :07:50.at Prime Minister's Questions too. It is not a great advert for
:07:50. > :07:56.politics. But I have to say when you have a Chancellor of the
:07:56. > :08:01.Exchequer who starts throwing around allegations, which he then
:08:01. > :08:04.can't substanceate, it is only right the shad -- substantiate, it
:08:05. > :08:10.is only right the Shadow Chancellor challenges him. Why did passions
:08:10. > :08:14.run high tonight, at least on our side, let me make the point. I feel
:08:14. > :08:20.we have seen scandal after scandal in the banking system, I think the
:08:20. > :08:24.response of politicians on all sides has been inadequate. I make
:08:24. > :08:29.the parallel with pack hacking lasty, I think it is a moment when
:08:29. > :08:33.politics needs to rise to the challenge, and the challenge is why
:08:33. > :08:37.does an inquiry matter, it sounds technical, but it is important
:08:37. > :08:40.because it can get to the truth. The truth may be difficult for you,
:08:40. > :08:44.because it may mean there was bad practice in the last Government?
:08:44. > :08:48.tell you one thing we got regulation wrong in the last
:08:48. > :08:53.Government, we weren't tough enough. You might have got LIBOR wrong too.
:08:53. > :08:56.Can I quote from the memo sent to the chief executive of Barclays.
:08:56. > :09:00.That Paul Tucker, from the Bank of England, received calls from a
:09:00. > :09:04.number of senior figures among Whitehall to question why Barclays
:09:04. > :09:08.was always towards the top end of the LIBOR pricing. Have you any
:09:08. > :09:11.idea who these figures in Whitehall are? No idea at all, that is why we
:09:12. > :09:16.need the proper inquirey. The irony of this argument, Kirsty, is I have
:09:16. > :09:21.been arguing for what some people would say was against the narrow
:09:21. > :09:26.party interest, which people might say Labour wants to avoid skrutnee.
:09:26. > :09:29.I have been ageing for the judge- led inquiry, for judges to get all
:09:30. > :09:32.the e-mail, if a Select Committee can do that, great as well. Why do
:09:32. > :09:36.I say that? Because I don't think we should be afraid of the past.
:09:36. > :09:40.I'm a Labour leader who says we move on from the past. We learn the
:09:40. > :09:45.lessons. Only when the past is sorted out? Sure that is why I want
:09:45. > :09:48.a judge-led inquiry. If you have this accusation that there were
:09:49. > :09:53.senior figures in Whitehall, what have you done, for example, today,
:09:53. > :09:56.to check it out, have you spoken to Ed Balls? He made his position
:09:57. > :10:00.clear, totally untrue. Have you made any inquiries or conversations
:10:00. > :10:04.with the Bank of England? It's totally untrue. I do say this about
:10:04. > :10:10.politics, Kirsty, that part of the problem is when allegations are
:10:10. > :10:14.flung around, and are reported in good faith, and turn out to be
:10:14. > :10:17.total -- totally one true. And even the Chancellor's aides are saying
:10:17. > :10:20.they have nothing to back up the allegations. Yes, but these
:10:20. > :10:25.allegations, as you know, the Chancellor has done an interview
:10:25. > :10:29.for the Spectator Magazine. In that interview he says, more or less
:10:29. > :10:32.he's pretty sure, that these calls or conversations came from within
:10:32. > :10:35.Brown's circle? Fine, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
:10:35. > :10:39.evidence about this, let him come forward with the evidence. That's
:10:39. > :10:43.fine. Did you ask, or have you asked Gordon Brown? I haven't
:10:43. > :10:46.spoken to him within the last 24 hours. Why not? Because, Kirsty, I
:10:46. > :10:49.have a responsibility as leader of the Labour Party to make sure we
:10:49. > :10:53.get to the bottom of these allegations. Ask Gordon Brown?
:10:53. > :10:56.way we get to the bottom of the allegations by having the full
:10:56. > :11:00.inquiry we need. It is not about me doing the investigations. You are
:11:00. > :11:02.the leader of the opposition, this is an accusation of something done
:11:02. > :11:08.under the last Labour Government's watch. Gordon Brown was at the
:11:08. > :11:12.centre of this, wouldn't it actually be sensible, wouldn't it
:11:12. > :11:16.be curious, rather than incurrous to speak to Gordon Brown and
:11:16. > :11:20.Darling about this? No, I think my job is to say what is right for the
:11:20. > :11:23.country. What is right for the country is the full inquiry we need,
:11:23. > :11:26.calling all the people before it. Here is the really important thing,
:11:26. > :11:28.the really important thing is to sort out the problems of our
:11:28. > :11:32.banking industry. Some of them created under the last Labour
:11:32. > :11:36.Government? Some of them, yes. The hundreds of thousands of decent
:11:36. > :11:39.people who work in the banking industry, who will be looking on as
:11:39. > :11:42.appalled as I am and you are about what we have seen in banking.
:11:42. > :11:47.People like the Hendersons I met this morning, it is for them we
:11:47. > :11:50.have to have the big change that we need. If I was coming to this
:11:50. > :11:55.interview saying, Kirsty, I don't want any inquiries, because I don't
:11:55. > :11:58.want to look at the past, you would have a right to say why not get to
:11:58. > :12:01.the bottom of this. I'm the one who wants the inquiry. I don't
:12:02. > :12:05.understand, you speak to Ed Balls, obviously he's in the Shadow
:12:05. > :12:10.Cabinet, but Gordon Brown, it's still, you know, a politician, and
:12:10. > :12:13.was very close to all this. He was at the heart of it. A lot of the
:12:13. > :12:17.mistakes were made under his watch. Wouldn't it be sensible for you to
:12:17. > :12:20.speak to him, and actually find out, why won't you speak to him?
:12:20. > :12:24.course I will speak to him. I speak to him regularly. Why not today, I
:12:24. > :12:30.would have thought? Because I have to say to you that I don't think,
:12:30. > :12:35.saying it is my job to investigate the detailed allegation about Paul
:12:35. > :12:41.Tucker and Bob Diamond, my job is to say how do we change things for
:12:41. > :12:46.the future? For 20, 30 years there has been a tendency in this country,
:12:46. > :12:50.and this is much greater than the history of LIBOR towards
:12:50. > :12:54.deregulation, and light-touch regulation, shared by both parties,
:12:54. > :12:57.it was wrong, and it has to change for future. Let's not forget who
:12:57. > :13:02.matters, it is not the insiders at Westminster, it is people like the
:13:02. > :13:05.family I met this morning, who are saying, they have been mis-sold.
:13:05. > :13:10.Their mis-selling has nothing to do with LIBOR t won't even be within
:13:10. > :13:13.the scope of this inquiry, that is why the inquiry will remain
:13:13. > :13:17.inadequate. It is for them we have to get to the truth and move
:13:17. > :13:24.forward. Finally, wave after wave of problems of possible implication
:13:24. > :13:28.of politicians in all sorts of murky stuff, what would your father
:13:28. > :13:33.think about it all? I think he would think that the most important
:13:33. > :13:36.thing of all is that politicians speak truth to power wherever it
:13:36. > :13:43.lies. Whether it lies in the banking system, whether it lies in
:13:43. > :13:51.the press, whether it lies in our energy companies. To that extent
:13:51. > :13:54.I'm my father's son, or I hope I am. These men have to co-operate on
:13:54. > :13:59.this inquiry. But there is a sense tonight that there is a change in
:13:59. > :14:04.the Chancellor's stand? There was a sense there was a change for about
:14:04. > :14:08.20 minutes! Hostilities are not called off at all. The Chancellor
:14:08. > :14:12.was seen to have slightly clarified what he said in his magazine
:14:12. > :14:14.interview, all he's doing is drawing attention. Ed Balls in the
:14:14. > :14:21.Commons today said he had been accused by George Osborne of being
:14:21. > :14:26.clearly involved. No, if you look at the paragraph, Osborne is
:14:26. > :14:29.accusing those "closely" linked to Brown as being involved A few
:14:30. > :14:34.sentences later, he says Ed Balls has questions to answer, that is
:14:34. > :14:39.not as strong as Ed Balls said in the chamber he was being accused of.
:14:39. > :14:44.It is close text actual analysis, not hostilities called off. They
:14:44. > :14:48.have to co-operate. It is highly likely this narrow inquiry sprawls
:14:48. > :14:52.and sprawls, and falls down under the pressure of the parties not
:14:52. > :14:56.being able to co-operate in the long run. Once the cry was to join
:14:56. > :15:00.the army and see the world. Today the question is how much of an army
:15:00. > :15:05.will there be to join. And where in the world will a much reduced
:15:05. > :15:09.fighting force army do its soldiering? The bald facts are
:15:09. > :15:13.these, the army will be cut by one fact to 82,000, and reservists will
:15:13. > :15:18.double in numbers and take up the slack. There will be two tranches
:15:18. > :15:22.of redundancy next year, and the following wurpbgs with highly
:15:22. > :15:26.trained soldiers, some just back from Afghanistan, in the job market.
:15:26. > :15:35.We will discuss what impact this will have on our historical and
:15:35. > :15:39.cultural view of ourselves. First here is our defence editor.
:15:39. > :15:43.When this place was built, national security outranked all other
:15:43. > :15:50.political concerns. But these days the Tower of London
:15:50. > :15:54.sits under the shadow of mam Monday. And the army, once more, must
:15:54. > :15:58.adjust to woorld in which available financial resources are shrinking.
:15:58. > :16:01.It is very hard to be certain about the future. As Professor Sir
:16:01. > :16:06.Michael Howard once said, the important thing about trying to
:16:06. > :16:09.predict the future is not to be so wrong as when the future reveals
:16:09. > :16:12.itself you can't adjust quickly to meet the new circumstances. That is
:16:12. > :16:16.what the Government needs to do, to manage the risk it has taken or
:16:16. > :16:25.board, and make sure it can adjust quickly in new circumstances if
:16:25. > :16:33.they present themselves. Here the harvest of foreign Vic tree, these
:16:33. > :16:39.French guns taken at Waterloo -- Victory, these French guns taken at
:16:39. > :16:42.Waterloo on display. How do we maintain our reputation.
:16:42. > :16:46.People make comparison with previous demobilisations, including
:16:46. > :16:50.the one after water loo. But these days Britain's global commitments
:16:50. > :16:57.are very much reduced, and the political will to use force, dit at
:16:57. > :17:02.the moment it is hard to see that any of -- Tito, it is hard to see
:17:02. > :17:09.that -- ditto, it is hard to see that any of the regiments will be
:17:09. > :17:14.reinstated. When the Cold War ended Britain had 149,000 soldiers, after
:17:14. > :17:20.the cuts it will have 82,000. While the numbers is not cut in half, the
:17:20. > :17:23.UK will field a single armoured division, compared with three in
:17:23. > :17:27.1991. There will be career compression and further redundancy,
:17:27. > :17:32.whether you like it or not, if you are reducing 20%, things like
:17:32. > :17:39.opportunities to command regiments at Lieutenant Colonel rank will
:17:39. > :17:43.diminish. Opportunity to command companies and squadrons for Majors,
:17:43. > :17:45.will diminish, that is a fact. Announcing its plans, the
:17:46. > :17:48.Government conceded morale was fragile. But the head of the army
:17:48. > :17:52.believes a balanced force will result from the plan. What today is
:17:52. > :17:57.really about is the structure of that army, the way in which we
:17:57. > :18:02.shall be reshaping it to be an army fit for the future. A place where
:18:02. > :18:05.our soldiers will have challenging and rewarding careers.
:18:05. > :18:10.Of course, the professional horizons of the army have narrowed
:18:10. > :18:13.with the retreat from empire. Postings like Singapore, Hong Kong
:18:13. > :18:19.or Aden, have disappeared, even Germany is being wound down. Where
:18:19. > :18:24.as 21 years ago a British general commanded an army group of more
:18:24. > :18:30.than 200,000 NATO soldiers, bit late 1990s, core command, about
:18:30. > :18:38.80,000 was the summit of their ambitions, and today a division of
:18:38. > :18:42.about 20,000, is the highest scale of war the army will train for.
:18:42. > :18:47.For six years the Helmand commitment has shaped the army. We
:18:47. > :18:52.filmed the Green Howards in one of the toughest parts of the Afghan
:18:52. > :18:57.province. Chris, one of the young soldiers featured then, was founded.
:18:57. > :19:02.He's till -- wounded, he's still serving, but his battalion will go,
:19:02. > :19:07.as part of today's plan, and his sister decrys the redundancies now
:19:07. > :19:11.taking place. It is heart-breaking, I went to the pass out parade when
:19:11. > :19:16.they came home. The first soldiers to go and receive their medals,
:19:16. > :19:22.were the injured soldiers. And everybody cheered, and it was
:19:22. > :19:28.heart-breaking, it was really heart-breaking, and to see that
:19:28. > :19:31.udisbanded and got rid of, they are a team a family, I find it shocking.
:19:31. > :19:35.Once today's plan goes into effect, even a sustained commitment, the
:19:35. > :19:38.size of Helmand, would require the use of whole units of reservists.
:19:38. > :19:45.There is scepticism among many regular soldiers, that the reserve
:19:45. > :19:51.forces of today could do this. The plan of an army of 1 10,000, is
:19:51. > :19:55.very much preddikaited on a big chunk of that, 50,000 being from
:19:55. > :19:58.the reserves. It is a risk, the Ministry of Defence knows it is a
:19:58. > :20:01.risk and it has to manage that. To make the plan work, it has to be
:20:01. > :20:05.managed properly let's put the shoulder to the wheel and make it
:20:05. > :20:10.work. We know the budgets for training exercises, that type of
:20:10. > :20:15.thing, are often the first to be cut, when there is a pinch. If that
:20:15. > :20:20.is the case, the plan is doomed. When the ravens leave the tower, so
:20:20. > :20:24.the legend has it, Britain's greatness will be over. They are
:20:24. > :20:29.still here, and that other embodiment of national pride, the
:20:29. > :20:33.army, is still in residence too. But that force is being cut, once
:20:33. > :20:42.again, and today it symbolises a diminished power, struggling for
:20:42. > :20:45.relevance, in an uncertain world. In terms of future deployment, for
:20:45. > :20:55.example, if there was another call on us like Helmand, what would
:20:55. > :20:59.happen? Initially, the answer seems straight forward, the high-
:20:59. > :21:03.readiness brigades would be able to do it. As it is sustained and goes
:21:03. > :21:13.on, there would be more reliance on reservists. That seems to worry a
:21:13. > :21:15.
:21:15. > :21:19.lot of people I speak to in the forces. One used the term of a
:21:19. > :21:23."Temkin village", because it is not as good to rely on the reservists
:21:23. > :21:26.and other aspects not appeared to be thought out. The Government
:21:26. > :21:30.saying that we have the fourth- biggest spend in the world on
:21:30. > :21:34.defence what does that mean? It is true, Britain does still spend a
:21:34. > :21:39.lot on defence. You can see it as a source of pride and punching above
:21:39. > :21:41.our weight. You can see it in some ways that we don't get that much on
:21:41. > :21:45.what we spend in full structure. There are other countries, like
:21:45. > :21:50.France, which doesn't actually spend radically different amounts,
:21:50. > :21:54.the UK has a similar profile in international affairs. At this
:21:55. > :21:59.particular moment it may be they have a terrible reckoning coming
:21:59. > :22:03.through, and delivering significant capability. A carrier air wing, and
:22:03. > :22:06.40% more deployable units in their army, I would reckon, and all sorts
:22:06. > :22:10.of other capablities that Britain doesn't have any more. In that
:22:10. > :22:14.sense Britain does seem to have fallen back, it is a question of
:22:14. > :22:19.whether now they have done that they have put the fores on a
:22:19. > :22:22.sustainable foot -- forces on a sustainable footing. We have Philip
:22:23. > :22:26.Hammond, the Defence Secretary. Presumably this will affect foreign
:22:27. > :22:34.policy, where we go in, how long our deployment remains and so
:22:34. > :22:38.forth? We set out in the strategic defence and security view, in 2010,
:22:38. > :22:43.our broad strategic approach. And the level of our military ambition
:22:43. > :22:47.within that. What we have announced today is the structure of the army,
:22:47. > :22:50.one part of our Armed Forces, how it will be structured to deal with
:22:50. > :22:54.the smaller total regular forces that we announced last year. And
:22:54. > :22:59.what the chief of the general staff has said very clearly is that with
:22:59. > :23:06.this construct, he can deliver the military output required of the
:23:06. > :23:11.army to give effect to the 2010SDSR. We set out what we want to do, now
:23:11. > :23:18.we are setting out how we are going to do it. You heard it said that
:23:18. > :23:23.reliance on reservists would be a risk. For example, in Helmand
:23:23. > :23:28.n2006-2012, you have many thousands of troops, now you would have to
:23:28. > :23:34.rely on reserve is, getting them up to 30 though, getting employers on
:23:34. > :23:39.side in a recession, how do you do that? The General is right, this is
:23:39. > :23:43.a risk and they that needs to be managed. That is the key. We have
:23:43. > :23:50.set aside �1.8 billion of additional funding for reserve
:23:50. > :23:53.training, equipment, kit, to make sure the reserves get a proper deal.
:23:53. > :23:58.15,000 to 30,000, do you accept something like Helmand would be a
:23:58. > :24:02.risk because you would be relying on reservists? We would rely on
:24:02. > :24:06.reservists in a sustained operation, in the second and third years.
:24:06. > :24:10.Helmand? Yes. And these dangerous territories? The point is this, for
:24:10. > :24:14.years now the reserves have not been properly resourced, the last
:24:14. > :24:18.Government cut their training as an easy way to cut the defence budget.
:24:18. > :24:22.You can't expect to have effective reserves if you don't train them,
:24:22. > :24:26.if you don't qip them, and if you don't make a two-way bargain with
:24:26. > :24:30.them. They must train and be available for deployment, but the
:24:30. > :24:33.Government must fund that training. There is a three-way bargain,
:24:33. > :24:43.because it is about the Moyers as well. I know you did a big --
:24:43. > :24:50.employers as well. I know you did a big consultation on this, but it is
:24:50. > :24:54.a big ask for employers. What about reservists that go away for six
:24:54. > :24:58.months? We look at the whole range of options, we have a limited
:24:58. > :25:02.amount of resources but will look at how best to engage with
:25:02. > :25:05.employers. I'm confident large employers will step up to the
:25:05. > :25:10.challenge. The public sector will step up to the challenge. If there
:25:10. > :25:14.needs to be legislation, we will do that. You accept there can be a
:25:14. > :25:18.discrimination, an employer looks at a series of potential employees
:25:19. > :25:23.in front of her, and realise they might be without him or her for six
:25:23. > :25:27.months. Would there be legislation against discrimination? And an
:25:27. > :25:32.employer can't ask someone if they intend to get pregnant over the
:25:32. > :25:37.next five years, and maybe not asking about the reserves may be
:25:37. > :25:41.the way. If we were in two theatres like Afghanistan and Iraq together,
:25:41. > :25:47.that would be a big ask for this formation? That would be very
:25:47. > :25:51.challenging. We might be able to do it? Our expectation it is we would
:25:51. > :25:54.be working with allies, primarily NATO, but other allies as well.
:25:54. > :25:58.does change, and maybe for the better, maybe we shouldn't be
:25:58. > :26:03.saying, actually, we can go around being the world's policeman, maybe
:26:03. > :26:07.we should be saying we don't have the capability to go and help the
:26:07. > :26:10.Americans in Iraq, in a future theatre of war? It is not about
:26:10. > :26:15.helping the Americans, it is about being able to protect our national
:26:15. > :26:21.interest where it is placed at risk. As Mark just confirmed, we do have
:26:21. > :26:25.the world's fourth-largest defence budget, you wouldn't sometimes
:26:25. > :26:29.think it given what the British media says about our defence
:26:29. > :26:33.capablities. If we were faced with a position now, with the new formed
:26:33. > :26:36.army, a position of having to do Iraq and Afghanistan at the same
:26:36. > :26:41.time, you accept we couldn't do that? We would be really struggling
:26:41. > :26:46.to do Iraq and Afghanistan on a sustained basis. Tony Blair got us
:26:46. > :26:50.into a position where we were doing those two operations. But the the
:26:50. > :26:54.army was put into massive overstretch in consequence. It was
:26:54. > :26:58.underresourced. But they did it then? We are still paying the price
:26:58. > :27:02.today of the stress placed on the army during that period. Do you
:27:02. > :27:08.accept we are retreating from the world's stage? We are still one of
:27:08. > :27:14.the world's leading military powers. We have huge capabilities, hugely
:27:14. > :27:18.capable Armed Forces, working with our allies, we can project
:27:18. > :27:23.significant military effect to give muscle to our foreign policy.
:27:23. > :27:28.you know, when you look at the changing political balance in the
:27:28. > :27:31.world, you wondwhreer we should have a permanent seat -- wonder
:27:31. > :27:35.whether or not we should have a permanent seat at the security?
:27:35. > :27:39.think we should. We are one of the world's legitimate nuclear powers.
:27:39. > :27:44.We have a powerful nuclear deterrent, we have one of the most
:27:44. > :27:49.effective armed forces in the world. Well respected. We project
:27:49. > :27:56.significant amounts of soft power, our Armed Forces are not only in
:27:56. > :28:00.the business of Kennettic powered delivery, -- kenitic powered
:28:00. > :28:04.delivery, they do a lot of stablisation in Third World
:28:04. > :28:10.countries. It was said it was not as good in chance, our capability?
:28:10. > :28:14.France is in a position where it is on the brink of a fiscal consol
:28:14. > :28:17.itself. We are all waiting to see - - consolidation itself, we are all
:28:17. > :28:21.waiting to see what the French defence budget will look like, I
:28:21. > :28:27.wouldn't put bets on it tonight. Can I bring it back to the soldier
:28:27. > :28:32.in the battalion, you will have two tranches of redundancy in 2013, you
:28:32. > :28:36.hope there will be a lot of natural redundancies, people wanting to
:28:36. > :28:41.leave, there may not be, people doing compulsory redundancy. What
:28:41. > :28:44.do you say to a soldier, given so much training, and been perhaps in
:28:44. > :28:48.Afghanistan and Iraq, in various theatres, who comes back and
:28:48. > :28:52.realises that he has got no longer place in the army, which is his
:28:52. > :28:57.home, and actually not much of a likelihood of getting a job? First
:28:57. > :29:00.of all, nobody wants to make redundancies, we announce that the
:29:01. > :29:05.regular army would be smaller last year, we have already started a
:29:05. > :29:08.redundancy programme, and the army also has a programme to slow
:29:08. > :29:13.recruitment so that we minimise the level of redundancy required to get
:29:14. > :29:18.over the next few years to this smaller size. Where people do have
:29:18. > :29:22.to be made redundant, the army has a very effective package of support
:29:22. > :29:26.available to them, to prepare them for civilian life, and to help them
:29:26. > :29:32.find jobs. Actually, ex-service people are very much sought after
:29:32. > :29:38.by employers for very good reason. Unemployment rates have very high
:29:38. > :29:43.among ex-servicemen now? Unemployment rates are, sadly,
:29:43. > :29:47.higher than we would like across the country. But if you ask
:29:47. > :29:51.employers with people coming out of the services with the police
:29:51. > :29:58.Palestinian and -- discipline and education they have is suitable for
:29:58. > :30:03.employment. Employment for army personnel is significantly higher
:30:04. > :30:08.it is said? I would contest that. Listening to that is General Sir
:30:09. > :30:16.Mike Jackson, the professional head of the army in 2004, brought in
:30:16. > :30:26.significant reforms to its structure. A military head, and a
:30:26. > :30:32.corporal shot and blinded while serving with the Royal Battalion.
:30:32. > :30:36.My other guests also. In the big picture, how do you think this will
:30:36. > :30:41.affect, both the perception we have of ourselves, as a nation with
:30:41. > :30:46.great military capability, and the perception that other people have
:30:46. > :30:50.of us? We have always had tremendous self-image as a military
:30:50. > :30:54.nation. At the same time I would not be sad to see the cliches going
:30:54. > :30:58.about punching above our weight. I think we have to be very realistic
:30:58. > :31:04.about what we can do in the world, I don't think we should make any
:31:04. > :31:07.pretences about it. You heard it said there, that if faced with
:31:07. > :31:11.Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time, with this new formation, it
:31:11. > :31:16.would simply not be possible. Where does that place us? What does that
:31:16. > :31:21.say about us? In any case we have come out of Iraq and Afghanistan
:31:21. > :31:27.much more realistic about what we can. Do the and the Americans, our
:31:27. > :31:31.-- can do. And the Americans, our main allies, have done that too. We
:31:31. > :31:35.can do less than in the past. you think as a nation or series of
:31:35. > :31:39.nations, that is good for us to know and accept? It means we won't
:31:39. > :31:44.take on more than we can do. That is the real politic of this,
:31:44. > :31:47.that we won't be the force we once were in terms of being able to move
:31:47. > :31:56.in for sustained deployment? Well, I'm not sure that's quite right.
:31:56. > :32:01.First of all, it is for Governments to decide the size of the resource
:32:01. > :32:06.envelope in regards to defence. It is the army's job, and the sister
:32:06. > :32:13.services, to get the best military capability we can from the
:32:13. > :32:16.resources allocated. We also have to meet the requirements of the
:32:16. > :32:23.Strategic Defence and Security Review, which are quite specific. I
:32:23. > :32:29.won't bother you with technicalties. But just on two operations, one
:32:29. > :32:36.enduring, and one "one-off" six month, is within that envelope. I
:32:36. > :32:40.think what the army has actually come up with is a very innovative,
:32:40. > :32:45.and interesting solution to what happens when we stop campaigning,
:32:45. > :32:51.which we are told we will do by the end of 2014. In an uncertain world
:32:51. > :32:54.what will the army be asked to do next? We don't know. So a balanced
:32:54. > :32:59.and flexible course is the very sensible answer. From the soldier's
:32:59. > :33:02.point of view, you are a former corporal, Simon, what is morale
:33:02. > :33:06.like, we have heard about unemployment. What is morale like
:33:06. > :33:09.amongst serving soldiers? There is a lot of uncertainty now. Back in
:33:09. > :33:12.camp people are not sure what is going on, so that they wrap
:33:12. > :33:18.themselves up in work. The professionalism of the guys and
:33:18. > :33:24.girls on the ground, means they just carry on following their oath.
:33:24. > :33:28.There has to be some effects out on the ground with the guys. The
:33:28. > :33:31.professionalism means they will carry on doing the job they have to
:33:31. > :33:36.do. Everybody would be concerned about going to work and coming back
:33:36. > :33:40.not sure of a job when they finish. That day out there is six months on.
:33:40. > :33:44.You have no idea how long you have to prepare. I know there is things
:33:44. > :33:49.put in line, they don't have access to the media and information. They
:33:49. > :33:53.are hearing bits and pieces t will just scare the guys. When you came
:33:53. > :33:57.out you were severely wounded, you lost all but 15% of your sight.
:33:57. > :34:01.What was like for you to come out, and adapting to the natural world,
:34:01. > :34:06.and all these soldiers feeling the need to take voluntary redundancy
:34:06. > :34:11.or be faced with compulsory redundancy? It is frightening,
:34:11. > :34:16.especially with the those with disabilities. There are many who
:34:16. > :34:20.have done action on the frontline and they have things to deal with
:34:20. > :34:26.mentally. For me it scared me, all of a sudden, not only have a lost
:34:26. > :34:30.my job, but my career, a family that have been there. Even the
:34:30. > :34:34.thing of hand anything my ID card, I have been told to treasure and
:34:34. > :34:37.nuture that, and all of a sudden having to give it back like it
:34:37. > :34:40.meant nothing to me. All these things of adapting back into
:34:40. > :34:47.civilian life, it is terrifying. When you look at housing and stuff
:34:47. > :34:50.as well, it is hard. How do you think we will have to change the
:34:50. > :34:53.feeling of what we can actually do in the world. You were talking
:34:53. > :34:58.about the closure of punching above our weight. Will we see a
:34:58. > :35:03.difference in foreign policy? army has to pond respond to the
:35:03. > :35:06.foreign policy de-- respond to the foreign policy desessions, and
:35:07. > :35:09.having to take into account the relative restrictions there. We
:35:09. > :35:13.will still be part of a NATO alliance and operating with allies
:35:13. > :35:18.as we have had to do for a very, very long time. What do you think
:35:18. > :35:23.about the idea that the ple de employment of reservists -- the
:35:23. > :35:26.deployment of reservists will become much more important in
:35:26. > :35:29.sustained operations? They have been used in other countries in
:35:29. > :35:33.greater proportions than by the British army. We have to get used
:35:33. > :35:38.to the idea, it is a question of adapting the systems to it. Do you
:35:38. > :35:43.think in this country employers are ready for that kind of upping twice
:35:43. > :35:46.from 50 to 30,000? As the Defence Secretary has said t I think it is
:35:46. > :35:51.incredible. It is really very hard to see how it is going to work. Not
:35:51. > :35:55.only are employers going to hate it, particularly small ones, but
:35:55. > :36:01.employees in this tough environment, going out, trying to get a job.
:36:01. > :36:07.They have no incentive, not only to be part of the reservists but
:36:07. > :36:12.joining it. The idea of being a reservist, the idea of always being
:36:12. > :36:17.in the reservists or the TA, but if you are mopping-up operations and
:36:17. > :36:22.facing the matter of the legislation and the employer, do
:36:22. > :36:25.you think people will be so keen? It is a challenge, let's give
:36:25. > :36:30.credit where it is already due, for the numerous, now, interventions,
:36:30. > :36:36.which have taken place since the end of the Cold War. At any one
:36:36. > :36:42.time, somewhere around 10% of the deployed force have been reservists.
:36:42. > :36:49.This is not a new thing, we are all, to some extent, down the road. We
:36:49. > :36:53.are asking them to up the game. tradition has been of the effective
:36:53. > :36:58.soldier. I wonder how you feel about the idea that more reservists
:36:58. > :37:01.have to step up to the plate? have massive respect for reservist,
:37:01. > :37:05.I served with them on the frontline. We have relied on them for many
:37:05. > :37:14.years now tauls the case, regardless of legislation and law,
:37:14. > :37:19.tuls it is always a thing you know reservists - it is always a thing
:37:19. > :37:22.you know reservists can say no and the employer can say no. The
:37:22. > :37:27.professionalism means they will keep going and pushing until they
:37:27. > :37:35.break, but the reservists might crack. What about that, they keep
:37:35. > :37:38.going until they snap? Two aspects. There is the whole employment
:37:38. > :37:43.dimension, civilian employment dimension, I'm pretty confident
:37:43. > :37:47.that the law will have to change to give better protection to the
:37:47. > :37:56.reservists and in civilian employment. However, you can't
:37:57. > :38:00.produce a law which keeps families happy. There is that family
:38:00. > :38:07.dimension as well. Which is going to be, I think, requiring a culture
:38:07. > :38:10.change as much as a legal one. the beginning we were talking about
:38:10. > :38:14.others' perception of us in the world. And Philip Hammond saying
:38:14. > :38:18.there is no reason why Britain wouldn't retain a place in the
:38:18. > :38:21.Security Council. But, do you think in the long-term, as things change,
:38:22. > :38:25.that isn't necessarily a given. That we will have to see ourselves
:38:25. > :38:30.differently in the world and other people will see that too? Holding
:38:30. > :38:34.on to Trident is the key to holding on to the seat at the Security
:38:34. > :38:38.Council. Whether we can afford Trident is a different matter.
:38:38. > :38:42.Should those resources be deployed within the Armed Forces themselves.
:38:42. > :38:47.I have to come in, we can afford Trident, the question is whether we
:38:47. > :38:53.choose to. Should we choose to afford Trident? I'm dubious, but I
:38:53. > :38:58.know I'm going to be overruled here. Outranked. But if the holding of a
:38:58. > :39:02.nuke clear weapon gets your place in the permanent seat on the
:39:02. > :39:06.Security Council, in future years many other countries will want the
:39:06. > :39:09.place on the Security Council by the same token? That is certainly
:39:09. > :39:15.true. The whole question of the Security Council is bound to come
:39:15. > :39:21.under change. Europe obviously is demanding a seat for the Europeans.
:39:21. > :39:26.We may be in retreat from that? The council is not going to look
:39:26. > :39:32.the way it does now, probably in 0 years time. But any way it will be
:39:32. > :39:39.interesting to see how soon this is tested. The testing of it, we are
:39:39. > :39:43.talking about lots of change. Many things have to be put in place to
:39:43. > :39:48.make this work. You are talking about redundancies, but also in the
:39:48. > :39:52.year after talking about doubling the reservists in a quick time?
:39:52. > :39:55.During a period of some turbulence, we have the whole question of
:39:55. > :39:58.international intervention in Syria and America clearly doesn't want to
:39:58. > :40:02.get in. South Eastern Europe in a very unsettled state, America
:40:02. > :40:06.doesn't want to touch it, telling Europeans, including Britain, you
:40:06. > :40:11.sort it out if there is any trouble. We may have to answer these things
:40:11. > :40:14.fast. Do you think, when you look at what moit happen in the next
:40:14. > :40:18.four or five -- might happen in the next four or five years, that we
:40:18. > :40:24.might be called on? Syria is a live question and south Eastern Europe,
:40:24. > :40:28.isn't at the moment, but could be. Or Europe's borders, the Balkans
:40:28. > :40:32.and that. Somewhere like Syria, where the deployment would be very
:40:32. > :40:39.difficult and could be protracted, that might be something that we
:40:39. > :40:44.maybe shy away from? I think we should certainly steer clear of
:40:44. > :40:49.sirbia in all circumstances. It is -- Syria in all circumstances. It
:40:50. > :40:53.is an American-led push. What would it say about us if we decided not
:40:53. > :41:00.to follow the Americans' lead if there was a confrontation in Syria.
:41:00. > :41:03.What would that say about us? think it would leave us in a lesser
:41:04. > :41:08.place than so far we have been. Some may argue. That is just as
:41:08. > :41:15.well. -- some may argue that is just as
:41:15. > :41:21.well. That is bringing reality into play. On the other hand, I'm not of
:41:21. > :41:28.that view. We are not alone in this global world, and stability of this
:41:28. > :41:31.world is part of our strategic interest. We still have the
:41:31. > :41:36.capability to influence what goes on outside. It is for Governments
:41:36. > :41:41.to decide this, but they need to keep the tools there, in my view.
:41:41. > :41:45.If we don't go and help in Syria is called upon what will happen next?
:41:45. > :41:49.We will look smaller, but even ten years ago we could do less than we
:41:49. > :41:54.took on. Britain took on some pretty big things in the south of
:41:54. > :41:56.Iraq, Helmand, the responsibility for drugs in Afghanistan. Arguably
:41:56. > :42:00.they were bigger responsibilities than we should have taken on,
:42:00. > :42:04.because we didn't have the capability ten years ago to do that.
:42:04. > :42:11.What would you feel like ifp you were still on the force and -- if
:42:11. > :42:15.you were still on the force and you didn't go. There is a various ethos
:42:15. > :42:20.about it, Kosovo and all sorts of places, if which don't go? We are
:42:20. > :42:24.still in a lot of places where we don't know and people forget about
:42:24. > :42:29.deployments. We don't think about that, we do as wl we are told, we
:42:29. > :42:36.take an oath and we follow it. As the general said, the Government
:42:36. > :42:42.make a decision and we go there. There would be some grumbling if we
:42:42. > :42:47.didn't go, being bad-mouthed in NATO and not pulling our weight.
:42:47. > :42:51.Grumbling goes on in the army, it is fact of life. Although we don't
:42:51. > :42:55.want the commitment wrecks don't want other people to think we are
:42:55. > :42:59.not pulling our weight. We don't want to be seen pulling our weight,
:42:59. > :43:02.but areas like Syria may be problematic for us? They could be,
:43:02. > :43:07.and we don't want to be in a position, because of lack of back-
:43:07. > :43:11.up and resources, that we daren't perform as well as we should be.
:43:11. > :43:15.you think what we are doing as a nation is providing the back-up,
:43:15. > :43:20.the Special Forces, the intelligence, it is short-term
:43:20. > :43:25.operations. The strategic decision would be not to go anywhere, we
:43:25. > :43:30.won't have to stay very long? will be no doubt in any Government
:43:30. > :43:33.in whatever hue of the United Kingdom, when confronted with the
:43:33. > :43:39.decision of to commit or not to comi. Our Special Forces are world
:43:39. > :43:43.class, no two ways about that. We are very good at training others.
:43:43. > :43:50.There are training teams all over the place. They have a stablising
:43:50. > :44:00.effect, and do, to some extent, reduce the risk of a conflict.
:44:00. > :44:00.
:44:00. > :44:43.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds
:44:43. > :44:48.Thank you all very much indeed. That's all from Newsnight tonight.
:44:48. > :44:51.The tallest building in Europe had its official opening today, the
:44:51. > :45:00.Shard, standing in the South Bank of the Thames, reaches over 1,000
:45:00. > :45:10.feet into the sky. The Mayor of London, told French TV that the
:45:10. > :45:37.
:45:37. > :45:41.Britains were experiencing shieden More severe weather is heading
:45:41. > :45:44.across the UK, by the end of the night heavy rain will arrive across
:45:44. > :45:48.eastern counties of England. It spreads across England, northern
:45:48. > :45:52.England, into much of Wales. Torrential rain persistent. A real
:45:52. > :45:55.risk of flooding during the course of Friday. There are a number of
:45:55. > :46:01.warnings in force. We have an amber warning across parts of the UK. A
:46:01. > :46:06.threat of flooding, especially across parts of the Midlands and
:46:06. > :46:10.Wales. In the far south most places having a reasonable day, dry and
:46:10. > :46:15.bright with sunny spells. In Wales there will be rain. North Wales in
:46:15. > :46:18.particular having heavy and persistent downpours, the threat of
:46:18. > :46:21.further problems. Flooding across parts of Northern Ireland, from
:46:21. > :46:25.intense showers. In the far south there could be more rain, elsewhere
:46:25. > :46:28.on Friday it is looking general low dry and bright. As it is across the
:46:28. > :46:34.North West of Scotland. And generally fine further south for
:46:34. > :46:36.Scotland at this stage. But there is more rain to come. And
:46:37. > :46:40.particularly across central and eastern parts of Scotland. Another
:46:41. > :46:46.cause for concern. We continue with the risk of flooding through the
:46:46. > :46:50.weekend. On Saturday it looks across northern England and central