10/10/2012 Newsnight

David Cameron, posh, and proud. They call us the party of the

better off, no, we're the party of the want to be better off, those

who strive to make a better life for themselves. We should never be

ashamed of saying so. We will get the verdict on the speech from the

Culture Secretary, Maria Miller. What did our political panel make

of it. Defining. Conservative. Clever. Let's hope they are nor

expansive for the ten-minute discussion.

What is offensive and criminally offensive on Twitter. We try to

offend the man who has to decide I was to say you made up your

qualifications and do unspeakable things to farm animals. Abort, I

bort, the creation of the world's biggest defence company is aborted

at the last minute. Has Lance Armstrong run out of road finally,

a 1,000-page doping dossier has just been made public tonight.

It may not be what you want to hear as you prepare for bed, perhaps you

are already half asleep, but the Prime Minister wants you to rise.

He believes you can rise. Your friends and neighbours can rise,

Britain can rise. At the end of the speech, conference rose, will his

party's poll ratings do the same? Allegra watched it all, what are

your thoughts? It was supposed to be an inconsequential conference

season, in the doldrum, then we had two chunky good speeches, nothing

short of the reinvigoration of the moment of the political speech.

Before we journalists would go into a hall and have it all written out

in front of us, and not having to listen. Both the Miliband and

Cameron speeches were great in their own ways. The Miliband

victory was a style and voice thing, comparing apples and pears to see

the two side-by-side. The Cameron one is style too, the voice is good,

but also an argument. Both very interesting political moments. And

they have set, they are in response to each other as well. They are

quite, it is dynamic political moments, I'm afraid poor old Nick

Clegg not involved in it. Parliament comes back next week,

and both have them have questions to answer, Ed Miliband has big

questions to answer about the deficit, which he didn't mention in

the speech. I don't think he needed to, I think the speech was meant to

be about the voice. It wasn't meant to be a step-by-step, what I would

do in Government. Now the real work begins. David Cameron has questions

on lots of things, including Europe, it will be a terrible autumn for

him. But today, he impressed too. 60 minutes is not a long time in

parliament, especially when you have had years getting used to one

man. This autumn two politicians used their hour to great effect.

Last week, two years in, Ed Miliband introduced himself. This

week, seven years from his debut, the Prime Minister reintroduced

himself. White van man, Essex man, strivers not skivers, these are the

targets. He is showing today that he has exactly the same ethics of

these targets. Last week Ed Miliband claimed the idea of one-

nation, the Prime Minister today will claim it back. He came

straight out of the blocks with the reminder that he is the one in

charge. As Prime Minister it has fallen to me to say some hard

things, and help our country face some hard truths. All of my adult

life, whatever the difficulties, the British people have at least

been confident about one thing, we have thought we can pay our way.

That we can earn our living as a major industrial country, and we

will always remain one. It has fallen to us to say that we cannot

assume that any longer. Unless we act, unless we take difficult,

painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination,

Britain may not be, in the future, what it has been in the past.

political, patriotic and personal were interwoven throughout. Do you

know something, I'm so grateful for what those paralympians did. When I

used to push my son, Ivan, around in his wheelchair, I used to think

that too many people saw the wheelchair and not the boy. I think

today more people would see the boy and not the wheelchair, that is

because of what happened in Britain this summer.

APPLAUSE But while Ed Miliband's speech

could be described as him finding his feet. The Prime Minister's saw

David Cameron getting up on his toes. He set out an agenda, many in

his own cabinet, have craved him to set out before they came to

Government. We have been set by a woman when women was sidelined, and

a Jew when Jews were persecute, we don't look at the label on the tin,

we look at what is in it. Let me put it another way, we don't preach

about one-nation and get behind class law, we just get behind

people who want to get on in life. APPLAUSE.

While the other intellectuals of other parties might sneer at people

who want to get on in life, we, here, salute you, they call us the

party of the better-off, no, we are the party of the want-to-be-better-

off, those who strive to make a better life for themselves, we

should never be ashamed of saying The classic tenants of a ring-

fenced NHS, gay marriage and other things was emphasised in the speech.

But also crime, welfare, to the delight of many Conservatives who

wondered why the party compromised by reaching out to the south, and

forget the centre. The reason we want to reform schools, to cut

welfare dependency and reduce spending, is not because we are the

same old Tories who want to help the rich, it is because we are the

Tories whose ideas help everyone, the poorest the most. A strong

private sector, welfare that works, schools that teach, and, do you

know what, Labour will fight each and every one of them, every step

of the way. So these things, these three things are not just the

battleground for Britain's future, they are also the battlelines for

the next election. It is a fight we have got to win for our party, for

our country, but, above all, for our nation's future.

APPLAUSE. And the Prime Minister even dared

to fire an Eton rifle. I want more free schools, more academies, more

rigorous exams, more expect of every child in every school d more

expected of every child in every school. For those who say he wants

children to have the kind of education he had at his posh school.

Do you know what I say, I say you're absolutely right, I went to

great school, I want every child to have that sort of education. He did

not deny his stories of privilege, but he deployed them instead.

dad of the eternal optimist, to him the glass was always half full,

usually with something fairly alcoholic in it. And he told me

what he was most proud of. And it was simple, it was working hard

from the moment he left school, and providing a God start in life for

his family. -- a good start in life for his family. Not just all of us,

but helping his mum too when his father ran off. Not a hard luck

story, but a hard work story. For the first time this year David

Cameron's speech was written by a woman, who in her spare time, is

also a poet, you could tell. It was a good speech, well delivered and

well written. The difference between the Ed Miliband speech and

David Cameron's speech was quite stark, though, David Cameron stood

firmly behind his lectern, he thumped it very many times, this is

a man who is making the point that he's rooted in Government and the

act of governing. Today saw the second half of what would hack

2012's tale of two speeches. Ed Miliband raised had his game,

nudging up David Cameron's. Politics has been in a lob-sided

period, with one side more than another. Today politics got a bit

more life in it. Maria Miller is the Secretary of

State for Culture, Media and Sport, also the Minister for Women and

Equalities. Was this the speech where David Cameron came out as

posh? I think it was a powerful speech, because it powerfully set

out the real problems our country faces. But it also set out the plan

we are following to deal with those problems. The welfare reform,

education, and importantly, tied that back to the main theme of the

speech, which was all about how we can help the poorest in society to

get that opportunity to get on. all that unashamed stuff about his

own privileged background, hook to his message that he want to make

more people privileged. It was quiteen ashamed? I think it was

about how David Cameron the man is drawing on his expowerences, to say

that we need to have that -- experiences, to say we need to have

that opportunity available for more people in this country. Opportunity

is the reason I became a Conservative. It is not a new

principle, but today it was really clearly articulated, particularly

in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, and also the reform of

education. He did talk about the Conservative Party being for all,

north and south, black and white, gay or straight, but he didn't talk

specifically, really, about gay marriage, and given the reception

you got, you can't really blame him. Half the hall sat, according to the

Press Association, older party members sat stoney-faced and arms

crossed, what was that like? We are clear as party we are absolutely

committed to the idea of equal civil marriage. What is it like

looking out to your own party looking at the older members

sitting there cross armed? Sometimes we have to take tough

decisions, either on the economy or things like equal civil marriage.

For me marriage is a bedrock to society, a way to create stability.

Simply because you are gay, does not mean you shouldn't have access

to getting married. It is an important concept and something

that should be open to everybody. We really need to make sure we look

outside to the country as a whole. That is what I'm asking you about,

it is all very well for David Cameron to say, north or south, gay

or straight, but what should outsiders make of the reception to

your remarks in the hall. Which bit of the Conservative Party should

they listen to, you? I heard a very positive reception in the hall.

Some younger people cheered and whooped, don't get me wrong, there

was a substantial rump who were very unhappy about it. Who should

we listen to? What you should listen to are the very positive

arguments around civil marriage. And ignore everyone else?

importance of stability in society. I think that is something that

unites people of all ages, and all opinions. What we have to do is

make sure that people are really confident that they can embrace the

idea of civil marriage and stay true to their beliefs. I find the

main area of concern in civil marriage is the impact it will have

on the church. The thing that I have been doing over conference,

and over the last few weeks, is to make sure it is clear that it is

not the Government's intention to impact the way any churches do

marriage. David Cameron wants to attract women to the party and

voters, has that been made more difficult by a Health Secretary who

is male and has the private view that 12 weeks should be the

abortion limit? I think what women voters in this country are looking

at is a party that is going to tackle the really difficult

position that many families find themselves. A party and Government

that will be able to really understand the importance of the

rising cost of living. Hold on, are you just not going to talk about

abortion? What I'm answering is what women really in this country

are interested in. They don't care about the abortion limit? First and

foremost they are interested in making sure they have a Government

in place that understands the economy, understands how we get the

deficit down and keep cost of living under control. Those are the

key issues that women in this country are looking for. I think as

a Government lifting two million people, on the lowest wage, out of

the tax bracket all together, many of them women, we're demonstrating

that we really understand the importance of getting the country's

finances in order. In your role as Culture Secretary, I want to ask

you about Jimmy Savile, prior to all the allegations, we now know

about, what was your view. You probably grew up with him as all of

us did, what was your view before this of Jimmy Savile? I think he

was a larger than life character that many of us in different

television programmes throughout our lives. What do you think now?

think we now should think of the people affected by what clearly has

been an enormously difficult situation. Allegations around abuse.

My heart goes out to all of those people affected and their families,

and I'm really wanting to see and make sure there is a thorough and

swift criminal investigation. That is what we should be focusing on.

The chairman of the BBC Trust spoke out today, Lord Patten, what do you

think about all of this? Lord Patten is right to say if there is

a need to do more after the criminal investigation, then the

BBC needs to ask the questions. There is serious allegations, not

only about the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, but also about the

institutional problems around the way women have been treated in the

work place, those are serious issues for any organisation.

Well, they have already given their one-word response to the Prime

Minister's speech, right at the start of the programme, let's hear

more from Danny Finkelstein, Sally Morgan, latterly righthand women to

Tony Blair, and the journalist, Miranda Green, previously an

adviser to Paddy Ashdown. You wrote in the Times today that in

preparing for his speech, David Cameron should get a colon os copy.

I don't want to go into too much about that, but the way they affect

people about pain is the end, if the end is easier people don't mind

the duration. I was suggesting that David Cameron has to think about

how he want to fight the next general election, and think about

how he wants to land in the last year, and not think so much about

how he is fighting the election, how he's going to deal with the

problems now. In other words, he has to have good, forward planning,

that was the argument. On the basis of what you saw, did he take your

advice? I used the word "defining", because what I felt about that

speech is he set out what he regarded the key issues in power.

If someone gets up for 45 minutes and says things you agree with, you

will like t and if you don't agree with it you won't like it, it won't

persuade you. Swing voters won't have seen it so it won't change

public opinion. I think he made a good effort at defining what his

Premiership is about. What the key priorities for the Government is.

That is successful if you can do that in a speech. He hasn't always

been successful in doing that in party conference speeches,

sometimes they have been too long or defuse. This one was

concentrated and hit the mark. Miranda Green, he managed to keep

the duration down by not mentioning the Liberal Democrats at all?

think that was probably quite a good thing. Because it was a very,

very Tory speech for a Tory audience. I thought what was

interesting about the whole conference season, is how navel

gazing each party has been. Each leader, at bay, has had to defend

himself from attack. David Cameron did do very well today, he was

addressing Conservatives. And as Danny said, people in sympathy with

that view of the world will have thought it was an excellent speech.

I thought it was a very good speech, as a political speech. He did what

he had to do. I have a feeling that his Liberal Democrat colleagues and

their supporters will not be warming to those messages in the

same way that Danny has. Sally Morgan, some useful sideswipes at

Ed Miliband's one-nation, and all that talk of privilege and being

proud of it, and wanting to spread that? I thought what was

interesting is he did feel he had to react to Ed's speech last week.

In a sense, that was speaking for itself. That Ed had been daring,

and had grabbed the centre. So David Cameron had to push, or

attempt to push Ed back to the left, which was what he was trying to do

in the speech today. For me the stuff about privilege didn't work

so well. The notion that some how you will spread privilege is a very

odd concept. Privilege is always for the few. The idea that a few

more will get a bit of privilege doesn't quite work. It not an

argument for the many, it is still an argument for the few. I could

see what he was trying to do, but for me it wasn't effective.

wonder how different the speech would have been if Ed Miliband had

done something different last week, how much of it was a response?

don't think it was terribly a response to Ed Miliband. I think he

obviously, each leader will respond to what happened before, but really,

what David Cameron needed to do was, he did need to give a good

performance, in that sense it was a response. It did put pressure on

him to make it was -- make sure it was a good speech. I'm sure that

made it better. He's a great emergency merchant, if he's under

pressure he will do something much better than otherwise. This was

that. That was a response to Ed Miliband. Politically I think he

was trying to do something else. I think he was trying to resolve. One

of the things that wasn't in the speech, for example, was a lot of

the stuff about an invitation to join the Government, and to run

your own school. It was much more about the quality of schools, and

quality of health, and welfare reform, which lots of people in the

centre do support. That, last year, both that message, and the

invitation to form a Government, were both in the speech. I think

he's resolved that strategic confusion. I think, correctly,

because I think that is a very effective electoral message. I also

thought it was a very good response to Ed Miliband, to use that list of

Conservative prime ministers, who are outsiders. I actually thought

that was very impressive as a moment, whatever your politics, you

have to give the Conservative Party credit for the people that they

have put in Number Ten, who are not of their own ilk. So I think, in

that sort of theme of aspiration, we want everyone to get on, that

was very clever as a response to Ed Miliband's cheeky Disraeli stuff

last week. He was reclaiming that. He was reclaiming that

compassionate Conservative. reason why it couldn't be much of a

response for Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband was trying to say I'm

better than you think I am, he succeed in doing that to the

Westminster loby, outside people are less watching. And nothing

David Cameron can do could take that away. He had been to be good

himself. Which I think he was. about Sally Morgan, reaching out to

the non-committed voter, will this speech and the reporting of it,

will it endear him in way and bring back disenchanted Tories? I think

really, above all, it was talking to the hall, but I think he was

also trying to look a little bit to the Thatcherite voters. They were

the people, it seemed to me, he was trying to aim towards. And I think,

it will have an effect in the kind of M25 belt. That was the group he

was after, I think. It would do if they heard it. The really important

thing about party conference speeches is people aren't watching.

I said this about Ed Miliband, it would be remisnot to repeat the

point when it is David Cameron, people aren't watching, so they

didn't see it. They will have watched one or two little clips. It

might marginally effect what they think. They are not following it

carefully. The key thing with the speeches, with one-nation and this

speech, and the strategy for the Liberal Democrats, it is

consistency. You see John Major, the opportunity for all in 1996,

and never spoke about it again. Tony Blair did that battle, there

are two kinds of or forces of Conservatism, and never talked

about it again. The key thing is will Ed Miliband turn one-nation

into a proper concept and idea, I dove my doubts, we will see. Can

dam -- I do have my doubts, we will see. Can David Cameron turn his

Britain can sink or swim into idea. What about the personal back

stories politicians insist on telling us time and time again in

speeches, do do you find it endearing or are you reaching for

the sick bag? When David Cameron talks about his son, it is

difficult not to be move. It was a difficult moment to hear his voice

break. I agree with the implication of your question. It all gets a bit

emotionally exhausting, and sometimes. It must work, they must

do it because they think it works? I was grateful when he moved on to

I'm the managing director and here is my agenda for the company. That

was more comfortable to listen to. The bit about his dad was defensive

as well, saying I did have a comfy background, but not as campy as you

think. For me that didn't -- comfy as you think. For me that didn't

work as well. Both have an atypical background, Ed Miliband knows the

people from the primrose hill and Hampstead Heath, it is my

background, so I'm not knocking it, he's the son of a professor, as I

am, and David Cameron. Labour distinguish between Harriet

Harman's St Paul's school for girls and a different school for boys is

likely to disappoint much. There are a billion people on Facebook,

there are more than a quarter of a billion tweets on Twitter every day,

how do you police that. Should you even bother. People are being fined

and jailed for comments they have made on-line. And now, the most

senior prosecutor in England and Wales, is trying to draw up

guidelines, he hopes, will work. You will hear from him, after we

reveal a big rise in the number of complaints that police have been

asked to investigate. Two court cases this week, two ways in which

the Internet is now challenging the British legal system. Azhar Ahmed

from Dewsbury was given a community sentence for posting angry comments

about the death of British soldiers on Facebook. A day earlier Matthew

Wood went to jail for off-colour jokes about the missing schoolgirl,

April Jones. The comments, both made on-line, were unpleasant to

most people, but should they also be illegal? Two years ago Paul

Chambers, became one of the first people to be found guilty of send

ago threatening message on another social network site, this time

Twitter. He said he would blow his local airport sky high if it didn't

reopen after heavy snowfall. His conviction was eventually

overturned, when the judge agreed it was just a bad joke. Two cases

this week show nothing has been learned at all. After my own

verdict was given in the High Court after my appeal was juped held, and

after the DPP said -- upheld, and after the DPP said guidance would

be given to prosecutor, it looked as if steps would be taken and

common sense applied. Now we have the Azhar Ahmed case, with guilty

verdicts found and ridiculous sentences given, we are going

backwards, if anything. Many of the high-profile cases, brought to

trial so far, use a little known part of the law, Section 127 of the

communications act, makes it an offence to post menacing or

offensive material on-line of they want it to be properly

American, they want a nerdy kid to come in with the rifle. While a

comedian can make an offensive joke on the stage or in the pub, exactly

the same material on-line, could, in theory, get somebody arrested.

We think the reason that is happening, is the law that is being

used, the scratch communications Act 2003, was not created for the

purpose. Back in 2003 when the law was being drafted, nobody had any

idea that YouTube, Facebook or Twitter would be such a part of

people's lives. It seems we are really clamping down on free speech,

just at a time when so many people have more access to communications

and debates an arguments than ever before. This is not just about

public figures, and it is not just about jokes, police are now seeing

a real increase in the number of general cases they are asked to

investigate, after threatening messages are posted on the Internet.

Newsnight asked every force for harassment cases involving Facebook

While some of those cases will be serious, police officers we have

spoken to think they are now being dragged into too many petty rows.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is now holding talks with lawyers,

academics and the police to draw up new guidelines for the courts. It's

likely websites themselves will be told to improve the way they take

down offensive comments, and ban repeat offender. Though Facebook

and Twitter may be reluctant to go too far and really start to

moderate and sensor content them -- censor content themselves. This is

Myjam, one of the founders says it is not practical for a small site

to keep an eye on everything that is said on-line. We are not in a

position where we want to survey our users, there is no way with a

team of four people we could monitor the hundreds of thousand of

post that is go up each week. Ultimately we wouldn't want. To it

is not our job to police individual comment. What we are here to do is

impose some, to suggest some community guidelines, and have the

community discuss that between themselves. The worry for many in

the Internet community is that any new guidelines, if they are too

prescriptive, could put sites like this out of business. Get this

wrong, they say, and it could be make it harder, not easier, to work

out where the limits are in the on- line world.

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecution, he has been consulting

with lawyers and police trying to find a sensible set of guidelines.

When I spoke to him earlier, he said he was worried about the

chilling effect on free speech. I asked him what he has learned so

far on dealing with offensive messages. One of the difficulties

here is the law prohibits grossly offensive messages, we have to work

within the law as it is. It occurs to me that amongst the man million

communications that go on -- the many million communecations that go

on daily, quite a number would fall into that category. We have to see

how the Crown Prosecution Service can act as some sort of filter or

gate-keeper. The emerging thinking in the Round Table is it might be

sensible to divide and separate cases where there is a campaign of

harassment, and social media is being used as the means of

harassment, and cases where the -- where there is a credible and

genuine threat, put them on one side and prosecute in those sort of

case. To put in another category, communications which are, as it

were, merely offensive or grossly offensive, it doesn't mean the

second category are ring-fenced from prosecution, it does enable us

to look at that group in a slightly different way. How high on the

second subset, how high must the bar be? We have heard of people

going to jail for saying unpleasant thing about missing children, other

people have been fined and given community service for saying

unpleasant thing about dead British soldiers. In your view, in future,

is that the sort of thing that should be criminally investigated?

The threshold for prosecution has to be high. Higher than I have just

described? We live in a democracy, if free speech to be protect, there

has to be a high threshold, people have the right to be offensive,

they have the right to be insulting, that has to be protected. That is

pretty clear? Context is everything. I think the difficult cases so far

have involved comments that have been made in a situation which is

highly charged or emotional, and judgment calls have to be made

about the particular context. But this is not easy. If this was easy

we wouldn't be having this debate. These are particularly difficult

judgment calls. What I want to achieve is consistency, and a fair

balance in these cases. But in future, for example, Matthew Wood,

who was jailed for making comments when he did, about the missing girl,

April Jones, does that cross the bar? In that case, as you know,

pleaded guilty. The court sentenced him in the way they did. There are

clearly strong views on eithered side here. Some say that is an

infringement of free speech. What do you say? On the other hand the

courts have taken it seriously. If one looks at what was actually said,

and asks the question was it grossly offensive, the answer is,

yes, it was. There were some particularly offensive comments

made. What I want to achieve in the guidelines is, a sense of which of

even the grossly offensive case require a criminal prosecution.

sounds like you would like to see far fewer prosecution? I think if

there are a lot of prosecutions it will have a chilling effect on free

speech. I think that is very important as a consideration.

will police it? Facebook and Twitter, will they have to take on

thousands of extra staff, or will it be left to users, as it is at

the moment, to police? One the participants in the Round Table of

the policy director of Facebook, I'm trying to set up meetings with

the service providers, really to say to them, you have a

responsibility here. In many of these cases the appropriate

response may be for you to take this material down, swiftly, and

that may reduce the requirements for a criminal prosduegs.

Facebook and Twitter and social media going to be treated

differently. Will it be easier to be offensive on them, still, than

it is to be on television, radio and newspapers? No, I think the

things about radio and television is there is a degree of testing. On

media sites people can move swiftly from communicating to a few people

to broadcasting to millions. They are all integrated aren't they?

but the offence covers all those types of communications, that is

where the problem lies. Yes, but if I were to lie about you on

television, if I was to sit here and say you made up all your

qualifications and you do unspeakable things to farm animals,

the BBC, Ofcom, who knows, they will come down on me like a tonne

of brick. If I stweeted that about you, from -- tweeted that, from

what you are telling me, you would just have to accept that? I could

appeal to the regulator, and there may absence of some sort of

regulating in this area that is unregulated. At the moment we have

an overarching criminal offence that applies to all those

communications. That is part of the problem. If a criminal response is

the only available response, then there might be the temptation to

resort too quickly to that response. In other fields or other areas, the

appropriate route might be by way of complaint or some other remedy.

What do you get if you merge the letters BAe and EADS? SEBED or

DEBASE. When it comes to trying to merge the companies of the same

name, you get a big recrimination- filled mess. Why does it matter?

Whatever your views on the subject, Britain is still pretty good at

make weapons much they have a number of specialist industries.

The jobs -- weapons. They have a number of specialist industries,

the jobs are good and they export the stuff. BAe is, head and

shoulders, the best weapons manufacturers in Britain and Europe.

It employs 35,000 people, indirectly 120,000 people. Who it

merges with actually matters, because the technology then can

either be exported and won and lost. It was due to merge with EADS, that

died, of course, today, EADS owns Airbus, they would have formed a

giant civil and military aviation giant. But now it is not happening.

What went wrong? Well, to misquote Harold Macmillan, "politics my dear

boy, politics", the French the Germans and the Brits all had

strong views about where the HQ was to be based and where it was not to

be base. In the event of factories having to close in the future, they

all adapted political nimbyism, the Germans said they wouldn't lose any

factories, and so did the French. The Germans were worried the civil

bit would be in Toulouse, and then the military bit in Farnborough,

they wouldn't accept it. The shareholders were livid. The major

shareholder from BAe said they wanted to launch a missile at the

merger and they hit their target. What will happen to BAe? To quote

the City they are "in play". If you look at the share price over the

last few years you will see why. It is an amazing graph. It is a

downward curve, the reason for that is they are dependant on defence

spending, mostly in the US and the UK. 70% of the business is in the

US and UK. The curve is going down because defence budgets are

squeezed post financial crycy. They need to find way to -- crisis. They

need to find a way to perk the curve up. I spoke to a senior

person in the industry, he talked about a plan floated a year ago,

poo pooed at the time, but may come back. BAe systems hives off its

American business, with the �10 billion they get, they pay off

their pensions deficit, which is �5 billion, they focus on emerging

markets, Asia, and Africa. The final question is what happens to

the boss, why did they press ahead with the deal, when they didn't

have the support of the shareholder, lukewarm response from the

Governments, and factory workers are more nervous than before. Tom

Enders and Ian King may have their feet tailed to the fire in the next

AGM. Let's hear now BR from the Liberal Democrat MP and former

armed -- from the Liberal Democrat MP and the former Armed Forces

Minister. What do you make of what has happened? I think it is a

missed opportunity. I hope BAe workers and shareholders don't

regret it in years to um K the commercial logic of putting

together with EADS with the strong position in the civil aviation

market, and BAe with its strong reputation and access to the US

market, was, in my view, overwhelming. It is a real shame to

see this go down. I think one of the problems is, in so far as one

can ascertain, a leak caused it to come into the public domain before

some of the political spade work had been done. Personally I hope

they get another go at it in the future. I'm not holding my breath

on that. Is it down to a leak, you get the idea from some reports that

the Germans would never have bought this? That might be true, I'm not

in a position to say. It would be unlikely they would have chosen to

play this out publicly, immediately before an American election. My

sense is they were probably aim to go make the merger effective early

next year. Something blew and there are so many vested interests I

wouldn't speculate who or what causeded it to blow. Do you share

the concerns some people have, had it gone ahead the French and German

Governments would have had significant control over areas of

Britain's national security? think it is a legitimate concern,

of course it is rather alien to as you as a market or economy to have

situations where Governments have big shares in things. That having

been said, we are using EDF, the French energy company, as our

principal driver for the next generation of nuclear power station.

That has a big French Government stake in it. It may not be the way

we do things, but it is common in other countries. The stake that the

French and the Germans were going to have, in my view, was reasonable.

It was considerably less than the effective control they currently

have of EADS. I wouldn't have been too keen on the suggestion that

they would have some preferential rights to buy more shares in the

future. But actually 9% each for the French and Germans wouldn't

have struck me as entirely unreasonable. It is a bit alien to

us, but if the Germans were wanting tob to have a great deal more than

that, -- to have a great deal more than that, that is probably the

explanation as to why it broke down. We see how the BAe share price is

going, for the people who rely on BAe for employment, what is the

future for them? I think that is grim now. Of course there are many

thousands of employees in the UK, who are actually working on the

Airbus project, not part of the defence sector at all. It would

have strengthened their job certainty quite a lot if the UK had

got an equity stake in Airbus again N that sense, with the benefit of

hindsight rbgts we can see it was a mistake that BAe got out of Airbus

when it did. I think it is an uncertain fate that perhaps awaits

them. But also in terms of the defence business, as your last

commentator said, there is now a sense that BAe is in play. And if

American companies were to come in for BAe, there would be less

complimentarity than in the base of EADS, who was bringing a different

sort of business that would fit together with BAe's interests. If

you get an American defence company buying BAe, they are probably after

the order book that BAe has with the American Government. And what

interest they will have with some of the work going on here, some of

which is inherently unviable in commercial terms, I just don't know.

We are awaiting decisions from BAe in the foreseeable future about the

future of our shipyards, and that's the sort of business that I don't

think an American buyer would have any interest in.

For years people have pointed the finger at Lance Armstrong, and

accused the world-beating cyclist of being a drugs cheat. He has

always denied it and still does. Tonight the United States Anti-

Doping Agency is publishing more than 1,000-pages of evidence, which

it says, shows Lance Armstrong was at the centre of the most

sophisticated and professional doping programme in recent sports

history. My guests are with me.

How damning is this report? In all my years as a sports correspondent

I haven't seen anything as damning as this. Armstrong's lawyer has

said it is a hatchet job, one-sided. 17 people have testified, 11 former

team-mates of Armstrong. All with the same story. The only way to say

he's exonerated is to say everyone else is lying. One quote over my

shoulder, you will see how confident the US Anti-Doping Agency

are with their evidence. They really believe that Lance Armstrong

is abts luetly banged to rights -- absolutely banged to rights. We put

in a call to Mr Armstrong's lawyer, you mentioned him, he said there is

nothing in this report that is new or has come as a surprise to us. It

is not a recent decision, it is a kangaroo court. That going to stand

up? No, there is information in here which is new. For example,

Armstrong's relationship with the doctor Michelle Ferrari, who was

disgraced in 2004, found guilty of a drug charge. He has long been

suspected to be at the heart of drug taking in cycling. In 2004,

when he was found guilty, Armstrong said he would cut ties with emthis.

It is shown in the two years after that, from 2004-2006, Armstrong

paid him $2 10,000. He continued his relationship. We have

information from the Anti-Doping Agency, to those who claimed before

that Armstrong failed a drugs test in 2001 and it was covered in by

the authorities. Another quote from the US Anti-

Doping Agency. They believed Armstrong was at the heart of it.

Not just a drug taker, but an enforcer, encouraging other people

in the team to take drugs, and very Is the suggestion in the report

that Armstrong was at the centre of this, was responsible for it?

he really was very much the ringleader, people did as he told.

He was the one who co-ordinated it. There are many questions for the

authorities. In part, how did they all get away with it for so long.

It was almost comical at times. In the report we hear during the tour

of Luxembourg the police came to the location where some cyclists

were staying. They went outside and hid their drugs in the wood. One of

the cyclists joking there will be big trees there soon. We catch up

with Daniel Coyle in Ohio. What do you think? It is a sledge-hammer

blow. You can dip into the report at any moment, and uncover

astonishingly detailed proof. Not one piece does it, but the entire

totality of it is never been seen before. Some are calling it the

biggest proof of American fraud in history. How did they get away with

it? It is a game of hide and seek, the drug testing wasn't

sophisticated. It is not a dope test, it is an IQ test, if you can

read your watch, keep track of your dosage and figure out where you

will be at any given time, it is difficult to evade the drug testing.

It is not difficult, anyone could have done it in that age. It is

gotten better, the biological stuff has gotten better. It was truly the

Wild West and Armstrong of the best cowboy. Anti-doping people at the

time would have told you that the doping tests were effective, and if

people were passing the tests with flying colours, then there was

nothing to worry about. There must be serious questions for them now?

There are, very serious questions. It stems from a structural problem.

The game governing body that was policing the sport, was also

promoting the sport, putting them at odds. A lot of people are taking

a hard look at the UCI, governing body, and their role. Among the

material in this report are some accounts of phone calls connections

that may have gotten Lance off a suspicious test in 2001. We have

repeated Lance Armstrong's denials and the comments from his lawyer.

Is there any way back from this for him. Can he explain it away. Would

people believe him? I don't think at this point, with a certain

number of his following it is not about logic or facts. They believe

in Armstrong, he is a hero to them. To be fair, he has been an

inspirational figure. The problem is, the core of his inspiration and

his person is the fact he won so many times, not merely that he came

back to the top of his sport, but that he won. No, I think he will be

haunted by this in every way. It is a 1,000-page document. You can't

imagine him going forward in this and simply ignoring it. Thank you