12/11/2012 Newsnight


Analysis of the day's headlines, with Emily Maitlis. The BBC tries to purge its management and Abu Qatada is out of jail. Plus, is the chancellor planning more cuts?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/11/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme coin tains scenes of repetitive flashing images.


After the apology, the resignation, and now a management Petersburg --


purge of sorts, account BBC work properly.


The BBC pay off the previous Director-General with double what


he's entitled. To REPORTER: Did you ever say I'm trying to put trust


into the BBC and you are paying him �450,000? In terms of just coming


into the job, I have to work on into the job, I have to work on


what I can control. We talk to the BBC Creative


Director, Alan Yentob. Is the Chancellor planning a new


batch of cuts in the Autumn Statement? The markets might like


it, but at ground level it is just not what they are crying out for.


People are trying to get work, and you have to give them a bit more


money, to at least let them live. Abu Qatada isn't getting sent to


jail in Jordan, he's getting sent back to his home, right here.


Britain's ten-year struggle to counter this militant Islamist, has


suffered another setback, and it could still take years for the case


to be closed. Seven barren island, two powerful


nation, will old enemies really use military force to control this land.


This crisis is clearly not over, in China and now in Japan as well,


this crisis is bringing back to the surface old anomosities, and long


Good evening. The Culture Secretary has already hinted that the


outgoing Director-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, could be


striped of his payout. Maria Miller confirmed the National Audit Office


could review the payment, and suggested that the former Director-


General should consider whether it was appropriate to accept the money.


This evening, the internal MacQuarrie report into the


Newsnight broadcast, that wrongly accused a Tory politician of child


abuse, confirmed that basic journalistic checks were not


completed, and final checks were unclear, and disciplinary


procedures have begun. Have today's appointments left anything more


than a shadow struck teeure at the BBC, and will it be enough to re--


structure at the BBC, will it be enough to restore trust.


This is the day the BBC tried 0 get a grip, and recover from one of the


worst crises in its his treatment The start of disciplinary


proceedings, senior executives stepping asierbgsd and the process


fundamental change to restore trust in the BBC and all its programme,


especially Newsnight. It is the biggest crisis for the BBC. At the


heart of the BBC's troubles is the report by this programme that


accused an innocent man of being a paedophile. A full on-air


retraction one week later, couldn't undo what has been called "awful


shoddy journalism", George Entwistle resigned less than eight


weeks into his job. The man who leads the BBC Trust, and who


appointed him, called it one of the saddest nights of his life. This is


not a clean break, today the Trust's decision to pay him a


year's salary, �450,000, generated new criticism. Diverting attention


from Lord Patten's commitment, yesterday, to fundamental change in


BBC management. If you are saying, does the BBC


need a thorough structural, radical overhaul, absolutely it does.


morning, the new acting DG, Tim Davie, arrived for work, promising


a brisk start with immediate changes. Just into the job I have


got full grip of the situation by clarifying exactly who is in charge,


which, by the way, was a key learning curve from the report. If


the public have a BBC they can trust, I have to be very clear, as


Director-General, on who is running the news operation, and ensuring


that journalism we put out passes muster. The first decision I have


made is takingsings and on that, and put a clear line of command --


taking control of that and putting a clear line of command.


Helen Boaden, Head of News, and her deputy, Stephen Mitchell, will be


stepping aside from normal roles, until the Pollard Review report,


they can then expect to return to their positions. Because Pollard is


investigating their part, if any, in the first Newsnight crisis, that


is the decision not to air a report exposing Jimmy Savile, boast of


those executives had already stepped aside from some of their


duties. That meant neither of them was in any way involved in the more


recent decision to run Newsnight's report on the North Wales children


home. Another consequence of that,


according to new findings from an internal BBC investigation is this,


there was ambiguity around who was taking the ultimate editorial


responsibility for the Newsnight report. The result of all this,


turmoil among BBC management. But it also means tonight there are


many BBC leaders in temporary, acting jobs, so the BBC has an


"acting" Director-General and Editor in Chief, below him an


"acting" director of news, and her new "acting" deputy. All overseeing


a new "acting" editor of Newsnight. It may be a clear chain of command,


after weeks of confusion, but it is still a temporary fix. We have got


ago theing heads in almost every major division, an acting head of


vision, the person responsible for the TV channels acting, the person


responsible for radio is acting, the person responsible for news is


acting, and the DG himself is acting. When you are acting, it is


much more difficult to take major decisions that are going to have


long-term consequences. So, some stability, people need to know who


they are going to be reporting in to, who their boss is. They need to


have confidence that those bosses are capable of sorting problems


like this out. Today in parliament, the anger was obvious. MPs queued


up to complain about BBC failings and the pay-off for George


Entwistle, when he resigned. circumstances of his departure make


it hard to justify the level of severence money that has been


agreed. Here, here. Here. Contractual arrangements are a


matter for the BBC Trust, but the Trust also has clear


responsibilities to ensure value for money for the license fee payer.


The BBC Trust cannot justify a pay- off of double the amount laid down


in his contract. Does she, therefore, take the same view that


I do, that George Entwistle should reflect on this, and only take that


to which he is entitled, under his contract.


The recent catalogue of senior management failings, has given


opponents to attack for what is the most part a great broadcasting


institution. Lord Patten justifies his decision


to offer George Entwistle a year's Lord Patten makes clear the Trust


needed quick agreement, and Mr Entwistle's co-operation with


What a difference three months makes. The BBC's coverage of the


Olympics was widely applauded, as part of a national triumph.


Contrast those memories with a collapse of public trust in the BBC


after Savile. One recent poll suggests more people no longer


trust the BBC than do trust it. Another poll will be conducted


tomorrow, results expected by the end of the week.


As soon as it starts to get back on its front foot again, and offering


very good programmes, I think public trust will return. As long


as it is transparent in what it does and how it sorts things out,


that will help support trust as well. It is more difficult these


days, the BBC has so much competition, not just from print


and broadcaster, but from the Internet as well. Therefore, for


many people in the audience, it doesn't have the central role that


it had even 10-20 years ago. Rebuilding trust and that buy-in to


what the BBC represents in Britain, gets more complicated and difficult,


but I'm confident it can be done. Is the BBC on a path to recovery?


Maybe. But there is still huge uncertainty. As some staff face


disciplinary hearings, some sit on the sidelines, others fill their


jobs in acting roles. And, the hunt for the next Director-General goes


Alan Yentob, the BBC's Creative Director joins me now. Listening


there to what James said, do you feel that the BBC is in a better


place tonight than it was 24 hours ago? I don't think we can be


complacent about any of the events of the last few weeks. This has


been a tumultuous few weeks. I think the consequence of the


turmoil and of the last of the earlier part of this was also led


to, I think, these event on Newsnight in the last few weeks.


The confusion, the chain of command, the fact that some people were


acting, others were having to step back, because of the investigations.


So I think we have gone through a very difficult time. I do believe I


thought Tim Davie, the acting Director-General, made it clear


today, that we need to correct those things and rebuild trust.


Nobody is saying it is an easy task. I would say one thing about the


issue of trust, the BBC has been in trouble before, we have lost trust


with the audience, and we have had to rebuild it and work at it.


talk about what has happened today, because we have seen a report out


already this evening, highlighting the mass confusion of that chain of


command, and now we have another chain of command, where as you


heard, just about everyone in a senior position is acting? Up to a


point, that's true. But I think the confusion we have had is not what


we have now. What has gone on, because of these investigations, it


has meant that certain people have stepped down. I want to make it


clear. They have stepped aside, they could step back again at any


point? Let's be clear Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell, the Head of


News and deputy, have stepped aside in order that the Pollard report


can happen. Because of the events of the last few weeks and the fact


it was difficult to know who was in charge, I think that has led to the


consequences on Newsnight. And mistakes have been made, which


would not normally have been made. It is entirely unacceptable. So,


now, the chain of command is much clearer, Tim has made that very


evident. We now need to learn the lessons, and to try to move on.


That is tough, but we can do it. But is there any chance that the


organisation can, this terrible phrase "get a grip", when everyone


is essentially in a temporary position, unable to make an actual


change to their department and when we have people that are outside


possibly stepping back in as well? I do it is possible. I think it is


more than possible. The people in Vision have a very good team, the


people in radio have a very good team. There has been a shift. It is


a responsibility of the team to work together. Now, the team have


learned some of the lessons of the last few weeks, they are working


together. Tim is looking at that. The Trust will have to look forward


to what the next appointment will be. I don't consider that the


circumstances which we are in are unmanageable. However, I do want to


say, that the mistakes that have been made are bad, and we need to


learn lessons from that. What do we do, for example, about the poll


that James Robins was talking about, that shows for the first time, more


people don't trust the BBC than do. I'm looking at my security badge,


which has "trust" at the top, "the foundation of the BBC, audiences


are at the heart of everything we do". If we have eroded the first


two, we are in trouble? Of course we are in trouble. Look, the


Director-General of the BBC, after 54 days has resigned, honourably. I


would like to know, in the context of the media, how many people in


other companies, which I won't name, have stepped down, when they


decided that was the right thing to do. So the BBC has understood the


gravity of this, and as a consequence we need to move on and


try to rebuild the place. Can I say, we have had problems like this


before, and we have had to rebuild that trust, that is not an easy


task, but it is possible, and we intend to do it. When you talk


about rebuilding trust, we have been told that investigations have


been halted, for the time being, that's a weird state to be in, and


clearly it feels very uncomfortable, me asking you this, from the


position of a Newsnight presenter, but where does this leave


investigative journalism on a programme like Newsnight? The thing


is this, that investigative journalism is not the only thing


that Newsnight does. Newsnight has done some very good investigative


journalism. I think the first thing that has to happen is the team have


to understand what went wrong, from now on wards, if they have got a


show that they want to do or a story they have to tell, they have


to ask themselves twice if that is right. They have to ensure they


know who they are reporting to. It is perfectly obvious. What went


wrong in the last, on that programme about abuse in the care


home, was unacceptable. I think Newsnight, it is so unlike what


this programme has done in the past. It is different from the last event.


The next Director-General, whoever that is, will find themselves


renegotiating the Charter, this is where, I guess, the existential


question about whether the BBC still deserves that �145.50 from


everyone in the country? Let me say this, we have to prove we deserve


it. We have to rebuild that trust, the new Charter isn't yet there, we


are not yet negotiating it. I would also like to point out, as you just


said yourself, a few month ago, we had the Olympics, it was


spectacularly well done. We have had the Shakespeare season, we have


had investigative programme, not least Panorama investigating the


same story that Newsnight didn't investigate. We have held ourselves


to account in a way that other organisations don't. George had to


go on with John Humphrys, just like any CEO would, and had to face him.


And I think that in the end we have to trust that if the BBC makes the


mistake, it will address that mistake. Was it a mistake for


George Entwistle to leave with double what he was entitled to?


me just say, these were circumstances in which he behaved


extremely well, he had only been two months in the job, he had given


up another safe job. The decision there was taken with some thought,


I know, by the chairman of the BBC and the Trust, it wasn't a decision


I was involved in, but I know he and his colleagues feel they did


the right thing. We have seen parliament involved now, do you


think, is your gut instinct telling you he will give that money back


and he should? That is for George and the Trust to decide. However, I


do understand in the environment we are in, that it is tough for people


to see that. However, he took a very difficult decision. I don't


know quite what the contractual arrangements are, I think the


chairman has made clear that the alternative would have been, would


be more brutal and he would have had to pay him more money. I don't


want to really go there, because that's not, I don't know the


details. Briefly, do you think that the BBC will look, sound very


different in six months time. don't think going forwards means


forgetting where we have been. This is, this period that we have been


through has been a terrible period. If we learn the lesson, as we have


in the past from things, I admit this is worse than many. I think we


will be back on the road to recovery. There are a lot of people


in this organisation who have to band together and make that happen.


It is not about just saying it will just happen, it won't just happen,


we have to make it happen. That, by the way, is nothing to do with


structures, it has to do with people and their conviction. It has


to do with their ability to speak to each other, and understand what


the issues are, and where they are going. And that's a journey that we


are all going to have to make together.


Thank you very much, thanks for coming in.


Could we be in for another �48 billion worth of spending cuts,


when the Chancellor announces his Autumn Statement next month. The


sums are the work of the Social Market Foundation and think-tank


that thinks his deficit reduction plans are in double. A lack of


growth and I here costs of borrowing, has created something of


a black hole in the finances, they believe could translate into bigger,


bolder and cuts in every department that isn't ring-fenced.


The macro economy looks very macro indeed from all the way up here.


But hurtle down, as we hurdle towards the Government's next grand


economic pronouncement in a few weeks time, and reality Hoves into


view. From a million anonymous streets,


to London one street where the reality is played out at length. On


the oneen end the very wealthy, the other end -- on one end the very


wealthy and the other not very wealthy.


Wages have been flatlining and the Government is trying to address the


balance? I can see that, sometimes they need to look at where they are


addressing the balance. What would you say? The other ideas in the mix


is the rich would shoulder a bit more of the burden? That does


spring to mind. The Conservatives are certainly preparing for a bang.


We revealed some time ago on Newsnight that they planned to


freeze working-age benefits, which would loosely affect some people


living on this side of the street. But the Lib Dems believe, up the


street, at the Abbey Road end, it is the other lot who should


shoulder the burden. But why is the Government even on the hunt for


more savings? In 2010, on takes office, the Chancellor set out two


fiscal targets, one of them, the more forgotten one, was that by


2015/16 fiscaly, debt as a proportion of GDP would be falling.


Today a new report has come out suggesting that there is an even


larger black hole than we realised. It is possibly as much as �48


billion. Just how did the black hole get quite that black.


The Royal Society of Arts and the Social Market Foundation study


shows that �11 billion is due largely to a predicted rise in


social security spending. That is because things like the number of


pensioners, or an increase in rent costs, affecting housing benefit,


are outside the Government's control. We know that already.


A further �15 billion of spending cuts were included in the 2011 out


dumb statement, because the economy had per-- Autumn Statement because


the economy had performed more poor lie. The �22 billion hole


identified today is partly because of borrow, and the UK economy is


performing nearer its potential. Good news, except it leaves the


Chancellor with a larger long-term structural deficit to plug.


This Government is essentially run by a quad, four people, Nick Clegg,


David Cameron, George Osborne and Danny Alexander. When Iain Duncan


Smith goes to them and tells them what cuts to expect in the social


welfare, we know the Conservative side of the Government believes


they have to find if cuts to other departments are to remain the same


level as they are now. We didn't know that in coming weeks in the


Autumn Statement that set down what Conservative sources are saying to


me, is a downpayment towards that �10 billion. In short, in the next


few weeks we will find out what more cuts will come in and how soon.


Take the benefits cut, �26 -- benefits cap �26,000, that is one


of the most popular policies so far. My constituents say �26,000, that


is a lot of money, we could reopen the debt cap and look more further


being realistic at �20,000. It is not just welfare payments to the


less well off we need to look at. We need to look at issues around


the Winter Fuel Payment. I have heard examples that it is used to


heat people's swimming pools. That is not there for that.


I hear the Chancellor is threatening if he doesn't get his


welfare cuts he will cut departments elsewhere, before the


next election. It is probably bluff, but I understand Iain Duncan Smith,


the Welfare Secretary, will meet Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, to


discuss these possible cut. The Conservatives think popular support


for welfare cuts could force a Liberal Democrat change of heart.


The Liberal Democrats think they are cannier than that. What do they


really want? Council tax is something that should be looked at.


We have a situation at the moment where you have hugely expensive


properties in the same banding as what people would regard as fairly


modest family homes. So I think there is an opportunity to look at


that as well as an opportunity to look at how we can achieve that in


different situation. Elsewhere, in the negotiations, there is a desire


that some of any savings made will go into something else all together.


Newsnight can reveal that the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, is


pushing for the reallocation of over �1 billion to his department


in the Autumn Statement. My sources also suggest, that with the


Chancellor he's pushing at an open- door. They want more money on


science, they want more money on Aerospace, the sweet spot for those


across Government, they want to reallocate funds from they believe


to be unproductive areas of spending, like benefits, towards


productive areas. The trouble is, even if they g can get agreement,


for many, it won't go far enough the short-term we would be much


better off if we were borrowing more and spending more,


particularly on infrastructure and investment. We can borrow for


essentially nothing, interest rates are at historically low level, the


Government could afford to borrow and spend more, good for the


economy in the short-term. Over the medium-to-long-term, the Government


is right, we need to balance the book. There is a medium to long-


term question of how do we get borrowing at levels we are happy


with. They are aiming to balance wealth and welfare, can they get


the mix right for the wealth of the nation.


Joining me in the studio, Margot James, the Conservative MP for


Stourbridge, and the former Treasury spokesman, Lib Dem peer,


Lord Oakshott, welcome you both. Do you accept that the Government


will have to find more spending cuts, or more taxes to raise?


think the important thing is that we have reduced the deficit now by


25%, and the economy is starting to grow again. So I think we have got


the fundamentals right. That wasn't the question I asked, do you accept


there will be more spending cuts? You are referring to the rorl that


Allegra Stratton has just reported on. -- report that Allegra Stratton


has just reported on. Chalt has already said the time which --


Chancellor has already said the time we will address the deficit is


longer than originally planned. Yes, I think there may well have to be


further cuts in spending. Where would you want those to be? I think


one of the areas under consideration may well be the rise


in people's benefits. This year there was a very generous rise in


benefits by over 5%. Many of us felt with inflation down to just


over 2% that was perhaps too high, and I can see, you know, a freeze


on benefit increase. That is pure speculation at this stage. Would


you buy that? Would you first acknowledge that we will see these


spending cuts? No. Go on? Simple answer. The last thing we need, we


don't know whether the economy is growing, it has one good zig after


three bad zags. The Governor of the Bank of England says it is


basically flat. The last thing we need is get stuck on a down


escalator, and no growth, and slower growth. That is economic


disSASer t we are not going along with it, they are not my words,


they are Vince Cable in the party conference speech. It is


economically mad to have further cuts now when the economy is flat


on the floor. We need to stimulate it, getting the banks lending and


builders building. This suggests you, Vince Cable, do not accept


that Osborne's fiscal golden rules that debt should be falling by the


end of this parliament is immutable? That is different. The


debt is the balance sheet, the deficit is what we are worrying


about immediately now. Frankly, we are not. That is a golden rule


isn't it? We are not going to get there. If the economy doesn't grow,


and there is no growth. It depends whichever country we are in, the


IMF, everyone seeing that, we had to take urgent action to get on top


of the deficit to start W frankly, now, the policy is not work --


start with. Frankly now the policy is not working. I disagree that the


policy is not working. A million new private sector jobs have been


created in the last two years. There is no growth, there was a


tiny. There is not much growth in Stourbridge, but maybe London.


have growth in Stourbridge, every visit I -- to business I go to they


are having growth. Construction? With the one exception of


construction? That is getting the economy in depression on its own.


Let's talk about some of the issues, looking forward to the Autumn


Statement are you happy to see a relook at council tax bands? I hope


very much, I moved the amendment in our conference that we should go


for the mansion tax. He has ruled that out? If you look at the


financial tax today, leading Conservatives are saying we need


much more fairness on. That we need to move the balancing of taxation


from income to wealth. And how can it be right that on a �200 million


in London you pay the same property tax as you do on a modest semi-.


That can't be fair. Is the mansion tax back on the table now? I hope


not, tax should be fair and affordable. I think this Government


has put in place some measures to tax the wealthier far more than


they were under the last Government. The increase in stamp duty and the


freeze on allowances against tax avoidance. That doesn't catch the


non-Dom, they hide their houses behind a brass plate. The rich


people in central London, stamp duty doesn't catch them, the


mansion tax is the only tax they can't dodge. If it turned into a


council tax band enlargement, or rise, it is an ugly phrase, would


that satisfy the Liberal Democrats? We don't expect to get exactly our


specific policy S if we were going to get something, whereby the


people in the �5 million, �10 million, and �20 million. In most


constituencies there aren't any of those. If they are paying their


fair share, I would be surprised if Margot James didn't support t


Conservative voters support it, overwhelmingly, why don't you?


don't think a tax on homes people have worked hard to pay for is


necessary at this stage. I don't think a simple council tax


reevaluation will trap non-Doms in �200 million homes, that wouldn't


work at all, that was the example you gave. What we are trying to do


is not increase the tax burden that people are suffering at the moment.


Eight million are out of tax at the moment already. Come back nearer


the time and discuss it then. What were the sanctions be if we just


put Abu Qatada on a plane and sent him home to Jordan. The question


was asked of the Home Secretary in the Commons, after the terror


suspect won his latest battle against deportation. Tomorrow


morning Abu Qatada will still be under 16-hour curfew, but


technically, he will be free to stay in this country. The Home


Secretary, as she has pretty much admitted, powerless to do anything


concrete without breaking the law. Given all parties and the country


seem united and impotent in seeing the suspect to go. Is it time to


put the law on to one side. How did this happen? It was a


decision by a British court, a special immigration appeals court,


three judge. Essentially, on the question of would he get a grossly


unfair trial if send sent back to Jordan. This goes to article -- if


he got sent back to Jordan. This goes to article six of the


Convention on Human rights. The Government thought he they had done


enough to convince that he would get a fair trial. That is what the


Home Secretary said, she felt she had convinced them of, large low,


when she was speaking in the Commons. The court said that the


Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are


determined to ensure that the appellant will receive and be seen


to receive a fair retrial. SIAC also said, if the only question we


had to answer was whether or not the appellant would be subject to


an unfair trial in Jordan, our unquestioning answer would be he


would not. Then to the but. Two expert witnesses talking about the


Jordanian system of justice, would he get justice, one for the


Government, one for Abu Qatada's side of the argument. The court


tended towards Abu Qatada's person. His expert witness who essentially


argued that information from torture might still, despite the


guarantees, be introduced into the trial, and he might still be


subject to some abitary form of detention. We are 11 years on, this


is bit embarrassing for the Government? They had gone to all


the trouble to negotiate safe agreements with the Jordanians and


changed their constitution last year in an attempt to ease


situations like this one, the Jordanian Justice Minister, tonight,


speaking of his disappointment with the British court's decision. It is


politically embarrassing, the European Court, it is not part of


the EU, but it is a European institution. And the European


Convention on Human Rights is very much resented by many backbenchers


in the Tory Party, making it a very politically difficult issue for the


Home Secretary. From here, the lawyers are happy, presumably?


continues as a Dickensian saga, it would seem. The Government


immediately said it would appeal the decision to the Appeal Court in


the UK. If the issue is still deadlocked, it could go to the


Supreme Court. That could easily take a year. The thing could then


go beyond that, as we discovered today, talking to a leading human


rights QC. I think we have another year's worth of UK let gaigs at


least. If Abu Qatada is the -- litigation at Lee. If Abu Qatada is


the loser at the domestic phase, he can go back to the European Court


and say the English courts have misunderstood the evidence, and the


European Court will look at it in 2015, or whatever it is, there is a


possibility we are in for several years more of litigation.


Several years more of litigation, Shami Chakrabarti and Peter Bone


join me now. You up for seven more years of this? That is unacceptable.


He should be on the plane tonight, going home, we will worry about the


consequences afterwards. I'm absolutely sure that 95% of British


people would support that. Most people in this country would


probably agree with that? Qatada has followed me around for


longer than he has followed Mr Bone's around, possibly even you.


But here is the thing, you don't get to pick and choose which courts


you obey. Whether you are a kid. You do, actually. This was a


domestic court? This is a British court. You are a kid on a council


estate, and you are told the magistrate tell you, this is your


ASBO, and it is unfair, and you don't like it, and you desagree


with it, and you are the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home


Secretary, and you disagree with the court, you don't get to pick


and choose, that is the rule of law. We tell people, you don't riot, you


don't disobey the law or the courts, you tell people that, if you are


the Government you have to lead by example. You are a legislator, what


message does that send out? That is wrong, the Supreme Court of this


country has said Abu Qatada can be deported, that should have been


good enough for. It is the fact that the European Court has


interfered. That is where you do come and pick and choose. Say our


Supreme Court should be the ultimate judge, not this fancy


court in Europe. That's the difference. It is legal, completely


legal to send him home. Today's judgment is not from a fancy court


in Europe. What about Italy, Italy deported a man to Tunisia, it has


been fined �12,000, we don't call Italy a lawless country? Listen, it


is not about Italy or Russia or Jordan. There are all sort of


countries that have all sorts of different standards about human


rights, and about the law. Today a British court set up by a British


parliament, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a court, a


special secret court, that the Government gets to put people


secret intelligence to, and it said he can't be deported. I don't know


that's what it decided, does the Prime Minister say, two fingers to


you. Doucet follow the rule of law? Our Supreme Court said he could be


deported. No it didn't. Yes it did. You are fundamentally wrong on that.


What has happened is since then the European Court raised the bar. I


did agree to the Home Secretary today, she laid this at the door of


the European Court of human right. What we should be doing is


accepting our law as the supreme law and ignore all the rest of it.


She is not going to put him on a plane? She's entitled to appeal.


Think she will, I think the British people will make her put him on the


plane. It is absurd we have years and years of more legal argument.


The Home Secretary and I do not agree about many things, she today


said she will appeal. That is the decent, honourable thing to do.


will go on for years, put him on the plane now, send him home, worry


about it afterward. You think Theresa May will put him on the


plane and worry about the consequences, that is what you thu


she should do? I think she should, and she will be a national hero if


she does it. She tell people who riot and she tells kids on council


estates, stop it! Abu Qatada is he allowed to remain here


indefinitely? To be honest she has picked this problem, she has


inherited this problem, this has gone on for years, he should have


been charged with offences years ago.


Thank you very much. This is a row about eight uninhabited islands


with a total area of sevenkms squared. It is not what they are


but where they are, lodged in the China sea between Japan and China,


two hours with a history of empty, and a resurgence, many would say,


of nationalism. The Shins or Diaoyu islands matter because they are for


rich fishing and may contain oi deposit. In the first of a series


of films about the new China, eing from the 18th Congress being held


in Beijing. We have been to the islands to assess rising tensions


between China and Japan. Just after dawn we get our first


view of the islands. A jagged huddle of rock, sticking


up from the deep blue waters of the China Sea. It has taken ten hours


sailing to get here from China's closest inhabited islands. As we


approach the Japanese coastguard speeds alongside, making sure we


don't get any closer. For decades these islands were long forgotten.


The last settlers left during World War II.


But now, a newly emboldened China has decided to assert its


historical claim. As if on cue, the Chinese make their entrance. The


skipper aboard our boat has just been told by the Japanese


coastguard, which is coming alongside here, we have to move


around to the north of the island, because they say there are Chinese


ships off to the south here, they are worried they will come and


board us. Things now start to get very busy.


Four Chinese ships are clearly visible, well inside Japan's


territorial water. Overhead a Japanese air force plane


swoops low. But the Chinese ships steam on, undeterred. Until last


month, it was inconceivable that Japan and China could come to blows


over this uninhabited, remote group of islands. Look at the situation


today, there are four Chinese coastguard cutters, and two


Japanese coastguard cutters within my sight. There is a tense stand-


off going on, the Japanese coastguard is very nervous about us


being here, they are clearly worried this could turn into some


sort of international incident. This crisis is clearly not over. In


China, and now in Japan as well, this crisis is bringing back to the


surface old anomosities, and long dormant nationalism.


In September, the island dispute burst on to the streets of China's


cities. Protests turned into riots against anything Japanese. Cars


were smashed, Japanese-owned businesses burned. In Tokyo, the


man who will probably be Japan's next Prime Minister, doesn't hide


his anger when decribing to me what he thinks happened.


TRANSLATION: The Chinese Government does not live up to international


standards or rules, it deliberately allows attacks on Japanese


companies, and organises boycotts of Japanese goods. We have not


retaliated but we won't yield to the Chinese pressure.


Since World War II, jat pan has been committed to a -- Japan has


been committed to a pacifist constitution. But that is changing,


these students belong to nationalist group called Students


for the Future. They think it is time for Japan to rearm, and they


point to China as the reason. Do you think Japanese people fear the


rise of China? TRANSLATION: Because of what is happening with the


island, people are starting to realise there is a problem with


China, that it is a threat to us. On Sunday afternoon, in Tokyo's


main shopping district, Students for the Future is out recruiting.


Until recently, nationalism was a dirty word here, confined to a tiny


minority of hard right extremists. But listen to what these kids have


to say. TRANSLATION: If something happened


with China, we need to be able to use our own military force to


protect our islands. This young woman likens what is


going on here to Britain's conflict in the Falklands.


TRANSLATION: Japanese needs to see the islands like Margaret Thatcher


did with the Falkland, Japanese need to have determination like she


did to protect the Falklands. Would Japan really be prepared to


go to war over a few rocks? These people would. These are hard right


nationalists, who want to scrap Japan's pacifist constitution. This


is their spiritual leader, Shantaro Ishihara, the controversial


Governor of Tokyo. He sometimes is described as the


Jeanne Marie Le Penn of Japan. This is the man who ignited the dispute


with China when he tried to buy the islands. The Governor of Tokyo has


set the cat amongst the pigeons, by stepping down as governor and


starting a new party, to force Japan to get much tougher with


China. How should Japan respond to China's actions? TRANSLATION:


must be ready to draw its sword. Then he returns to make sure I have


understood. Do you know the meaning of that


(speaks Japanese) very important that.


Anybody who thinks Japan doesn't have a sword, should look at this.


Officially Japan doesn't have a Navy. In reality, it is one of the


most modern and powerful in the world. It's open day on the


flagship of Japan's "not" Navy. The Huger is a 19,000 tonne helicopter


carrier. Hundreds of ordinary Japanese are claiming aboard,


fascinated to see this sleek new ship.


Officially this is called a helicopter destroyier, but as the


saying goes, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it


probably is a duck. This is essentially a small aircraft


carrier, the first to be built in Japan since the end of the Second


World War, this is just the beginning. Two more of these ship,


twice as big as this one, are currently under construction just


down the coast here. The question is, why has Japan decided it needs


to build aircraft carriers. Today it is getting more and more


nervous. The Chinese, they are very, more active day by day, and then


Japanese Government is not responding well enough yet.


TRANSLATION: To see we have ships like this makes me feel more safe.


If we didn't have the ships like this, our territory could easily be


taken away from us. There is now an undeclared arms


race going on in East Asia, driven Japan's opposition leader believes


China's military spending is being driven by clear territorial


ambitions. In order to secure oil and gas reserve the Chinese is


building up its Navy. Its military spending has increased by more than


10% every year for 20 years. It is aggressively trying to take over


the South China Sea, and now the east China sea. Including our


Shenkaku islands. The Chinese are trying to draw them into the a game


of chicken. Like any game of chicken. What is


going on out here is very dangerous. Since we left the island, Chinese


ships have been reported inside Japanese waters every single day.


The Japanese Government is so far resisting the urge to act. But with


a game of chicken, if both side refuse to back down, there is


usually only one, possible outcome. We will be in China late this week,


where Paul Mason has gone to cover the once-in-a-decade handover of


Download Subtitles