:00:13. > :00:17.We have been warned and warned again, but why isn't the Government
:00:17. > :00:22.faking the actions it says are necessary to protect us from cyber
:00:22. > :00:27.attack. We discover that much of the money supposedly earmarked for
:00:27. > :00:31.cyberdefence has actually been used for cyber attack, and the rest?
:00:31. > :00:34.is this underspend? Some people have come back and said we are
:00:34. > :00:41.saving money for rainy day. To which my response is but we already
:00:42. > :00:47.have a rainy day. The former Home Secretary John Reid fears we are
:00:47. > :00:52.not fully in control of the threat. Also tonight, they are fitting bees
:00:52. > :00:56.with rural broadband, can these tiny radio aerials tell us whether
:00:56. > :01:00.pesticides are really responsible for decimating bee numbers.
:01:00. > :01:04.Here in Oxfordshire people don't doubt that bees are under attack,
:01:04. > :01:09.they are not all convinced that ban on pesticides will help.
:01:09. > :01:12.The geeks shall inherit the earth, we will talk to the man who led
:01:12. > :01:22.Barack Obama's mammoth internet campaign to get elected, how did he
:01:22. > :01:27.do it? The French Government listed its
:01:27. > :01:32.priorities for national defence today, like the Government here it
:01:32. > :01:37.is wrestling with how to get a cork out of a pintpot. It is similar too
:01:37. > :01:42.in its belief that a threat that simply didn't exist a generation
:01:42. > :01:45.ago is now right near the top. Cybersecurity protecting the
:01:45. > :01:48.communications systems and computers that make modern life
:01:48. > :01:52.liveable was identified three years ago in this country as a key worry.
:01:52. > :02:02.An enemy power or bunch of terrorist bombs could achieve more
:02:02. > :02:07.with a key strokestroke than an air strike. However -- keystroke than
:02:07. > :02:12.an air strike. However we have learned that our Government is slow
:02:12. > :02:16.to protect the network. The information society has grown
:02:16. > :02:21.so fast it is full of vunerabilities, cyber-crime is
:02:21. > :02:27.estimated to have cost �27 billion last year for Britain. The number
:02:27. > :02:32.of attacks on computer networks, over 50 billion a year, is growing
:02:32. > :02:36.so fast that security experts are losing count. The one thing that is
:02:36. > :02:41.absolutely sure that the threat is becoming bigger and stronger.
:02:41. > :02:46.threat landscape has changed. We are in state of compromise. The
:02:46. > :02:50.adversaries are here in our networks. The coalition Government
:02:50. > :02:58.identified this threat as an urgent national priority and has tasked
:02:58. > :03:04.spy agencies like GCHQ to respond. The In 2010 the Government promised
:03:04. > :03:07.to put cyber-security at the centre of national defence, and to spend
:03:07. > :03:11.�650 million doing that. Yet we have heard persistent reports that
:03:11. > :03:15.very little has actually been achieved yet.
:03:15. > :03:22.So is Britain any safer from cyber attack today than it was three
:03:23. > :03:26.years ago? Some aspects of the economy and Government, critical
:03:26. > :03:30.national infrastructure, are so important that the computers that
:03:30. > :03:37.run them can be intensely vulnerable. Estonian cash machines,
:03:37. > :03:45.Saudi oil terminals and a Syrian radar network have all been
:03:45. > :03:53.disrupted by cyber attack. This is the London data centre at Telstra
:03:53. > :03:54.Global, we house some of the world's critical logistic
:03:55. > :04:01.infrastructure. We have infrastructure, financial services
:04:01. > :04:07.and broad kags. One of our customers conducts about $ 7
:04:07. > :04:10.trillion from this facility every day. For years hackers have been
:04:10. > :04:13.stealing secrets, now there are deeper concerns. Two months ago the
:04:13. > :04:17.Department of Homeland Security said it had tracked 23 takes on the
:04:17. > :04:21.American gas pipeline grid. The intruders had been targeting the
:04:21. > :04:26.type of information that would have allowed them to blow up pumping
:04:26. > :04:32.stations and cause power cuts. threat landscape in three years has
:04:32. > :04:35.changed a lot, now what we see is advanced threat. It is a completely
:04:35. > :04:39.different ball game. These attacks are highly targeted, they are
:04:39. > :04:44.highly funded, they know what they want. So they will specifically
:04:44. > :04:49.target an organisation to do it. So typically they will be after
:04:49. > :04:54.intellectual property, it could be to gain competitive advantage,
:04:54. > :04:58.national security, it would be defence information or a whole
:04:58. > :05:04.bunch of different things. So what happened to the pledge of �650
:05:04. > :05:07.million for cyber-security. For months the answer seems to have
:05:07. > :05:11.been very little according to one of the architects of Government
:05:11. > :05:17.policy. You have this initial explosion of
:05:17. > :05:22.interest, and a very high-profile for cyber, then nothing. It slowly
:05:22. > :05:28.picked up since. But I think if I were being critical of Government
:05:28. > :05:32.it is the leadership issue which is so important. Being clear about
:05:32. > :05:38.what your absolute priorities are with that new money. How to spend
:05:38. > :05:42.it. I think we are still lacking in those two areas. The Cabinet Office
:05:42. > :05:46.in Whitehall is meant to be exercising that leadership. But
:05:46. > :05:56.some argue they have failed to act effectively and that much of the
:05:56. > :05:56.
:05:56. > :05:59.money pledged by the Government has A number of us have asked why is
:05:59. > :06:04.this underspend here. Some have come back and said we are saving
:06:04. > :06:09.money for rainy day, to which my response is we already have a rainy
:06:09. > :06:18.day every day with cyber. Ask where leed real leadership lies
:06:18. > :06:26.and many exports -- where real leadership lies, many say it is
:06:26. > :06:28.here at the headquarters here at Cheltenham. The wider security
:06:28. > :06:34.business feels the intelligence people make poor information
:06:34. > :06:40.sharers. I'm going to talk you through a real example of an take
:06:40. > :06:43.we saw. You can see here that I have got a high number of failed
:06:43. > :06:49.log ins, coming from Belarus, to me that is suspicious activity.
:06:49. > :06:53.Because we don't have locations in Belarus. At RSA they have developed
:06:53. > :06:57.numerous computer security product. They have also come under attack
:06:57. > :07:01.from hackers, and have chosen to share the details with others.
:07:01. > :07:04.looks like they are trying to steal some information, perhaps that is
:07:04. > :07:08.on a finance department server. And you can see that a lot of data is
:07:08. > :07:13.already being moved out. It is actually going to Uzbekistan. Which
:07:13. > :07:18.is not unusual. Typically a lot of these type of activities we see is
:07:18. > :07:23.hosted from a third party country. Their view is that openness can
:07:23. > :07:26.trump commercial advantage. But the sector is plaged by Government
:07:26. > :07:29.agencies and companies that want to conceal their weaknesses.
:07:29. > :07:32.threats that I face as a business are different to the threats that
:07:32. > :07:36.you face as a business. Until we start collaborating and sharing
:07:36. > :07:39.that information I won't be able to learn your perspective and neither
:07:39. > :07:42.will you be able to learn mine. That is a critical edge that
:07:42. > :07:47.actually doesn't cost a lot of money. We don't really need to
:07:47. > :07:51.increase budgets a lot more to collaberate a lot more in those
:07:51. > :07:57.specific areas. I think education around the benefits to sharing this
:07:58. > :08:01.information and how to share it collaberatively without sharing
:08:01. > :08:03.your competitive edge is something to focus on.
:08:03. > :08:08.Whilst America has passed legislation saying companies must
:08:08. > :08:11.reveal when they have been hacked, Britain hasn't followed suit.
:08:11. > :08:21.GCHQ's central role doesn't help in the information-sharing issue
:08:21. > :08:21.
:08:21. > :08:26.either. They are not used to GCHQ has many areas of expertise
:08:26. > :08:32.and it is a thought leader. How it will look in five or ten years time,
:08:32. > :08:35.I don't know, but you will see GCHQ ever more central in the process.
:08:35. > :08:42.Perhaps beginning to own some of the policy making and some of the
:08:42. > :08:49.strategy making. That will be a challenge for the organisation.
:08:49. > :08:53.There is another thing about GCHQ, they, MI6 and MI5 have so far been
:08:53. > :09:03.allocated 59% of the planned Government spending, and the
:09:03. > :09:16.
:09:16. > :09:20.agency's primary business is $:/STARTFEED.. Many people have
:09:20. > :09:24.told us much of the new money is being spent targeting other
:09:24. > :09:30.country's secrets, you can argue knowledge gained doing that will
:09:30. > :09:33.improve Britain's defences. Inevitably GCHQ will approach
:09:33. > :09:37.cybersecurity through a certain prism, given it is an intelligence
:09:37. > :09:41.agency. The rationale is to collect intelligence, and to be involved in
:09:41. > :09:47.operations. So you are probably finding that quite a chunk of the
:09:47. > :09:50.new money they were given has gone on sustaining existing capablities
:09:50. > :09:56.for computer network exploitation or attack. They are not really
:09:56. > :10:00.investing as much in the computer network defence element.
:10:00. > :10:05.agencies and particularly GCHQ were developing programmes to enhance
:10:05. > :10:09.their abilities and to get a really strong grip on global situational
:10:09. > :10:15.awareness, and those programmes benefited very significantly from
:10:15. > :10:21.the new funding that was made available. That's offensive?
:10:21. > :10:26.that is not offensive that is on- going programmes. But if you are
:10:26. > :10:32.goinging to defend effectively you have to understand the attacks that
:10:32. > :10:36.will come in against you. So if the cybersecurity spend has
:10:36. > :10:42.given a useful boost to the intelligence agencies, how far have
:10:42. > :10:46.defences been improved at all? The MoD has made progress in securing
:10:46. > :10:52.its systems, but many experts think critical infrastructure is still
:10:52. > :10:55.wide open. There are certain industries within that critical
:10:55. > :11:00.infrastructure who have started to grab the bull by both horns, so to
:11:00. > :11:02.speak, and try to tackle the problem head on. Unfortunately we
:11:02. > :11:05.are seeing other critical infrastructure organisations still
:11:05. > :11:09.burying their heads in the sand. Maybe they see that the problem is
:11:09. > :11:13.too big, they are never going to fix it. If you don't start
:11:13. > :11:16.somewhere we are never going to progress. Even today, much of the
:11:16. > :11:21.Government's cybersecurity spendinging remains uncommitted. A
:11:21. > :11:25.good proportion of what they have spent has gone on offensive
:11:25. > :11:30.capablities. While they stress to us that one survey put Britain top
:11:30. > :11:37.of the G20 in cybersecurity, many feel not enough has been done yet
:11:37. > :11:46.to defend Britain's networks. all our coverage is not as
:11:46. > :11:53.extensive as I would hope it should be. Given the push they made on
:11:53. > :11:57.cyber, I think the relative lack of offensive in defences is cause for
:11:57. > :12:07.concern. Francis Maude, the cyberSecurity Minister told us
:12:07. > :12:13.
:12:13. > :12:23.tonight: As for leaving a significant
:12:23. > :12:32.
:12:33. > :12:36.proportion of the �650 million unat Three years ago the Government
:12:36. > :12:41.declared cyberdefence to be a vital national priority. Yet you would
:12:41. > :12:47.hardly think so from the scale of investment so far in protecting
:12:47. > :12:50.this country's computer networks. With us now is the former Labour
:12:50. > :12:55.Defence Secretary and Home Secretary Lord Reid who now chairs
:12:55. > :13:00.the Institute for Security and resilience studies, which is a
:13:00. > :13:03.filliated with the University College London. And also --
:13:03. > :13:08.affiliated with the University College London, and also the author
:13:08. > :13:13.of Cyber War Will Not Take Place. How real is the threat? It is very
:13:13. > :13:15.real. Let's accept that the digital world, cyber, offers us
:13:15. > :13:19.unparalleled opportunities. Everyone benefits. It is the
:13:19. > :13:23.biggest step for mankind in terms of learning and exchange. But
:13:23. > :13:27.because there is an interdependence, because we are all networked
:13:28. > :13:33.together now we are all very, very vulnerable. That starts withen
:13:33. > :13:37.vaigss of privacy, -- invasions of prif vi, then on-line fraud,
:13:37. > :13:43.massive crime, industrial espionage, and now the possibility that people
:13:43. > :13:46.could really undermine the operating system that is run our
:13:46. > :13:53.critical infrastructure. national security level who is the
:13:53. > :13:57.enemy? The enemy in a sense is our own complacency. It is potentially
:13:57. > :14:05.anyone who wishes to either steal industrial secrets or undermine.
:14:05. > :14:08.Are we talking about China? state-sponsored terrorism, in
:14:08. > :14:14.state-sponsored cyberespionage there is evidence that China is
:14:14. > :14:18.involved. Russia. Also because the cyber-world empowers three billion
:14:18. > :14:22.people now, it is possible for individuals to do a great deal of
:14:22. > :14:26.damage as well. Not just state- sponsored. They can get through
:14:26. > :14:36.some of our vulnerable but critical operating systems. Do you think the
:14:36. > :14:40.
:14:40. > :14:46.threat is real? Let's make a difference between espionage and
:14:46. > :14:52.steal be and political activism on- line and sabotage. Sabotage we know
:14:52. > :14:56.five or six cases on a public record, globally speaking. Great
:14:56. > :14:59.Britain has never experienced that, espionage is different, in many
:14:59. > :15:04.cases it is happening on a daily basis, that is where the main
:15:04. > :15:07.threat S all of that doesn't take into account crime which is an all
:15:07. > :15:11.together different kettle of fish. You are advocating an international
:15:11. > :15:17.approach to this problem? I think you need a national and
:15:17. > :15:20.international. Look, this isn't like any other problem because the
:15:20. > :15:25.cyber-space, the Internet and digital communications are
:15:25. > :15:31.transnational, they cover 192 countries, each with their own
:15:31. > :15:35.types of juris prudence, some of them four or five types, all the
:15:35. > :15:40.treaties are more or less redundant. I have been suggesting the first
:15:40. > :15:43.thing to do is to develop what we call "doctrine", that is a series
:15:43. > :15:47.of principle that is we set out publicly, not secretly, with other
:15:47. > :15:50.countries in the world. Don't necessarily negotiate a treaty, but
:15:50. > :15:54.let people know where we stand on various issues. That is starting
:15:54. > :16:00.point. We also need to do things nationally the problem nationally
:16:00. > :16:04.is that cyberspace is fragmented in Government. It is not just Francis
:16:04. > :16:14.Maude, it is defence, it is Vince Cable at business and so on
:16:14. > :16:16.involved in it. It needs an overall approach, you need a Cyber Minister
:16:16. > :16:19.responsible to the Security Council. That is a controversial suggestion
:16:19. > :16:22.because it is a decentralisinged problem the Government is facing.
:16:22. > :16:26.That raises the question whether putting one person in charge of the
:16:26. > :16:31.entire problem is actually making it more difficult to have a proper
:16:31. > :16:36.overview because it is so decentralised, rather than
:16:36. > :16:41.different responsibilities across the board. Let's talk about
:16:41. > :16:45.defensive issues, we we heard the argument that GCHQ is spending a
:16:45. > :16:49.lont the defensive side. That is speculation, we don't know how much
:16:49. > :16:54.they are spending it. I think it is well sourced? I'm close to the
:16:54. > :16:59.sourced and it is not on the public domain information. To be precise
:16:59. > :17:02.there is political pressure towards GCHQ to do more on the offensive.
:17:02. > :17:07.That is what parliament essentially said in its last committee report.
:17:07. > :17:13.That is an interesting development. Because GCHQ, I think we have to
:17:13. > :17:17.understand the nature of cyber- weapons, if I may. Cyber-weapons
:17:17. > :17:21.are different from conventional weapons, if you develop a weapon
:17:21. > :17:25.like a virus it is a one-shot weapon against a specific target.
:17:25. > :17:29.You fire it once and you can't repeat it. GCHQ understands that.
:17:29. > :17:34.Does this idea of resilience in an international organisation doesn't
:17:34. > :17:38.a imply some sort of defensive capacity? Be careful with the word
:17:38. > :17:41."defensive" the way it was used in the report there meant that GCHQ
:17:41. > :17:48.were trying to enhance their active intelligence, which is a different
:17:49. > :17:52.thing. It doesn't imply that they were about to launch a cyber-attack
:17:52. > :17:56.on anyone, it did mean they were trying to use some of the money
:17:56. > :17:59.given to them for cyber-defence to do what they have traditionally
:17:59. > :18:04.done which is to pick up intelligence, patterns of terrorist
:18:04. > :18:06.contact and so on. That is one of the problems I think in getting a
:18:06. > :18:10.comprehensive report from Government. I still think that
:18:10. > :18:13.because it is so comprehensive, unless you get a lead minister and
:18:13. > :18:19.I accept this is arguable, unless you get a lead minister it won't
:18:19. > :18:23.work. Thirdly you have to put in enough money. �650 million for our
:18:23. > :18:27.country over three years. Over three years, it is not peran number,
:18:27. > :18:30.isn't a lot of money when split between GCHQ, Home Office and
:18:30. > :18:35.defence. There is a big, big problem here. The Government have
:18:35. > :18:39.done some things on it, I think we ought to be fair to GCHQ that is
:18:39. > :18:45.trying to both do what it traditionally has done, and to
:18:45. > :18:49.develop new methods of defending on cyber. Is there a skills shortage
:18:49. > :18:54.here? Yes. Absolutely. In all countries, not just this country.
:18:54. > :18:58.Sow what do you do, do you hire hackers or what? Yeah. You need a
:18:58. > :19:01.new culture. You need a new structure. For instance the way you
:19:01. > :19:09.recruit to the Civil Service. We have looked at people who play
:19:09. > :19:13.within the box, who like Tom and I wear a collar and tie, wear short
:19:13. > :19:16.hair, are good soldiers and don't question, exactly the wrong thing
:19:16. > :19:19.for cyber. Let's look for the people who question and rebel. The
:19:19. > :19:24.people prepared to question authority all the time. And to turn
:19:24. > :19:31.a lot of young people who are very good at this away from the
:19:31. > :19:35.possibility of them becoming what is called "black hat" cyber-thak
:19:35. > :19:42.hackers. Would you let people out of prison to do it? You don't need
:19:42. > :19:45.to do that. You need to make sure your culture and process selection
:19:45. > :19:49.is as such that you don't demand the requirements for the past
:19:49. > :19:53.several hundred years, but those that will equip people for the
:19:53. > :19:56.cyber-world. Let's talk about an issue talked about in the report,
:19:56. > :20:01.openness. After Boston and the terrorist attacks, the police and
:20:01. > :20:05.the FBI informed the public. In the military confrontation like in
:20:05. > :20:07.Afghanistan the British Army is informing the public. In a cyber-
:20:07. > :20:10.security context there is no established expectation how the
:20:10. > :20:15.Government should inform the public about what's going on. The result
:20:15. > :20:19.of that is, that we as the public are relying on companies to report
:20:19. > :20:24.the facts. Companies to report the statistics, these companies have an
:20:24. > :20:28.interest in a particular version of the story. So one of the very
:20:28. > :20:35.important things to understand is that openness, meaning the
:20:35. > :20:39.Government, which is afterall and GCHQ which is tax-pair-funded has a
:20:39. > :20:44.responsibility towards -- taxpayer funded has a responsibility towards
:20:44. > :20:49.us the citizens. They have a way to go on that but more opening up to
:20:49. > :20:52.come. The critical thing for the national infrastructure is the
:20:52. > :20:56.private sector who have to understand how critical they are,
:20:56. > :21:01.and share information despite competitive urges.
:21:01. > :21:05.In a moment, they may look plentiful but bee numbers are
:21:05. > :21:08.tumbling. Are pesticides to blame. Whose job is it to work that out.
:21:08. > :21:12.The onus should be on those who manufacture the chemicals to show
:21:12. > :21:17.they are safe, rather than the beekeepers trying to improve they
:21:17. > :21:20.are unsafe. Now, it is the least favourite time
:21:20. > :21:24.of year in most of the departments of Government. The time when nasty
:21:24. > :21:28.People in the Treasury expect a letter setting out your plans to
:21:28. > :21:32.make George Osborne's day by not spending so much money. There are a
:21:32. > :21:36.few public services which have been promised protection, but every
:21:36. > :21:39.bunch of people spending public money, even the Government catering
:21:39. > :21:45.officials thinks their work is vital. Unfortunate low we are broke.
:21:45. > :21:48.Who is to get what in two years time, the start of the next
:21:48. > :21:51.administration, has set off some serious scrappinging in Whitehall.
:21:51. > :21:56.Our political editor is here. This isn't supposed to be decided for
:21:56. > :22:02.weeks yet, is it? I know, they have to find �11.5 billion. This has
:22:02. > :22:11.been shadow boxing for six months or more. The last seven weeks does
:22:11. > :22:14.feel like the deadline is approaching. In 2015 there is the
:22:14. > :22:20.election, these cuts will loom over the election. They are intensely
:22:20. > :22:25.political and won't be decided in a Jiffy. For that reason they are the
:22:25. > :22:28.subject of fierce negotiations. Remind us who is ring-fenced here?
:22:28. > :22:33.The NHS, aid and schools, not the Department for Education, but
:22:33. > :22:36.schools as a bit within it are protected. NHS and aid it is for
:22:36. > :22:40.both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives it is important to
:22:40. > :22:43.them. Particularly for the Tories it is about rebranding themselves.
:22:43. > :22:46.Schools is about a time they are cutting elsewhere they are
:22:47. > :22:51.reinvesting in young people. The problem is, in my opinion, watching
:22:51. > :22:54.this closely over the last six months what we have had emerge are
:22:54. > :23:01.these inprompt tu ring-fences around welfare. The Lib Dems are
:23:01. > :23:07.saying you can't touch that, not on your Nelly. The Tories saying you
:23:07. > :23:12.can't touch defence. When you have these two massive monoliths emerge,
:23:12. > :23:17.people start to reevaluate and say what do we go back, to schools
:23:17. > :23:20.which is what I'm told is on the table. The FT is saying there is a
:23:20. > :23:29.massive, four cabinet ministers saying to the Treasury you can
:23:29. > :23:33.touch the NHS afterall. There is a respectful case to be made for
:23:33. > :23:38.cutting schools. I have talked to lots of Labour sources, not lots
:23:38. > :23:45.but serious ones who say that they would do that going into Government.
:23:45. > :23:51.It is not actually as baermy as it sounds. But today the -- barmy as
:23:51. > :23:53.it sounds, today the Prime Minister said he won't touch the NHS or
:23:54. > :23:58.pensioner benefits but I didn't mention schools.
:23:58. > :24:08.We are joined to discuss this by Matthew tailor chief executive of
:24:08. > :24:10.
:24:10. > :24:16.the RSA, he was chief policy adviser during the Government. And
:24:16. > :24:20.Rick From the polling company. think this is an example of good
:24:20. > :24:23.politics made bad policy. I can see why politicians felt the need to
:24:23. > :24:26.make these policies. But in a situation like this you need to
:24:26. > :24:34.make choices based on the merits of the case rather than the basis of a
:24:34. > :24:38.commitment you made two or three years ago. The consequence of too
:24:38. > :24:41.much ring-fencing is certain small items are cut to the point where
:24:41. > :24:45.they will stop existing, Legal Aid and youth services are examples of
:24:45. > :24:49.that. The other consequence is in the end people blai games. Little
:24:49. > :24:57.bits of social care spending are funded out of health. What happens
:24:57. > :24:59.is valuable time in Whitehall ought to be used spending policies and
:24:59. > :25:04.supporting stupid promises politicians have made. The promises
:25:04. > :25:09.are made when politicians are asking for our votes f politicians
:25:09. > :25:11.start breaking an agreement or an undertaking, not to take money from
:25:11. > :25:14.schools, or from international development or whatever it was, you
:25:14. > :25:22.can understand that? They also tend to be made by politicians in
:25:22. > :25:25.opposition. The two headlines for the stories were ring-fencing the
:25:25. > :25:30.NHS budget, ring-fencing international development as part
:25:30. > :25:32.of a reassurance exer size in the run up to the 2010 general election.
:25:32. > :25:36.Nobody would find now if international development was cut
:25:36. > :25:39.now? International development on the one hand is very, very popular
:25:39. > :25:42.as a candidate for cutting, if you have to cut anything with the
:25:42. > :25:47.public. About four out of five people are in favour of ring-
:25:47. > :25:51.fencing the health service, only four in 100 are in favour ring-
:25:52. > :26:01.fencing the aid budget. If the stories got rid of it, everyone
:26:01. > :26:05.would scream that it was the death of compassionate Conservatism and
:26:05. > :26:08.David Cameron modernising the Conservative Party. If you look at
:26:08. > :26:13.the other pledges being made it might get us away from the idea
:26:13. > :26:18.that the way politicians rebuild trust is tie their hands in the
:26:18. > :26:21.future. If you saw someone with a padlock on their wallet you
:26:21. > :26:25.wouldn't say they were wise with money but they had a problem. This
:26:25. > :26:27.is going on for years, Labour's golden rules and the Office of
:26:27. > :26:32.Budget Responsibility is another people. All a way for the
:26:32. > :26:35.politicians saying to the public you don't trust us so we will tie
:26:35. > :26:39.ourselves up, I don't think it works. It gives you little room for
:26:39. > :26:43.manoeuvre, if you come into Government and most of the budget
:26:43. > :26:47.is already supposedly ring-fenced? This is not a new problem. Margaret
:26:47. > :26:54.Thatcher, one the first thing she did during the 197 9jx campaign was
:26:54. > :26:59.to say she would impli -- 1979 campaign was to implement the
:26:59. > :27:02.policies just before the recession. There is difference between policy
:27:02. > :27:07.and swathes of Government. Blair or Brown said they wouldn't
:27:07. > :27:11.increase the top rate of income tax, a pledge they stuck to for more
:27:11. > :27:15.than a decade. And introduced lots of other taxes because of that.
:27:15. > :27:18.point is, I think, if you have a political problem the temptation is
:27:18. > :27:22.to come up with a headline policy you think will cut through and
:27:22. > :27:26.communicate with the public and say you can trust us with the health
:27:26. > :27:30.service, or other a different kind of heart. When the rubber hits the
:27:30. > :27:35.road your options are -- party of. When the rubber hits the road your
:27:35. > :27:38.options are there. How can you be as convincing as possible with the
:27:38. > :27:43.voters, while at the same time tying your hands to the minimum
:27:43. > :27:47.agreement. What we did have was economic policy and fiscal policy
:27:47. > :27:50.is policy made on current circumstances. We are talking about
:27:50. > :27:54.decisions to be implemented after the next election. That means that
:27:54. > :27:58.the ground in that election, because more commitments have been
:27:58. > :28:02.made between now and then, the ground to be fought over in that
:28:02. > :28:07.election will be very, very narrow, won't it? It will, and the danger
:28:07. > :28:10.is, we had it at the last election but it is even more pressure on the
:28:10. > :28:13.politicians in their debate to rule almost everything out. You get to
:28:13. > :28:17.the point when you say what is the point to choose which party to
:28:17. > :28:20.elect. They have ruled out any possibility of action. I wonder
:28:20. > :28:24.whether the electorate is get to go the stage where if a politician
:28:24. > :28:27.would say the outcomes you want is a well-run and better public
:28:27. > :28:31.services, these are my immediate policies, but I'm not going to say
:28:31. > :28:35.where we will be in two or three years time, nobody knows. I think
:28:35. > :28:38.you would be a very, very brave political leader to do that. If you
:28:39. > :28:42.were the Conservative Party you would want Ed Balls and Ed Miliband
:28:42. > :28:49.to say, just trust us, we are not binding ourselves to anything going
:28:49. > :28:54.into the next election. Thank you very much. Saint Alan
:28:54. > :28:57.Titchmarsh came among his disciples this evening, wailing loudly that
:28:57. > :29:00.gardening might not have a future. He seems to think it is because
:29:00. > :29:04.young people are more interested in computers than composting. The
:29:04. > :29:09.European Union believes there may be a bigger menace, not just
:29:09. > :29:14.gardening and agriculture but all of you us. They are introducing a
:29:14. > :29:21.moratorium on the use of some pesticides because of a
:29:21. > :29:29.catastrophic drop in the bee population, which without these
:29:29. > :29:39.nothing pollenates. After a long, cold winter, out in our countryside
:29:39. > :29:42.
:29:42. > :29:46.the bees are finally waking up. For beekeepers, it is their first
:29:46. > :29:49.opportunity to stock up with newbies. And they came from across
:29:49. > :29:54.England to this supplier in Oxfordshire today ego Tory chat
:29:54. > :30:00.about the future of our bees and to make sure they got the pick of this
:30:00. > :30:03.year's specimens. She is a lifrpb colour and longer. Bees and other
:30:03. > :30:07.insects are global to food protection, they pollenate about
:30:08. > :30:15.three-quarters of our crops. Falling numbers have been blamed on
:30:15. > :30:20.disease and loss of habitat. As well as a group of insecticides
:30:20. > :30:28.called neonicotinoid. This man is Ukrainian by birth, beekeeping is
:30:28. > :30:32.in his blood. He has been selling bees in Banbury for four years, he
:30:32. > :30:37.has managed to keep livestock losses to 10%. There is an
:30:37. > :30:41.indication of some syndrome somewhere. Maybe not pesticides,
:30:41. > :30:48.maybe husbandry, maybe not proper management, maybe something else. I
:30:48. > :30:52.believe we need to do more research into it, to actually find what is
:30:52. > :30:56.causing the big losses. Those who support a ban on neonicotinoids,
:30:56. > :30:59.point to a growing evidence that they can affect bee behaviour.
:30:59. > :31:05.Evidence has shown that the colonies are growing more slowly
:31:05. > :31:11.and have trouble bringing food back. This impacts the numbers of Queens
:31:11. > :31:15.produced and colony survival. The individual brain, bee and colony
:31:15. > :31:20.level there is clear evidence of the impact on the neonicotinoids,
:31:20. > :31:23.this doesn't prove they are the cause bee decline or pollination
:31:24. > :31:30.decline generally, but it is a clear negative impact and one we
:31:30. > :31:36.should try to live out. In Britain today they voted against a ban, but
:31:36. > :31:39.E United States were split. They imposed a temporary restriction on
:31:39. > :31:43.insecticides for two years beginning September. The ban covers
:31:43. > :31:49.two types of neonicotinoids, covering two chemical companies.
:31:49. > :31:53.is a sad day for UK agriculture, we will see farmers being more and
:31:53. > :31:57.more restrict today what they can use to grow the safe, high-quality
:31:57. > :32:01.affordable food we expect in the UK. We are seeing more and more this
:32:01. > :32:06.shift towards what I consider to be a museum agriculture approach in
:32:06. > :32:12.Europe. And all, unfortunately, without any discernable improvement
:32:12. > :32:17.to bee health. For zombie keepers this puts the burp in the right
:32:17. > :32:20.place, -- burden of proof in the right place? They are looking
:32:20. > :32:24.through the wrong end of the telescope, it should be up to those
:32:25. > :32:28.who manufacture the chemicals to prove they are safe, rather than
:32:28. > :32:31.the beekeepers proving they aren't safe. People here don't doubt our
:32:31. > :32:37.bees are under attack, they are not convince add ban on pesticides will
:32:38. > :32:44.help. It comes down to how big a risk we are prepared to take this
:32:44. > :32:48.she is vaital crop pollenators. Every year the beekeepers
:32:48. > :32:55.association collects information about the percentage of losses in
:32:55. > :33:02.bee colonies. Following a huge loss over the winter of 2007-08 of 31%.
:33:02. > :33:08.Subsequent years saw improvements, in 2008/09 it was 19%, and 18% over
:33:08. > :33:16.the winter of 2009-10, then another improvement with colony losses of
:33:16. > :33:22.close to 14% in 2010-11, a slight increase in losses to just over 16%
:33:22. > :33:26.in 2011-12. Figures for our latest protracted winter are not yesterday
:33:26. > :33:32.available. There seems a -- yesterday veilable. Kept bees are
:33:32. > :33:36.only part of the picture, wild bee numbers are less clear. Here at the
:33:36. > :33:40.agricultural research centre skiens plan to tag bees with tiny --
:33:40. > :33:46.scientists plan to tag bees with tiny radio aerials to track their
:33:46. > :33:53.movements by radar. There are many problems and factors with the bow
:33:53. > :33:56.problem, there is the mites, and the insects they carry, there are
:33:56. > :34:00.climate conditions and all sorts of other factors. I worry that people
:34:00. > :34:05.will now think we have solved it because we have taken out one
:34:05. > :34:09.factor from what is a very complicated equation. Passionate
:34:09. > :34:14.protests in London on Friday were trying to shift the Government's
:34:14. > :34:22.anti-ban stance. They didn't do that. The protestors will be he is
:34:22. > :34:26.celebrating the decision by Europe as victory if only tempry It is not
:34:26. > :34:30.what it is best for the bees, and the bees are most important. With
:34:30. > :34:36.us now is George Freeman who advises the Government on life
:34:36. > :34:41.sciences, and Heidi Hermann of the natural beekeepinging trust. Why do
:34:41. > :34:45.we care so much about bees? Because we know in our hearts how wonderful
:34:45. > :34:50.they are. How important they are, and how we can ill-afford to lose
:34:50. > :34:54.them. Most people know that. there is a problem, isn't there?
:34:54. > :34:58.There is a problem, as your film made very clear it is a complex
:34:58. > :35:05.problem. There are hundreds of species of bees, some doing well
:35:05. > :35:13.and some struggling. Nobody wants to use more chemicals, the farming
:35:13. > :35:17.industry keen to get off chemical agriculture. We need field trials,
:35:17. > :35:21.the need for study is how it works out in the feel. We and ten other
:35:21. > :35:24.countries in Europe today were calling for field trials across the
:35:24. > :35:29.country. There were 15 other countries who thought there should
:35:29. > :35:33.be a an immediate ban? Jo it was a split vote, it wasn't Britain
:35:33. > :35:37.against the rest of the countries? I didn't suggest it is, I was
:35:37. > :35:41.trying to figure out the Government's position on the issue?
:35:41. > :35:45.The Government's position is clear, it should be based on science. The
:35:45. > :35:49.two scientist here and research that has been done has not shown
:35:49. > :35:53.that the neonicotinoids are the cause of the collapse in bee
:35:53. > :35:56.numbers which the film showed is getting less bad. There is a number
:35:56. > :36:00.of factors, habitats, development and climate change. They are not
:36:00. > :36:05.good for bees? Nobody wants agriculture dependant on chemicals,
:36:05. > :36:09.we want to move away from that to a more biological system. Owen
:36:09. > :36:15.Paterson, the Secretary of State, is very keen on garotteing
:36:15. > :36:18.squirrels on a precautionary principle. On a precautionary
:36:18. > :36:24.principle shouldn't he ban this poison? We need policy to be driven
:36:24. > :36:29.by science. The problem is the commission has bottled it, in the
:36:29. > :36:32.face of substantial lobbying from the green NGOs it has been banned a
:36:32. > :36:42.class of chemicals. There is no impact on the environment bucks we
:36:42. > :36:45.know food prices will go up. It sends a message that Europe is
:36:45. > :36:51.against agriculture. I admire your attempts to defend Government
:36:51. > :36:59.policy. It is clear that the policy of the British Government on this
:36:59. > :37:04.neonicotinoid issue is crass. 1.2 million hectares in this country
:37:04. > :37:11.under cultivation with neonicotinoids, all of them killing
:37:11. > :37:15.insect life in all its forms. And to say for definite that we deeply
:37:15. > :37:18.care about the health of the honey bee, and we will follow science, we
:37:18. > :37:27.are waiting for the right science, is just not good enough. I think
:37:27. > :37:32.the population is now catching up with that disparity of that
:37:32. > :37:35.position. It is a very dangerous precedent today, if you don't base
:37:35. > :37:40.it on science, you send a message out that anyone who lobbies hard
:37:40. > :37:44.gets their way. The danger is we base it not on science. You are
:37:44. > :37:50.claiming the evidence isn't there and we have to wait for the science.
:37:50. > :37:54.Your own Government had an Environmental Audit Committee and
:37:54. > :37:57.it made clear recommendations in relation to the precautionary
:37:57. > :38:01.principle needing to be introduced urgently in order to save the
:38:01. > :38:04.wildlife of the country. The chief scientist, new in post, has come
:38:04. > :38:08.out and said he thinks it is a mistake. Are you going to suggest
:38:08. > :38:12.that because he's new he is better. The scientist who led the research
:38:12. > :38:16.has pointed out field study is what we need. We need to look at the
:38:17. > :38:21.effect of the chemicals out in real agriculture in field studies across
:38:21. > :38:25.Europe. There are scientist who is think it should be banned? This
:38:25. > :38:30.isn't against scientific advice, the Government is acting on the
:38:30. > :38:36.basis of the advice available. totally disagree with that.
:38:36. > :38:39.Wouldn't you like to ban all insecticides? Yes, but that doesn't
:38:39. > :38:42.mean we don't applaud today's decision. It is a step in the right
:38:42. > :38:49.direction, it is not the whole solution. You say three cheers for
:38:49. > :38:52.the undemocratic part of the EU? Absolutely. Takes us back to the
:38:52. > :38:56.dark ages, food prices rising, Europe in the slow lane. Why are
:38:56. > :39:01.you saying that? The world needs to double food production in the next
:39:01. > :39:05.30 years, we need to increase the amount of money we grow without
:39:05. > :39:11.chopping down rainforests and less inputs. We need science. That will
:39:11. > :39:16.get us out of it. The anti-science approach will take us back to the
:39:16. > :39:20.dark ages. Scientific beekeeping has been practised in the last 300
:39:21. > :39:23.years and appears to have brought the honey bee to its knees.
:39:23. > :39:26.Traditional beekeeping before science had flourishing bee colony.
:39:26. > :39:29.When you look at the state of the environment today and say we have
:39:29. > :39:32.brought the environment to the planet to the brink of collapse,
:39:32. > :39:36.maybe there is something wrong with that science. Maybe there are other
:39:36. > :39:41.forms of science and other ways of looking at things. No accept we
:39:41. > :39:43.have brought the planet to the brink of collapse. Mankind is an
:39:43. > :39:46.extraordinary journey of development, we have risen
:39:46. > :39:50.standards of living across the world. We have a huge challenge.
:39:50. > :39:54.The force of science and human innovation and optimisim and
:39:54. > :39:59.progress will see us through. That we need policy based on science.
:39:59. > :40:04.Thank you very much. Time now for the facial hair of the day spot.
:40:04. > :40:09.He's called Harper Reed and he calls himself with characteristic
:40:09. > :40:12.underestimate probably one of the coolest guys ever. Actually he has
:40:12. > :40:20.done something rather interesting, Harper Reed was the head of
:40:20. > :40:24.technology for President Obama's re-election team. It became famous
:40:24. > :40:31.for building the most sophisticated voter tracking database ever seen
:40:31. > :40:35.in a US presidential election. By using information from social
:40:35. > :40:42.networks, television viewing habits and personal donation histories it
:40:42. > :40:46.was able to microtarget individual voters, sending them millions of
:40:46. > :40:51.personalised e-mails and Twitter messages each day. It worked,
:40:51. > :40:57.obviously. He's with us now. You are not a politician by background?
:40:57. > :41:01.No, not at all. You certainly don't look like a politician? I in theed
:41:01. > :41:05.that! What attracted you to it then? There is this aspect of
:41:05. > :41:11.problem. I think engineers are often looking for the most
:41:11. > :41:15.important or interesting problem set. When I first was recruited the
:41:15. > :41:19.problems that were described were very attractive. You don't often as
:41:19. > :41:23.an engineer get this opportunity to do something that is so big.
:41:23. > :41:29.you just summarise the problem in words we can understand? I will
:41:29. > :41:34.make an effort. So the problem that we set out to do we set tout figure
:41:34. > :41:39.out a way to contact -- out a way to contact all the correct voters
:41:39. > :41:44.who make sure they voted for the President. That is to simplify it.
:41:44. > :41:46.How do we take all the data people are giving us through our e-mail
:41:47. > :41:53.list and fundraising and make sure we are reaching out in the correct
:41:53. > :41:55.way. You were also playing into that what you could find out from
:41:55. > :42:00.social media, what television programmes they watched and all the
:42:00. > :42:05.rest of it? None of the television stuff. We did a bit where we built
:42:05. > :42:08.technology that looked at what all people were looking at, the
:42:08. > :42:12.aggregate data. It wasn't so specific, we didn't know what you
:42:12. > :42:18.Jeremy were watching it. The point being you could precisely target
:42:18. > :42:22.messages to everybody? That is the idea. It obviously worked? There is
:42:22. > :42:25.the pd. But the bigger idea is we wanted to make sure we were
:42:25. > :42:31.efficient in our movements. I'm not familiar with campaigns in the UK,
:42:31. > :42:35.but in the US it is all about the resores. Its about who has the most
:42:35. > :42:39.money, volunteers and boots on the ground. We wanted to make sure
:42:39. > :42:44.these very valuable people doing the hardest work were able to do it
:42:44. > :42:48.very efficiently. This is a big sea change in the way politics are
:42:48. > :42:56.conducted. I think that it is not so much a change as much as I would
:42:56. > :43:02.say, we like to call it as a "force multiplier". What do you mean?
:43:02. > :43:06.Politics hasn't changed ts knocking on doors, sending mail and
:43:06. > :43:11.telephone calls. Those are the same organising techniques used for
:43:11. > :43:16.years in the US. What we did was make all of those things, twice,
:43:16. > :43:20.three-times, four-times as efficient. The idea was if we had a
:43:20. > :43:23.volunteer knocking on doors, that volunteer could do the same time
:43:23. > :43:28.but twice as much work. But making sure the contacts and the people
:43:28. > :43:32.they are talking to are the right people. Did you find anything at
:43:32. > :43:37.all creepy or sinister about the fact that you were learning so much
:43:37. > :43:40.about people? Well, you know the good thing was all of the data,
:43:40. > :43:44.predominantly all of the data was really given to us by the same
:43:44. > :43:48.people that we were looking at. So the volunteer, knocking on a door,
:43:48. > :43:52.having that conversation, and using that conversation to make sure we
:43:52. > :43:59.weren't wasting people's time. I don't think it was creepy. I think
:43:59. > :44:04.it was just helping us do our job and making sure we were re-electing
:44:04. > :44:08.the President. There is a thin line between targeting the message very
:44:08. > :44:12.precisely and changing the message, formulating policy? There is a
:44:12. > :44:16.nuance here I would like to insert. That is the goal here was to listen.
:44:16. > :44:18.The goal here was to use that targeting, reach out there and make
:44:18. > :44:22.sure we could have that conversation with the person. It
:44:22. > :44:26.was also, of course, used in some cases, not the targeting but the an
:44:26. > :44:31.litics and data to make sure we were doing the right work. For the
:44:31. > :44:34.most part people saying this stuff is creepy, it is very much what
:44:34. > :44:38.businesses are doing. Doesn't mean it is not creepy? That is why I
:44:38. > :44:43.wanted to throw that over. There it is more so the idea was how do we
:44:43. > :44:48.get the conversation closer to the user. Or closer to the voter or
:44:48. > :44:52.that constituent? Do you get a feeling that guys like you, I don't
:44:52. > :44:56.mean with your facial hair, but guys with your set of skills and
:44:56. > :45:01.interests are going to take over politics? I don't know about take
:45:01. > :45:06.over. I'm a little concerned that the focus on just getting tech for
:45:06. > :45:11.tech's sake. I do think there is not a business out there, politics,
:45:11. > :45:15.marketing, commerce, that doesn't require in this day and age a lot
:45:15. > :45:21.of technology. So I think in the US it just turned out that politics
:45:21. > :45:27.was no different. Thank you very much Tomorrow morning's front pages
:45:27. > :45:37.as was mentioned the story of the public sector spending round is on
:45:37. > :46:05.
:46:05. > :46:10.the front page of the Financial We have been putting up the wrong
:46:10. > :46:15.pictures, sorry. At least it is today's or tomorrow's. We will
:46:15. > :46:19.leave you with comfort for all of us who have had to put up with that
:46:19. > :46:23.perpetual childhood moan, it is not fair. It is evidently hard wired,
:46:23. > :46:28.as the primatologist, Frans De Waal, showed to a recent conference. And
:46:28. > :46:33.he has cucumber and grapes to prove it T his monkeys had to hand over a
:46:33. > :46:37.rock to get a reLuiz Eduardo. gives a rock to us, that is the
:46:37. > :46:45.task and we give her a piece of cucumber, the other one needs to
:46:45. > :46:50.give a rock to us, and that's what she does, she gets a grape. She
:46:50. > :47:00.eats it, the other one sees it and gives the rock to us and gets again
:47:00. > :47:13.
:47:13. > :47:16.Over the next couple of days a split in the weather further south,
:47:16. > :47:19.sunshine to the north a bit more cloud. We will see cloud increasing
:47:19. > :47:24.through on Tuesday. Still one or two showers around, not as many as
:47:24. > :47:27.we had on Monday, not as intense. One or two scattered around across
:47:27. > :47:30.parts of Northern Ireland. Temperatures at 12. Still perhaps a
:47:30. > :47:33.few showers for parts of Scotland where temperatures just getting
:47:33. > :47:38.into double figures through the central lowlands. Inbetween the
:47:38. > :47:42.showers many places will be dry, fine and bright. We have got
:47:43. > :47:45.sunshine in Manchester. 12 the top temperature. One or two showers
:47:45. > :47:49.scattered across the Midland and into East Anglia. With the sunshine
:47:49. > :47:53.to the south we are looking at temperatures up to around 14
:47:53. > :47:56.degrees. Many southern counties of England will stay dry all day long.
:47:56. > :48:02.With lighter winds across south- west England, it will feel warmer
:48:02. > :48:07.than it did on Monday. Maybe one or two showers for parts of Wales.
:48:07. > :48:17.Sunny spells and temperatures in Cardiff at 12 degrees. While a lot
:48:17. > :48:23.