07/10/2013 Newsnight

Whose version of press regulation will get the nod? The one the press

wants or the one Parliament wants? We have learned the press's prose

posals for outside regulation have been binned. The newspapers are on a

collision course with politicians. Over 400 dead British soldiers and

over £30 billion spent and countless civilians killed.

What has the West achieved in our 12 year war in Afghanistan? The Afghan

president gives Newsnight his verdict The world's biggest

container ship. It cost Afghanistan a lot of

suffering and a lot of loss of life. And no gains because the country is

not secure. 83-year-old Sally Lubanov has not

left her home for the last nine months. We bring her into the studio

to face the minister in charge of her care.

And the world's biggest container ship, if you stacked up its cargo,

would reach into orbit, but what's the point? There is no port in North

America could accommodate this ship, so how can it make economic sense?

A dramatic development tonight on an issue that has at the its heart the

freedom and the responsibilities of the press. We have learnt of a move

that he emerged from the discussions within the group will decide the

future of press regulation later this week. Senior Conservatives and

Lib Dem figures have rejected the press's favoured solution, their

alternative version of a charter. The decision looks set to spark

confrontation between the two sides on a complex and fractious issue.

Allegra Stratton has brought us the story and joins us now. The

presenter of the Media Show is here too. Let's start at the beginning

because this is complicated. Talk us through what we have learned today?

It has been difficult journalism. A subcommittee of the Privy Council

met today. This was six to eight Cabinet Ministers from Conservative

and Liberal Democrat side of the coalition and what they were looking

at was the newspapers, the press's own position on what they felt was a

kind of media regulation that they could deal with and we have winkled

it out. The privy council is answerable to the Queen. All my

sources didn't want to talk to me about this. We think we have got

somewhere. They have rejected it. They have said that what the press

wants, does not, in the words of one senior source, it doesn't enshrine

independence. The people on this new regulatory body that the press want,

as opposed to the one that the Government and some other people

want, it doesn't have independence in it. So it wouldn't really be much

of a regulatory body. So they have had to reject it. Some of the quotes

we have. It has to be properly independent. That's what Lord

Leveson wanted. What they are coming up doesn't meet the test. Some of

this doesn't come as a surprise for people, but it is, we expected this

meeting this week and so we will hear from newspapers how they are

going to react. And we are expecting this to be a major blow for the

newspapers. The Leveson report was coming up to a year ago. Fill in the

background. Because this is something we talk about, but it

leaves a lot of people far behind. What doesn't leave people far behind

is the principle of free speech in this country. It is something that

many people feel is about being British. It is something that many

other countries have said with horror, I can't believe Britain

would move to this. A lot of people think about it like that. I don't

think it is true to say this is alien from people's lives when they

are sitting in their sitting room. The technical nature of it is. What

people should take home from this, all of Her Majesty's newspapers do

not want this. All of them will be upset this evening. All of them feel

this is a process, Steve will tell us more, it is a process that's

supposed to be about transparency and they have been kept in the dark.

We have this Privy Council. There will be ranker, but lots of

principle at stake. The words that David Cameron used

last week, does it pass the Dowler test? Talking about the mistreated

family of Milly Dowler. What do you think the response from the industry

will be to this, Steve? Look, I think, in terms of what is going on

down the Dog and Duck, there is the Dowlers and the McCanns and the

shocking treatment handed out to Christopher Jefferies. The press is

in the dock really. So where do the press feel now? They feel the

process has been far from transparent. They are, I think,

people that I have spoken to are, furious and are now considering

whether there might be a legal challenge to this decision by the

committee, the Privy Council. The reason they had to do this, the

privy council's own rules say if there is more than one proposed

charter on the same subject, neither can be given effect because it draws

the Queen into a matter of public controversy. So in general, and

previous things that the Privy Council deals worthwhile Royal

Charters are uncontroversial. There is also talk in some quarters

amongst the press that the Royal Household might now obstruct the

progress of the cross party charter because it is so controversial. The

last thing they want is the Queen to put her name and her stamp on

something which is going to be ranker are yous for a long time.

What we are understanding tonight is the solution, the press offered if

you like, has not been deemed acceptable? Yes, it has been

rejected. What will they do in practical terms? They can consider a

legal challenge to the process. I am not a lawyer, but I have been

talking to lawyers and nobody knows how you do this. They could consider

a legal challenge or choose to go along with it or this is most

likely, but the thing is that this is all about establishing a body to

give recognition to the new self regulator that Lord Leveson said

should exist. He said there is an outrage, there is a committee, there

is a decision to sort the press out. Nothing happens. There is a

committee, there is a decision to sort it out. To stop this happening,

we will put in place a recognition system. Put this in context for us.

Because we have had The Mail and Daily Mail on the programme last

week and we have had the row with the Labour and Ed Miliband, where

does this sit-in that? In terms of timing, you saw the impact of the

Miliband thing. Look what is coming. On 28th October, the first of the

big trial, the phone hacking trial starts, Andy Coulson and Rebekah

Brooks. That won't be pretty. Trials will run on phone hacking and other

things well up to the next election. Once we get into that process, the

things well up to the next election. atmospherics for the press will be

dreadful. If you were a press tactician you might think better of

trying to do a deal sooner rather than later.

We will return to this story when we have more reaction to it.

Should the Taliban have a place at the centre of a future Afghan

Government? The question would have seen absurd five years ago. Today,

Hamid Karzai told this programme he was talking to the Taliban and would

welcome them into any power sharing deal, including direct Government

jobs. The Americans stated that they will not fight the Taliban anymore.

Only Al-Qaeda. Has the enemy's enemy now become a friend? And where does

that he leave the reasons we were given for fighting in that country?

Afghanistan has come a long way from 2001. From the almost premodern days

of the Taliban. But it cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of

thousands killed and injured. And as the Afghans argue with Americans

about a security agreement, to define post-war relations, its

president continues to be an ally one day and an opponent the next.

Hamid Karzai had troubled relationships with his western

backers. Whether fighting the Taliban or nati building, he often

had different objectives. What does he really think about the United

States? The Taliban, of Britain's war in Helmand province? Is he

bothered by the levels of corruption here? Who are by women's rights? In

one of his last major interviews, Hamid Karzai has agreed to speak to

Newsnight. There is no doubt that the country

has grown, and developed and come a long way in the last 12 years. Why

then do it the Americans, President Obama, call you an unreliable,

ineffective partner? Because where we want us to go along, we don't go

along. They want us to keep silent when civilians are killed. We will

not. We cannot. Isn't it the case that your

relationship with President Bush was better than your relationship with

Obama? His main focus has been the exit strategy? How has that been for

you? I had a good relationship with President Bush and those beginning

years, there was not much difference of opinion between us. The worsening

of relations began actually in 2005 where we saw the first incidents of

civilian casualties, where we saw that the War on Terror was not

conducted where it should have been, which was in the sanctuaries, in the

trading grounds beyond Afghanistan rather than that, the US and NATO

forces were conducting operations in rather than that, the US and NATO

Afghan villages, causing injuries to hundreds of Afghan people.

Are you talking to the Taliban? Yes, hundreds of Afghan people.

we are. We have our whole system engaged in several direction to

bring stability and peace to Afghanistan.

Is the goal to bring them into some kind of power sharing deal in

Government? Absolutely. They are Afghans. Where the Afghan president,

where the Afghan Government can appoint the Taliban to a Government

job, we will do that. But when it is the Afghan people appointing people

through elections then the Taliban should come and participate in

elections. To clarify this, as Afghans, they are welcome to the

Afghan Government like all other Afghans, yes. As Afghans, they are

welcome to participate in elections. A British audience or an American

audience watching this would wonder what was this for then? 12 years of

fighting, lives lost and the Taliban will walk in and be part of

Government? Well, the Americans have told us themselves in Washington in

my last visit that the Taliban are not their enemies. That they will

not fight the Taliban anymore. What are you discussing with the

Taliban? What's up for negotiation? What's at stake? If the Taliban have

reasons for which they cannot come, they must spell it out. If it is the

Afghan constitution, they must come and talk to us and allow the Afghan

people and through the mechanisms that we have to amend the

constitution. The gains that women made in this

country are tenuous, surely by bringing the Taliban back, you are

compromising those gains? This country needs to have peace. You

know where they stand with women's rights. Are you willing to sacrifice

women's rights? I am willing to stand for anything that would bring

peace to Afghanistan and through that, to promote the cause of the

Afghan woman better. There is no doubt about that, even

if the Taliban come, that will not end. That will not slow down.

So women in Afghanistan should not have the fear of a return of the

Taliban? None at all. None. The bilateral security agreement, Mr

President, let's talk about that. That defines the US and

Afghanistan's relationship beyond withdrawal and if you push too hard,

they may not stay. Is that something that worries you? Well, if the

agreement doesn't suit us then, of course, they can leave. The

agreement has to suit Afghanistan's interests and purposes. If it

doesn't suit us, and if it doesn't suit them, we will go our separate

ways. If this agreement does not provide Afghanistan with peace and

security, the Afghans will not want it. That's very clear. Britain has

made a massive contribution already. Can you tell the British public, you

know, what all their sacrifices were force? They don't understand why

they are still here? All the Prime Ministers that came were in office

in the past 12 years have clearly staitds that they are here in

Afghanistan in order to provide security to the West and in order to

prevent terrorism from reaching the West and in order to fight extremism

here. How much of that has been achieved is something that the

British Government can answer alone. Can you assess the criticism and

failings that were experienced in Can you assess the criticism and

Helmand province? It is not only Britain. On security front, the

entire NATO exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of

suffering. And a lot of loss of life. And no gains because the

country is not secure. I'm not happy to say that, well, there is partial

security. That's not what we are seeking. What we wanted was absolute

security and a clear cut against terrorism.

Some people would say that your legacy has been tainted by the

corruption in this country. That Afghanistan is the third most

corrupt country in the world. Is that a legacy you want to leave

behind? No, not at all, of course. Se. Our Government is weak and

ineffective in comparison to other governments. We have just begun. But

the big corruption, the hundreds of millions of dollars of corruption,

it was not Afghan. Now everybody millions of dollars of corruption,

knows that. It was foreign. The contracts. The sub contracts. The

blind contracts given to people. Money thrown around to buy

loyalties. Money thrown around to buy submissiveness of Afghan

Government officials to policies and designs that the Afghans would not

have agreed to. That was the major part of corruption.

Finally, are you concerned about your safety when you leave office?

Not at all, no. No. I will be safe. President Karzai, thank you very

much for your time. Thank you. Coming up:

We hear from the global superstar, just signed up by the BBC.

. Ago today, the Chairman of RBS made

a phone call to the heart of Government. His bank, he told the

Chancellor, Alistair Darling, would seize to exist within hours. The

call prompted a flood of lek quitity to -- lick quite to prop up the

dying organisation. Their aim was to keep it going until the close of the

financial day. Five years on, where keep it going until the close of the

are we? What lessons have we learned? We will ask Alistair

Darling, first Iain Martin takes us through the critical hours of

crisis. The Ritz Hotel in Central London. In

the autumn of 2008, while the Savoy was shut for repair, this is where

Sir Fred Goodwin stayed when he was in town.

Shortly after 8am, having finished breakfast, Goodwin walked down these

steps and got into his chauffeur driven Mercedes. He had an

appointment on the other side of town. Talking to o fellow bankers.

It was the beginning of an extraordinary day which would send

shockwaves through the entire British economy.

While Goodwin made his 8.45am presentation about the challenges

facing the Royal Bank of Scotland, those in the audience could see on

facing the Royal Bank of Scotland, their mobile phones what was

happening as the markets opened. The RBS share price was collapsing. The

first question from the floor caused the colour to drain from Goodwin's

face. Did he know in the half-hour he had been on his feet talking,

RBS's share price had been fallen by 25%?

The sell off that morning was so frenetic the authorities at the

London Stock Exchange suspended trading in RBS shares twice. The

collapse in share price reflected reality. For months RBS had been

leaking money as customers and investors rushed to take their cash

out of -- troubled bank full of toxic assets. Now, with many fearing

RBS was about to go bust, no one would lend the bank the tens of

billions of pounds it needed to would lend the bank the tens of

carry on functioning. Goodwin and his colleagues had built RBS into

the world's biggest bank and here it was coming crashing down. In RBS's

offices in London that day, there was panic. As good win raced across

town, the bank's chairman called Gordon Brown to beg for Government

help. He told the Chancellor, Gordon Brown to beg for Government

Alistair Darling, that RBS could only keep going for a couple of

hours. A desperate Chief Executive tried to calm the Chancellor. Inside

the Treasury that often, they were scramling to prevent the meltdown of

the financial system. For weeks, worried ministers and officials had

been working out plans to bail out the banks, to pump tens of billions

of new capital into RBS and the others. It was time to put the plans

into action. Shortly after 7pm, Fred Goodwin and

into action. the Chief Executives of Britain's

other banks filed into Alistair Darling's office here at the

Treasury. After hours of fractious talks, by 3am, they had a deal. Lord

Myners who had been fired by Fred the sh Shred said, " You are in a

bit of trouble." The next morning, on the 8th October, Brown and

Darling held a press conference in Downing Street. Britain's reckless

banks, so celebrated by the politicians into the good times

would need £50 billion of taxpayer cash.

It turned out to be even more than that. And the taxpayer would end up

owning 82% of RBS. The crisis triggered the worst downturn in

seven decades and a slide in living stansds that continues to this day.

Boom and bust had not been abolished after all. How had it come to this?

Why did the financial crisis hit Britain so hard? In 1960, the

combined balance sheets of the UK's 16 clearing banks totalled £8

billion. A sum equivalent to 32% of UK GDP. By 2000, it was 1.4 trillion

and 143% of GDP. Around the time of the crisises is, the UK clearing

banks had total assets of .24 trillion, that was 450% of UK GDP.

There were fewer British banks and they had got bigger with RBS, the

biggest of the lot. For Britain, having taken a large gamble on

growing its banking industry, the having taken a large gamble on

rescue was always going to be painful if something went wrong.

Five years on, it is worth asking how much has really changed? Has our

banking system been fixed? A bit. Are we any safer? A little. With

property schemes such as help to buy popular again, could we be heading

for another banking crisis? Don't bet against it.

Well, that was Iain Martin. Well, I spoke to Alistair Darling and I

asked him what this day meant to him now? Well, I will always remember

the day when I received a call from the Chairman of RBS, this was the

morning that their shares had been suspended, not just once, but twice

by the London exchange and he said, we are haemorrhaging money and I

said how long can you last? He said well, wither going to go bust this

afternoon. This was the second, maybe the biggest bank in the world

and it had run out of money and this was three weeks after Lehmans had

collapsed and other banks were in trouble. This was the occasion when

we knew that we would have to act and we had a matter of hours to stop

the system from collapsing. And with cashpoints, you feared not

working people not able to get money out, there are suggestions that

Gordon Brown was ready to put troops on the streets. Was that really

considered? No, it was never considered. I was never party to a

discussion like that. What we did know, if you remember Northern Rock

which had seen the run in the autumn of 2007, you saw people queuing up,

which had seen the run in the autumn you know, desperate to get their

money out. Almost panicking in a very British sort of way. They were

good natured about it, but they wanted their money out. I knew if

one of the biggest banks in the world closed its doors, if the cash

machines were switched off, there would be panic. People would try and

get their money out of all the banks in Britain and it would have spread

to America and throughout Europe and the banking system could have

collapsed. That would have had massive repercussions. Where are we

now? Has there been enough reform? Would you feel safe saying this

could not happen again? Well, you can never say it couldn't happen

again. And the tragedy it is down the line when people who were around

last time left the banks and there is the temptation for people to come

to believe they can make money out of nothing. There is always that

risk. The banks are in a better position now. We were recapitalised

and they have to hold more capital as a buffer in case of failure. The

regulators are more on to the fact of the connections between banks

internationally. I still worry. I worry about the exposure of the

European banks to the Spanish housing crisis. We are not out of

woods with Greece and there is always the connections back into

Europe there. So you know, there is more work to be done. But we are in

a far better position than we were in 2008, but then if you look at

2008, it is hard to imagine you could have been in a worse place.

And in 2013, the taxpayer still owns RBS, who would have thought that? Do

you think it is time to sell? I would have thought that. If you

you think it is time to sell? I acquire a large bank, there was no

way you could get rid of it inside five years frankly. We will get our

money back provided the Government five years frankly. We will get our

sell shares based on what's economically right. We have got our

money back for a lot of the support systems put in place at that time.

Many of them have been wound down. In terms of the shares, there is no

reason why we shouldn't get our money back as long as the Government

act sensibly. Tomorrow, wither going to see the

second phase of help to buy launched. Is this something you

would welcome? Well, look, I am in favour of helping first-time buyers

and helping the housing market, but what I am worried is the risk is you

create another bubble. When you think about it, the number of houses

available for sale hasn't changed and if you put in a lot of cheap

cash then what will happen, it will push up prices. The housing bubble

that everybody dayed in 2007 -- said in 2007 and 2008, we must never let

this happen again. Now it is a Government policy to flush money

into the system and there is a risk therefore, that you get a there is a

risk that people take on credit at low interest rates and find their

mortgage repayments go up when interest rates go up and they will

go up. Yes, I am worried about it and I'm not the only one.

Ed Miliband made pledges to freeze energy bills if he wins the next

election. Was he right to? Look, it it is not being antibusiness or

anti-enterprise to stand up when there is market failure and I think

on any view if you look at what is going on in the energy prices. After

attacking him, the Tories backed off. They too can see a problem.

They announced a bunch of things last week.

Was he right to say a freeze? Enacting a freeze on prices. Of is

that the right move? What he is proposing is a freeze for about 20

months whilst the competitive problems or the lack of competition

problems with the industry are sorted out. He is not suggesting an

indefinite freeze, but what he is saying, there is a problem here and

the problem needs to be fixed. Now that surely is what governments be

are supposed to be doing. You featured a lot in Damien

McBride's memoirs. He said you adopted an attitude of poor

Alistair, who had to put up with so much and didn't get credit for his

role in resolving the financial crisis? I said everything about that

time in my book and I am not proposing to add anything to it.

And do you and Gordon Brown reflect back on this time together? Is that

something you talk with about with the then Prime Minister? At the

moment, I am seriously engaged in Scotland at the moment. I am in

Edinburgh tonight and that is really, you know, it is very well to

look back and say what happened and so on. It is more important you look

to the future. Do you ever talk to Gordon Brown?

Look, I am happy to talk to you about what is happening now, I am

not proposing to give you a running commentary on my social life.

Alistair Darling, thank you very much.

Thank you. 15 minutes, the length of time

allowed for some home visits to a person with disabilities. The length

of time in other words for them to choose between asking for help,

getting into a bath or help eating a meal and not both. The Care Minister

said he was unaware of the time limitations and he was proposing an

amendment to the care Bill. Sally Lubanov is one of those who raised

the frustrations of the short slot system. We will see her in

discussion with the minister shortly. First, her story.

Hello. Gosh, how nice to see you. Come on in. I can't turn around too

quickly so it will take sometime. This is my drawing room. I have

always done everything for myself. I never asked anyone for help. I have

always done my decorating and anything that needed to be done,

I've done it. Up until last year I just was

allowing myself to die. Slowly dying. I didn't see any point. I

didn't think about that. I didn't think that way, but I was. I

realised just allowing myself to die. I would try and put myself

outside myself which was what I have been able to do all my life and know

that my body is in agony, but I'm OK. I will not allow this to take me

over. Sugar. I will take it over and refuse to

play host to it. I am in the middle of writing a book and this is where

I spend most of my time because I can't sit with my legs hanging down

for long. So when I have been sitting there for a little while or

over there at the computer, I have to come back and put my feet and

legs up. I don't sleep very much at night. If the career is coming in,

either she goes and gets shopping for me, or she changes the bed or my

feet and legs are supposed to be down every two or three day -- done

every two or three days, but I suppose they have been done five or

six times in the last few months which doesn't work very well.

I haven't been out since last Christmas.

That was the last time I was out. I'm going to London!

Sally Lubanov left her home as you can see for the first time in ten

months. She has kindly come into the studio to meet the Care Minister.

months. She has kindly come into the Tell us about the last time you left

home then. Not since Christmas? No. I haven't. No, I haven't been, I

haven't been out since then mainly because I can't go by myself because

I have, I now have vascular dementia which means I have to be careful

where I go and have somebody I can hang on to which is why I have vast

pieces of furniture over the house hang on to which is why I have vast

which I can hang on to when I need to. So I can't go out on my own. And

your visits are from care workers? Yes.

And how do they work? I have had a friend did come to stay and the

careers are supposed to be able to stay because I have a room for them

to stay in my -- and my con stul tants -- con sum tants and --

consultants and doctors said I need a career sometimes when I have been

to the hospital and had tests and whatever. But the problem is that a

person above my bedroom where the career would stay, because I stay in

my art room as you saw, gets up at 3.30am and doesn't stop until 9am.

And when you have a care worker visit, you have changed the

timings... I have. But previously how did the time

slots used to work? What could you get done? Nothing. Well, very

little. There would be time for the get done? Nothing. Well, very

girl to make a cup of tea. Well, I will tell you what happened. Half an

hour is on the time sheet. It is written on the time sheet, half an

hour. Well, they come in. They book in on the telephone which takes a

few minutes. They then look at the in on the telephone which takes a

book to see what the person who came before has written in the book. They

then take off their coat and hat. They then put on their apron and

their rubber gloves and then they say good morning. That's ten minutes

gone. Right. So Norman Lamb, what would you say now to Sally Lubanov?

Well, I think Sally, may I call you Sally? Yes, please.

Is a perfect example of what is going on across our country. There

is a sort of an epidemic of loneliness and this is not just

about the formal care. Formal care is critical and there is a real

problem with short visits and I have been given a time sheet by a care

worker by just demonstrates an impossible schedule.

It says 7.15 to 7.30 and the care worker would have had to get to

another address. I mean is this news to you? No. I said I believed the

next scandal was going to be in home care because I became aware that

these things were completely unacceptable. And it is not just

short visits, it is a constant unacceptable. And it is not just

turnover of different care workers. Let's look at short visits. What

will you pledge? The end of 15 minute visits? Well, the one thing

we have to be conscious of. There are sometimes occasions for instance

checking that someone is taking a their medication when a quick visit

might be appropriate. their medication when a quick visit

60% of local authorities say the 15 minute visit is used regularly. This

is a norm. It is not about changing a plaster? We are doing an amendment

to the Care Bill will require local authorities to focus on an

individual's care needs. May I just butt in? The local care,

the local councils give the contracts to firms.

Yes, they do. They don't do it themselves. It is not the local

councils who decide. The local councils must stop the...

How long is long enough? What would you like to see the norm become? Is

half an hour long enough or an hour at a time? Well, Sally rearranged

her care so she gets care every second day and has a longer period.

There are 15 minute slots on a sheet that you have been given.

Absolutely. So tell me what the numbers should

be? Well, I don't think you can define a specific number. It has to

be based on the individual's well-being. So you might be saying

this to another Sally in another year's time? No w we are -- no, we

are saying to local authorities they have to he focus on an individual's

well-being. You are not going to take

responsibility? No, it will be a legal requirement. Sally made this

forcefully today. It is not just about formal care, it is about

companionship, friendship and giving people a life back again and getting

people out of their homes. Sally doesn't see anyone from day-to-day

and that's not acceptable. I don't think the Government can do anything

about it. I think... It is a challenge for society. Families and

neighbours. Thank you.

If you were anywhere near feelics stow today, you would have seen a

huge ship. You might have asked yourself if it was the biggest ship?

It is the biggest moving object ever. If you are a boat geek, burd

day -- your day is made. It arrives weighted down with goods from Asia

to us. It leaves our shores a lot lighter. Can anything reverse that

as we creep slowly away from austerity. Here is Andy Verity.

This is the largest ship on the planet. It is a quarter of a mile

long and can hold 18,000 container units, three times as many as the

long and can hold 18,000 container biggest ships of the last century.

. If you stack them up end to end,

they breakthrough the Strategic Rail Authority stratifere. Manned by a

cruise of just 22, the shirp is so tall it had to be weighed down to

get under the bridge that links Sweden to Denmark with just a meter

to spare and getting into Copenhagen was trickier.

Copenhagen is not used to coping with ships like this. We had to use

a powerful top boat. We normally don't do that. We had to make sure

because it is a narrow channel we are coming into and that was one of

our concerns. If something goes wrong, you could bump against the

our concerns. If something goes sides? Yeah, we could do that, but

we have made the arrangements so that will never happen.

To sail from China to Europe, the ship will take three-and-a-half

weeks and an average speed of 16 knots, 18mph. You could cycle

faster. The priority is not speed, but transporting these as cheaply as

possible. These dull looking boxes have

transformed the world. In 1956, a Texan businessman, Malcolm Maclean,

converted an oil tanker to take metal botions that could be switched

from train to ship to lorry. You could unload a ship for a 13 -- for

a 30th of the previous price. Containers like the ones used to

build this he East London market, made transport so cheap it mattered

less than before where the goods were made. If you wanted to ship

something somewhere, it would use up were made. If you wanted to ship

25% of the cost. That meant you couldn't ship far. It would cost a

lot to get it to a port. Now, with containerisation, that cost has

reduced. You can now ship a can of beer for about a cent. ,000

container ships on the sea and 20 million containers bringing us 90%

of everything. Even some British food arrives by

ship. Goods are made in made in Scotland and sent to China and

brought back. In one of these boxes, you can fit

1,000 scooters or 10,000 pairs of jeans or 13,000 smartphones and here

is how cheap that makes it to transport each item. A scooter would

cost 96 pence, a pair of jeans, ten pence or a smartphone just seven

pence. This vast new vessel should make container shipping cheaper.

When this ship is full, it you laid each one of the containers end to

end and tried to put them on a train, the train would have to be 68

miles long. In fact, this ship is half empty and that's because if it

were full, it would sit o so low in the water, it wouldn't be able to

get into the Port of Copenhagen. There is no port in North America

that can accommodate a ship this size. How it z can it make economic

sense to build a ship so large it can't fit into most of the world's

ports? The answer believe it or not, is cost-cutting. This ship can dock

in the far Eastern Europe, a route where competition is fierce and

rates have been slashed. Smaller ships don't make money. The reason

why you need a large ship is that you get economies of scale. So you

can transport more containers and use less fuel.

The Majestic is the first of 20 such ships ordered by a Danish shipping

group with revenues as big as Microsoft's and carbon emissions

almost as big as Denmark's. While most containers lose money, bigger

ships are a way back into profit. This ship consumes around 50% less

than the average of the vessels that were employed a couple of years ago.

The ship comes here full of containers. What about going back?

From Europe, we have a lot of export of waste materials like scrap metal

and waste paper and things like that. You take our rubbish? When

this ship returns to Asia, it will ride higher in the water because up

to half of these units will contain nothing, but air. It is a problem we

have had for 30 years. Our addiction to imports creates a nasty

imbalance. The most recent data shows in one month we exported £28.4

billion worth of goods, but imported 34.7 billion, a deficit of £9.9

billion. It is getting worse. In the boom, the West financed that

addiction to imports by borrowing massively from the east. The east

got a savings glut. The west got into debt and the world got a

crisis. That trade imbalance shows up in the

prices paid to ship a container. Container shipping companies are

keen for these things not to be empty that they will offer you a

massive incentive to export. Bringing one of these in from Asia

will cost you over $1500. Spending one back out, less than half that.

The West's addiction to imports is only half the reason for the

difference. China kept its currency low, ensuring goods going west to

east are less competitive. But bit by bit, the Chinese currency is

appreciating. When that takes hold, this ship going east should sail

lower in the water. We are going to take you back to our

breaking story. The news that politicians on the subcommittee of

the Privy Council rejected the politicians on the subcommittee of

press's alternative version of the charter to regulate the press. We

are joined by The Sun's, Trevor Kavanagh.

Trevor Kavanagh. Thank you for joining us. Tell us your reaction to

what you are hearing this evening? Well, it is a surprise that it has

what you are hearing this evening? come early, but it is not a shock.

It is what we have been given fairly clear clues would happen.

Intimations from the top of the Government down. And I think it has

to be seen as a great victory for the forces of oppression of a free

press, Hacked Off in particular and for the politicians who have gone

press, Hacked Off in particular and along for the ride.

Tell us what you make of the process? The way in which this has

come about? Well. It is a bizarre process. It

doesn't really follow the recommendations by Lord Justice

Leveson which was for the media, the mups to come up with a solution --

newspapers to come up with a solution. We felt we did, we came up

with everything that was required of us, short of a political input which

would be required by some form of lelg slayings -- legislation.

Whichever way you look at it, the Privy Council is a political input.

What do you do now? What are the lines you have to safeguard and what

are the compromises that you have to make now? Well, I don't speak on

behalf of the newspaper industry, but I would guess that we will

proceed as we are doing and have been doing for a very long time and

try to keep getting newspapers out with good stories in them. Somewhere

along the line from now on, we will hear officially and formally from

the Privy Council and then we will know what the reaction is of the

Government and now and of the day. This is going to drag on for a long

time. Possibly up to and beyond the next election. Thank you very much,

Trevor Kavanagh. Steve Hewlett, you can respond to that and what Twitter

has been telling us? Well, I have had a response from someone who does

represent the industry who says what Trevor says along the lines of their

plans for their self regulatory. Trevor says along the lines of their

Lord Phillips searching for the personnel. This is the press's own

new self regulator to replace the IPCC. The details of this have not

been discussed here yet. The discussion tonight and what the

Privy Council is about is all about a recognition body to give the stamp

of approval to the press self regulator to stop Leveson said what

happened every time before which is you get a crisis, a commission and

then they back slide. This, the back stop, the recognition body was the

key to holding that in process. The campaigners, Hacked Off, say the

decision -- was inevitable, it is overdue and the press were involved

in stalling tactics. They say it has shown two good things. It shows the

press are still weded to the old IPCC. The press are not all agreed

about IPCO, but although the pes weren't agreed - press wrant agreed

-- weren't agreed, they all disagreed with it.

Steve Hewlett, thank you very much indeed. We end with the news tonight

that the BBC reversed the flow of talent leaving the organisation

today with their star signing, the Sesame Street's Cookie Monster

joined our presenters roster. We have been joined by him. Cookie

Monster, why Britain? Why the BBC? Cookie. Yum-yum. Bye-bye.