23/11/2015 Newsnight

More air power, more missiles more rapid deployment.

Is Syria driving the agenda for the "full spectrum approach"

for defence and security announced by the PM today?

The threats we face today go beyond this evil death cult, from the

crisis in Ukraine to the risk of cyber attacks and pandemics, the

world is more uncertain today than even five years ago.

Are there more soldiers than civilians on the streets

of Brussels, where people are living in fear of an attack?

I'm in a European capital now facing its third night of unprecedented

lockdown. Two degrees temperature increase,

the magic figure at the climate conference in Paris next week,

but will everyone sign up? Ed Miliband tells us

about his carbon crusade and talks about the upcoming vote

on British air strikes in Syria. And an exclusive British interview

with a woman who lives with a new face after an horrific attack

destroyed her own one. The timing of the Strategic Defence

and Security Review less than two weeks after the Paris attacks has

meant that the Prime Minister was today able to set out a panoply of

responses to what he called growing threats to our country and "a world

more dangerous and uncertain than five years ago" - in both increased

hardwear and deployable armed forces, including two new rapid

strike brigades of 5,000 apiece,

and a replacement for Trident, The list goes on, ahead of

David Cameron's speech on Thursday in which he'll set out his case

for British airstrikes in Syria. Here's our

diplomatic editor Mark Urban with If you want a metaphor for how this

government sees the forces now, you could do worse than this. Member

old, professional, rapidly deployable. -- nimble. In fat but

also out quickly too. After Iraq and Afghanistan Britain lacks the will

or numbers to stick around. -- in, but also out. They may be

increasingly structured to war strategic raiding in a more

sophisticated way, backed up by intelligence assets backed up by

soft power assets. It may be required to do certain specific

things around the world, short and sharp and sophisticated. The wins

are mostly in air power, Britain will keep Typhoons for longer and

buying more F35 fighters. It will keep them at the current level but

also at planes. There will be nine new maritime patrol aircraft,

restoring a capability cut in 2010. Another squadron of F35-B will take

pressure away from the royal air force. In the short term we will see

a decision within days to join the offensive air campaign over Syria

and that will increase the pressure on the royal air force. In the

medium or long term, increasing by two Typhoons quadrants is good. The

government today acknowledged the research and is of state -based

threats, that is code for Russia. And it drives spending on eight new

type 26 frigates. It is also a key rationale for renewing Trident. This

isn't full-scale rearmament, because that would be hugely expensive. The

opposition says that much of the money for new kit announced today

has come from squeezing the MOD's people. ?11 billion of this extra 12

billion is supposed to be coming from deficiencies in the MOD. That

will translate into things like 30% job losses among civilian staff.

That level of efficiency savings is challenging, I would say. We will

have to interrogate this a bit more closely about how realistic the

savings are. Those in uniform will face the pinch, too. With allowances

and gaps between deployments hit. The Navy has had problems crewing

ships will get 400 more sailors rather than the 2000 it hoped for.

That will hit Britain's ability to sustain large-scale operations. Six

or seven years ago we could deploy ten brigades, one in Iraq and one in

Afghanistan, but we can't do that now. Sustainability is a big issue.

We have put quite a lot in the shop window but how much is in the

storehouse? By pumping more money into defence, the government has

ensured that the Armed Forces at night quietly satisfied. What this

is about is renewing their equipment at around about the same strength,

with the one exception of the decision to buy the Poseidon

maritime reconnaissance plane, none of this is about growing back what

has been lost in previous cuts and in that sense Britain will get more

modern forces but there will be a small force on the modern stage. It

may not be huge but the UK is one of the few countries in Europe making a

big new investment in defence, not least because it has so many

missions in mind for them. Mark Urban.

I am now joined by the Defence Procurement Minister, Philip

Dunne, and the Shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, Kevan Jones.

Good evening. First of all, Philip Dunne, none of this is making us

feel any safer because we won't get anything for at least three years?

This is a big day for defence, investing ?12 billion into the

equipment plan. 178 billion over ten years. It does not generate

capability overnight but it will in time. Right now we are facing a

bigger threat than we have in five years, more insecure than in the

past five years, and what has been announced does not change that in

the short-term? We are seeking to make the Armed Forces more and it

can happen continuously throughout the process. What has happened is

that we are now not even returning to five years ago, we are having to

patch up what you took away five years ago which was clearly too much

of a slash and burn? Five years ago we inherited a shambles in the

defence budget, completely unfunded expansion. We are now introducing

state-of-the-art capability across the Navy, Air force and army. Do you

agree with everything set out today? The government have cut the defence

budget by 40% in five years and made silly decisions in 2010, for

example, getting rid of maritime patrol which they are having to fill

the gap of today. 178 billion over ten years, that is not new money,

most of it is already committed. As Maria Eagle said coming 11 billion

will come out of deficiencies. Slashing the backroom staff at the

MOD. And also you are talking about this existing, if there is a growth

in GDP of 2% which of course is not guaranteed and it is not likely? We

are committed to a real term increase in new money. We have

successfully bid into a joint security fund which is new money of

up to 1.5 billion by the last year of Parliament and on top of that

retaining efficiencies we can make from doing things differently within

the Department and the Armed Forces and reinvesting that in capability.

That is around 7 billion efficiency savings. Let's look at the major

cost and that is the replacement of Trident. Kevan Jones, you have said

that this is a deterrent and the only constant guarantee of our

defence at sea. Do you support the replacement? I support the Labour

Party policy which was reaffirmed at the conference which is to have a

continued at sea deterrent. That is not about replacing Trident by

replacing the submarines which are at the end of their useful lives.

You are at odds with your leader because Jeremy Corbyn does not

support that position? He doesn't, but the Labour Party does. In terms

of the defence debates, internally, in terms of the policy review and

the conference, we have agreed to that. You have a review coming up I

Angela Eagle and Ken Livingstone and if they take a different view what

is your response? I do not know what Ken Livingstone's role is, but this

will not be made before we have that decision. The first line of defence

is the police force and one of the most senior officers in Britain at

the Home Office's request wrote to the Home Office with his assessment

which was that any further reduction in officer numbers will impact their

ability to manage terrorist incidents of the magnitude of Paris.

If we have 20% cuts in the police force, you are robbing Peter to pay

Paul, how are people going to feel safer if you cut police numbers? I

can't talk about that tonight, not only do we not know what will come

out of the statement on Wednesday, but what I can tell you is that I am

the defence minister and not the Home Office minister but we are

investing in 30% counterterrorism including in the police effort that

they put into counterterrorism, so it would help with support from the

military for the civil authorities if they need it in the event of a

Paris type incident, we would have troops on the streets to support

several of Laura Deas. -- civil authorities. Is Labour committed to

keeping the same numbers on the streets? The police, Fire Services,

local authorities will be slashed later this week. It raises a

question about the joining up of what has been announced today in the

defence review and what will be announced by the Chancellor later

this year. It was referred to in the report that these are important

elements of defence. One of the key points he made was that we need a

human rights adviser in every embassy. Is that really the priority

to discuss right now when we have Brussels on lockdown and we don't

know where Isis will strike next? No, the short answer isn't no. But

the important point which was raised is the role of the Foreign Office

which will be slashed later this week. -- the shot and set is no.

You seem very assured in your shadow defence position and I wonder when

you seem to be at odds with your leader so much in the end, can your

position be the dominant position? The fact of the matter is, in terms

of Labour, it's important to speak to the Labour family which actually

supports defence and families in my constituency and Labour voters, it

is important to have credible defence policies. One last thing,

you said earlier that you wondered what the role of Ken Livingstone

was, it has been a hugely publicised argument. He was insulting to people

with mental issues. You said that he had to be forced to apologise. As

that situation moved on at all? That was last week 's news. He was forced

to apologise but today Jeremy Corbyn referred to Maria Eagle as leading

the review. I know as little as you in terms of what his role is. Thank

you very much indeed. "In Paris they want to show they

have survived, It didn't happen

and people fear it will." These are the words of the head of

the Chamber of Commerce in Brussels where the metro system, schools,

universities, many restaurants and shops are closed for the third day,

the city effectively locked down, The authorities called

the terrorism threat to Brussels "serious and imminent" with a fourth

suspect being charged with Yet so far Salah Abdeslam -

a fugitive since being named a major suspect in the Paris

attacks, has eluded the police. Katie, what is the latest? Well,

there have been developments in the hunt for Salah Abdeslam. He is still

on the run. It has not happened in Brussels but in Paris. Earlier today

brothers workers found what is potentially the suicide belt that

potentially was used by Salah Abdeslam and dumped there. --

rubbish workers. Russells is in lockdown because he is still at

large and here the City centre has been jittery all day. Some workers

were looking after their children who could not go to school and son

did not want to go far from home. Tourists have in the main not been

frequenting their usual haunts and lurking underneath it is the fear,

if your City reacts in such an unprecedented way, the threat must

be serious. This is what a European capital looks like on its third day

of lockdown. Police and military out in force, nurseries, schools and

universities shut. The Metro not running and museums closed, many

bars, restaurants and businesses don't open a tall or have limited

hours. Facing a level 4 terror threat in the City, meaning an

attack is imminent, and level three in the rest of the country, Belgium

has taken dramatic action and the Prime Minister said normality will

not return for at least two days. TRANSLATION: We hope to get back to

a normal life. Obviously we have to be vigilant

and prudent, so it has been decided that schools will be opened

from Wednesday so that we can put in place the right measures to

protect them and the metro will also Last night's raids across the

country have led to one new suspect being charged with involvement

in the attacks in Paris. But with Salah Abdeslam still alive

and on the run the terror threat here is just as

stark. One of yesterday's raids

happened here in this suburb. The street behind me was cordoned

off and so was that one But the whole operation

was cloaked in secrecy. One local told me he had tried to

film it but was stopped And even the local mayor only

learned of the operation five He's one of 19 mayors in Brussels

alone and at the moment they are meeting daily to discuss public

safety. Because we don't know what

information they have we cannot judge whether the measure is

exaggerated or not. May be one day we will no what they knew. At the

moment they've put the threat level at number four, the maximum level

and it's better to do that than not to know and like Paris to have

attacks you didn't expect with a large number of victims. So people

accept it for the moment, but they won't accept it for long with no

information. In Northeast Brussels there is a mix of Muslims and

non-Muslims. What do people here think of their city's reaction to

the terror threat? TRANSLATION: We're not scared, why would we be

scared? It's just normal. If you haven't done anything you should not

be scared. TRANSLATION: The shops are closed, schools are closed, it's

sad for the Georgian, for everyone in fact, it's like life in prison.

-- sad for the children. They will need to keep faith with their

government's reaction for at least a couple more days.

Last week this programme brought you news of bullying, sexual harassment

and blackmail in the ranks of the young conservatives.

The allegations centred around the activities of

Mark Clarke, a former activist and parliamentary candidate,

who ran a campaigning road trip during the 2015 general election.

In September, one young activist took his own

life, having previously complained he was being bullied by Mr Clarke.

Now Allegra is here with some new details about the case.

What has happened? There may be more fingerprints on

the decision to bring Mark Clarke into the Tory campaigning machine

than we are first thought there were. The former chairman Grant

Shapps appears to be being isolated, essentially set up to be the fall

guy. He's the one who brought him into the formal structures in Tory

HQ, despite knowing he was on the 2010 list of official candidates for

the Tory party and then he had to be taken off for allegations of

impropriety repulsed up it looked like Grant Shapps was being isolated

but today Conservative Party headquarters conceded to this

programme that the decision on funding, giving funding to Mark

Clarke Buzz trip 2015 was taken by the senior management board of the

party, including the current chairman Lord Feldman, and Ben Coad

chairman Grant Shapps and also Lynton Crosby and the deputy

chairman Stephen Gilbert. The decision to give Mark Clarke

organisation funding was taken at this incredibly senior level. If

that is the full picture it's difficult to paint it as a Grant

Shapps clock up. What about the idea that nobody was reading the report

on Mark Clarke's behaviour in 2010? -- mistake.

We understand Grant Shapps did read the inquiry, or the report into Mark

Clarke's behaviour in 2010. Last week a young Tory activist told our

colleagues, James Clayton and Ernest Oxer at, that they had given a

submission to the report and in that this submission and they accuse Mark

Clarke of aggressive behaviour verging on violence. Extremely

aggressive behaviour is a direct quote. That was inverse admission.

We understand Grant Shapps read the report and they believed it was

allegations of rudeness, laziness but nothing worse. In the fullness

of time the report will come out and if it is as critical as the

interviewee says it was there are serious questions for Mr Shapps to

answer for. Allegra Stratton, thank you.

The state of emergency in France which has been extended

for three months will have an impact on the UN climate change

conference which begins on November 30th in Paris and which more than

The French edict means that climate change protestors,

normally part of such gatherings will be banned from demonstrating,

but this time the pressure inside the conference to get a deal

Here's Rebecca Morell with a short history of the climate change talks,

Some say the climate meeting in Paris is our last hope.

Some 500 kilometres away from Paris this is Jungfraujoch in the Swiss

This isn't just a tourist attraction with stunning views, although that

Instead, its lofty location gives it something of an edge and it comes

This high-altitude research station is nearly 4000 metres

It is one of a network of stations around the world

Over the years researchers have seen emissions go sky-high.

Carbon dioxide being the biggest culprit.

Stefan Reimann is one of this scientist is keeping

Stefan Reimann is one of this scientists keeping

This is the CO2 measurement here at Jungfraujoch.

We are normally above 400 parts per million.

The reading about 10 years ago was definitely below, around 380 ppm.

This is actually the highest ever as far as we know

Bringing emissions levels down will be one of the primary aims

But that means 195 countries reaching an agreement.

It might sound like a big ask, but it's not impossible

This station was one of the first to monitor CFCs, the man-made gas that

- as you may remember - punched a hole in the ozone layer.

The problems will only be solved by common action, and every country

The Montreal Protocol signed the death warrant for ozone-damaging

Now the ozone layer is on the mend, thanks to this uniquely successful

So, when climate change became the big issue it was hoped

Efforts began with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 with the creation

of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

which called for the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions without

But it did stipulate there should be a meeting every year called the

This will be the nerve centre of the negotiations.

It might look a bit messy now but when the representatives of 195

different countries get going, it's going to get a lot messier still.

Unfortunately, when these meetings began they

So now there has to be a consensus between every country about every

single word and every single piece of punctuation on every agreement

And this is the woman who will be in charge of the whole thing.

Can I just get your official job title, so we get it right?

It is absolutely terrible. Is it long?

It means absolutely nothing to anyone but anyway -

Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention

Do you think we are going to have a deal?

Yes. Why?

Because governments are not decreasing but increasing

their political will because every single one is already impacted,

We don't even want to entertain that scenario.

But Cops gone by have been none too inspiring.

Although the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 set emission-cutting targets

on developed countries, a landmark achievement at the time,

America pulled out and others failed to comply.

But, historically it had been a good Cop.

After two weeks of talks the Copenhagen conference

ends without long-term agreement on carbon emissions.

The conference ended in acrimony and already

The leaders were invited in at the end but inadvertently what that

meant was all of the big political issues were left to the final few

That proved very, very complicated and essentially

This time the leaders are being invited at

the beginning of the conference to set the overall political direction,

Copenhagen did, however, snatch one agreement from the jaws of defeat.

Copenhagen reached the consensus that a rise

of two degrees Celsius by the end of the century would be just about

Any higher and there could be catastrophic changes.

But scientists believe global temperatures have already risen

by one degree since the middle of the 19th-century.

So as far as this two-degree threshold goes we are already

As emission levels go on climbing climate models show

The higher we head above the two-degree rise the more

doomsday-like the UN's climate forecasts get.

Melting ice caps, flooded cities, loss of wildlife, food shortages,

CO2 is a really, really long-lived gas in the atmosphere.

So if we cut emissions by let's say 30%, 40%,

So the increase will just be a little bit lower.

But nature still cannot cope with what we are emitting.

But as we near the next Cop, it is felt that

For the first time most of the countries have already set out what

These pledges, called intended nationally-determined

contributions, or INDCs, will set the tone of the whole conference.

But when the pledged reductions are taken together,

the result will still see global warming bust the two-degree

threshold by the end of the century.

So, is a meaningful outcome already lost?

Instead of being on a trajectory to four or five

degrees, we are on a trajectory to be under three degrees.

But it is certainly a huge dent in the irresponsible and runaway growth

So it is a constant review and improve, review and improve.

That is going to be the dynamic that Paris will set up.

Since the Industrial Revolution economic growth has largely risen

For things to change, growth needs to be uncoupled

Developing countries are now told they will need to give their own

carbon intensive periods a miss and use greener alternatives.

But how much financial help they'll get to do that will be

a big talking point, as will what money will be on hand

for the countries hardest hit by the consequences of global warming.

In the coming years, places like Jungfraujoch will be among the

first to notice whether this summit has made a big enough difference.

The question arising in Paris will be - whether hopes

of hitting a two-degree target are ever achievable already lost.

Earlier this evening, I spoke to the man who was secretary

of state for Climate Change when the last set of climate talks

happened in Copenhagen - Ed Miliband.

I asked him whether there was really a better chance of agreement at the

Well, I must say that your film brings back unhappy memories.

But this is such a hard thing that the world is trying to pull off.

It's like a Rubik's Cube with many, many sides, 195 sides that you're

Now, that means you are not going to succeed first time round.

So I think Paris will represent progress.

It will represent progress because every major emitter is saying it's

It looks like it's going to make progress on climate finance.

And, therefore, we are going to have to get there in stages, I think.

Let's look at the last time there was a binding

As soon as you had a Republican administration, Kyoto was torn up

So presumably an incoming Republican administration would just turn

around and boot this out because there are no world policeman

around and boot this out because there are no world policemen

I think some people have talked about having sanctions and all

Maybe that's something that will have to be looked at in the future.

But, personally I think there are reasons for optimism.

I'm not involved in crafting this agreement, but as an objective

observer I'd say we are not where we need to be but perhaps in a better

You are putting the case for Britain to unilaterally sign up to zero

But why on earth would Britain put itself at such economic disadvantage

for, actually, a minimum improvement to world climate?

It is something that would be totemic and it would be to

I'm putting the case for a long-term goal of zero emissions

for the world because that's what the science tells us is necessary.

But I'm also putting the case for Britain to reflect that

Because, you say it would be bad for our economy.

Businesses from Richard Branson to Paul Polman of Unilever to Ratan

Tata, are all saying, actually, this will give us a sense of certainty.

This will give us a sense of where we are working towards.

And, look, there is going to come a point when the carbon budget for

We might as well and has a pet that now and plan towards it.

I think that's what the world should do and I think it's

You also, in a way, with this kind of what you would say

would be a very radical agenda of zero emissions kind

of deny the right of developing countries to industrialise.

Where does that square with your promise to reduce world poverty?

You have to allow countries, to industrialise to raise the standard

Absolutely right, and that's why I think we can be optimistic

Not with zero emissions, not by signing countries in

South America, not even signing China up to zero emissions.

We're going to have to get to that point because of the science.

But here is how countries can develop.

First of all, the rich world is going to have to do its bit to give

Secondly, climate finance as part of this agreement for developing

And thirdly, the low-carbon path is actually something developing

In terms of leading the way, let's talk about personal responsibility.

Five years ago it was very much in vogue to talk

There were campaigns about reducing people's own carbon

That's just gone now - why?

I don't think it has gone completely.

I think the British public have had lots of other issues

But I think the British public still care about this.

I think it's not something that people don't recognise as important.

But, of course, the action we take now is about

I think it's incredibly important we do act on this.

Do you actually monitor your own carbon footprint?

I try and keep it as low as possible.

I'm not presenting myself as a paragon of virtue.

Do you say, I took a flight to Brisbane, I took a flight to Boston,

I ran the washing machine ten times - what do you actually do?

But the biggest thing that can happen and the biggest difference

I can make is by making sure that governments act.

Today, Prince Charles has been saying that

climate change is a major reason for all the horror in Syria.

I think it's one of the issues that has placed stress on Syria.

I don't think he's saying it's primarily responsible.

I think it's widely recognised that the issues of drought and

water stress in Syria have been a contributory factor to the issues.

There are very complicated issues in Syria and I don't think he's

saying that the most important one is climate change.

Because, in 2013 when you were leader,

Do you think there is a clear case this time?

I think it's a different case, but it's

a case I'm yet to be convinced of, and let me explain why.

But the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I think,

There are two issues in particular that they raise.

It is the difference between Syria and Iraq.

Who is going to do the ground operations against Isil in Syria?

Because, there has not been a clear answer

And secondly, what is the political settlement that we are

And they haven't been clear about that.

The Prime Minister has promised answers on this.

Let's see whether the answers are convincing.

Last time round you followed your conscience

This time round, it's really unclear as to what Jeremy Corbyn's

Do you think that any vote on military action for Britain to

take abroad should be a free vote, should be a vote of conscience?

Look, honestly, that's not a matter for me.

That's a matter for Jeremy Corbyn and the Shadow Cabinet.

Ed Miliband, thank you very much. Thank you.

That's a question that only a very few of people

Eight years ago Carmen Blandin Tarleton,

a nurse on rural Vermont, was attacked by her estranged husband.

She was left with 80% burns after he doused her with industrial

Doctors described it as "the most horrific injury a human

By the time she was on the list for a face transplant,

Two years ago she endured 17 hours of surgery to get a new face,

only the seventh person in the US to do so.

Good evening. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, thank you for having

me. When the attack happened you were put in a medically induced coma

for three months. You were a nurse for 20 years. Had you any idea when

you came round how badly you were burned? You know, I didn't until

after I woke up. I had to be told exactly what my injuries were. Did

you have any hesitation later when you were offered the chance of a

face transplant? You know, when I decided that I was going to go

forward and see if I was a candidate for a face transplant I never looked

back. I always had a certain confidence and security that that

was what I really needed at the time. You of course were a nurse of

20 years standing and you knew all about the possibility of rejection

and so forth. In that case, the questions you were asking presumably

were very educated questions about the chance of this actually working?

Yes, I knew that I was not going to be an easy person to match, I was

the first person to have not the complete match with my donor because

I had been exposed to so much of other people's blood and tissues

with my other surgeries. I knew that it was not a guarantee that I would

be able to keep my new face, but I always had a certain faith that it

would work out. It has been almost three years now. It is doing well. I

can see to a certain extent now that you have lips again, and your

quality of life has been altered the nominally? Yes, I had search severe

scarring on my neck because my face was terribly disfigured. I was on

very large amounts of narcotics for many years. I could not even keep my

head up for any period of time, because the scarring on my neck was

quite severe. It has changed my life, much for the better, and I'm

truly blessed. I wonder, when you say it has changed your life,

whether it has given you pause for thought about the nature of identity

and what creates identity? Well, I had never contemplated my identity

prior to this. But now that I have had the experience of being a

disfigured person, and now a person that has a new face, it has been

quite strange, to look in an error, nowadays, I actually had my first

dream last week, in my dream, I had my new face and I had not had a

dream yet... We are very connected to our identities through our faces.

I have always been sort of concentrating on the core of who I

am, because my lugs have changed so dramatically short period of time.

-- my looks. You also met the daughter of your donor, what was

that experience like? That was a wonderful experience. I met her

prior to my press conference when they revealed my face on May the 1st

in 2013. I met her the night before, at her request. We had a

great relationship. I would go with her travelling on occasion, to speak

in the United States. We communicate on a regular basis, and she is just

a lovely person. Her mother was a donor, an organ donor. And she

allowed her face to be donated as well. It has been such a blessing. I

let her and no that. Now you do talk about your story as an inspiration

for other people but I wonder now, your attitude towards your attacker,

who of course was your estranged husband, how has it changed? I

totally forget a hymn in 2010. That also was a blessing. It was not a

difficult thing to do. I believe that was because I was secure in

really moving forward with my life will stop the forgiveness part came

quite easily to me. To forgive him. I was also aware that the more

energy I put on the past and what happened, and the unfairness of it,

it was just going to hold me down in that negative space, and I did not

want to be there, I did not want to be in the negative space, I just

wanted to move forward the best I could. Forgiveness is actually was

one of those necessities to my own freedom. Thank you very much for

joining us. Mark Clark has denied all allegations against him.

It seems fitting, on a night when we heard from former

Rubiks cube enthusiast Ed Miliband, to note that the world record for

solving the puzzle has been beaten - by American teenager Lucas Etter.

Here he is, solving the cube in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it