:00:07. > :00:09.It seemed unstoppable once but the brakes are being applied.
:00:10. > :00:13.The Scottish Government will reset the plan.
:00:14. > :00:18.We will not seek an independence referendum immediately.
:00:19. > :00:23.The SNP has put a stop for now, to its plan for a second
:00:24. > :00:27.Having enjoyed momentum in their favour for years,
:00:28. > :00:29.they've had to make a tactical retreat, with the polls showing
:00:30. > :00:38.the Scottish people unconvinced of the case for independence.
:00:39. > :00:42.We will ask the SNP leader in Westminster what went wrong and what
:00:43. > :00:44.has changed. Also tonight, Cambridge Analytica -
:00:45. > :00:46.compare and contrast We are going to be running
:00:47. > :00:49.large-scale research that the nation really understand,
:00:50. > :00:52.why people are interested in staying We've had absolutely no involvement
:00:53. > :00:56.in the Leave campaign, we didn't do any paid
:00:57. > :01:00.or unpaid work. Some believe the firm's
:01:01. > :01:03.psychological techniques were the secret weapon that swung
:01:04. > :01:05.the EU referendum, And we hear from the man who four
:01:06. > :01:23.years ago was in charge There is a lot of debate and discord
:01:24. > :01:29.over Brexit. That alone, let alone the other things we have been
:01:30. > :01:33.talking about, means this country is in a pretty sorry state, at a
:01:34. > :01:37.critical point in its history. Plans for a second Scottish
:01:38. > :01:41.referendum on independence First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has
:01:42. > :01:45.categorically NOT dropped the idea of another vote,
:01:46. > :01:48.but said today that no legislation will be brought forward until autumn
:01:49. > :01:51.next year at the earliest. Given the pace at which these things
:01:52. > :01:54.proceed, that means no vote would happen until 2020
:01:55. > :01:59.and by then it would likely be delayed until after the next
:02:00. > :02:07.Scottish elections in 2021. The reset amounts to a setback
:02:08. > :02:10.for the ambitions of the SNP, but it's arguably also a retreat
:02:11. > :02:12.for the forces of change and disruption that have been
:02:13. > :02:26.dominating politics for so long. It was Scotland that led the world
:02:27. > :02:30.into a new era of voter restlessness. A nationalist surge
:02:31. > :02:36.that saw SNP majority rule in Scotland and which paved the way for
:02:37. > :02:42.that independence referendum. Scotland has voted no in this
:02:43. > :02:47.referendum on independence. It was a defeat for independence but it came
:02:48. > :02:51.closer than anyone anticipated when it all started. Something had
:02:52. > :02:57.stirred and quickly turned into a boat uprising against anything that
:02:58. > :03:05.smacked of politics as usual. In 2015, the SNP broke all records, one
:03:06. > :03:10.half the vote in Scotland and 5659 Westminster seats. That turned out
:03:11. > :03:15.to be the high water mark. You have not seen the last of my bonnets and
:03:16. > :03:20.me. This time around they got 35 seats. A great result by normal
:03:21. > :03:25.standards but it was a huge drop. Volatile voter behaviour had now
:03:26. > :03:30.come back to hit the SNP. Nationalism are less winning
:03:31. > :03:35.proposition. That reality was infused into the words of Nicola
:03:36. > :03:39.Sturgeon today. Many of us already believe that independence is the
:03:40. > :03:44.right and the best answer to the many complex challenges we face as a
:03:45. > :03:49.country and also the best way to seize and fully realise our many
:03:50. > :03:52.opportunities. We must persuade the majority in Scotland of that was
:03:53. > :03:59.that we have not done that yet but I have no doubt that we can. Why did
:04:00. > :04:07.the momentum for radical change in Scotland slow? Here are four
:04:08. > :04:13.theories. One voter fatigue. After Indyref one and the Brexit vote, the
:04:14. > :04:20.Scottish people cannot face another decision. The SNP are outside is no
:04:21. > :04:25.more. Having once been the subversives, they then became the
:04:26. > :04:29.establishment. Ruth Davidson of the Scottish Conservatives became the
:04:30. > :04:34.outsider. The price of oil has fallen and Brexit makes the border
:04:35. > :04:41.issue less simple. A fourth theory. Some change in mood across Europe.
:04:42. > :04:45.It looked as though populism could disrupt all before it but the
:04:46. > :04:50.success of Emanuel Macron is only one example of it being held back.
:04:51. > :04:56.Maybe populism's ultimate triumph gave it a bad name. Brexit proceeds
:04:57. > :05:01.now for the whole of the UK. It has the power to disrupt and surprise.
:05:02. > :05:08.So the ground constitutional question has not gone away. For the
:05:09. > :05:10.moment at least, it is one great up evil at the time.
:05:11. > :05:12.Current polling has support for independence at about 40%
:05:13. > :05:15.by the way, and a recent Daily Record poll found that 60%
:05:16. > :05:18.wanted Ms Sturgeon to drop her plan for another referendum.
:05:19. > :05:23.Ian Blackford is the SNP's new leader in the House of Commons.
:05:24. > :05:32.Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Did the opinion polls play a part in
:05:33. > :05:36.Nicola Sturgeon's decision? We have reset the timing on when an
:05:37. > :05:41.independence referendum may take place. If we look at where we are,
:05:42. > :05:46.the SNP has won the last three Scottish elections. We have won the
:05:47. > :05:51.last 135 seats out of 39. We are still remarkably popular party and
:05:52. > :05:56.an remarkably popular government in Edinburgh. We need to reflect the
:05:57. > :06:00.circumstances throughout the United Kingdom. Now we have a minority
:06:01. > :06:06.government I would argue there is no longer a hard wrecks it. What we
:06:07. > :06:12.need to push for is representing Scotland's interests. You have
:06:13. > :06:19.overreached yourself. You thought this was your moment for a second
:06:20. > :06:22.go. Actually, the polls, if anything, have drifted away from
:06:23. > :06:27.independence. What happened last year if we went with the manifesto
:06:28. > :06:30.seeking support of the Scottish people. If there were to be a
:06:31. > :06:37.material change in circumstances, we wanted the option of a referendum.
:06:38. > :06:43.You are now breaking your own manifesto. Circumstances have
:06:44. > :06:47.changed. Our priority is to protect Scotland's interests. It means
:06:48. > :06:53.remaining in the customs union. There will be an opportunity to push
:06:54. > :06:58.for that. That is the change in circumstances. You can now fight for
:06:59. > :07:02.the soft Brexit that you want. You could not have done that before the
:07:03. > :07:08.general election. The UK Government did not want to compromise with us.
:07:09. > :07:17.There was a compromised document. We recognise the UK voted to come out
:07:18. > :07:19.of Europe. We'll Sue sought recognition of our position. We have
:07:20. > :07:25.not had a meeting of the joint ministerial committee since
:07:26. > :07:30.February. So, to summarise, it was nothing to do with the polls showing
:07:31. > :07:36.a decline in support for independence. Other polls show
:07:37. > :07:41.higher than that. There were some showing it at 49. We will always
:07:42. > :07:46.listen to the people of Scotland. We will understand we did less well
:07:47. > :07:49.than we did in 2015. We want to demonstrate to the people of
:07:50. > :07:54.Scotland we are worthy of their trust. Our priority is to protect
:07:55. > :07:59.the interests of the people of Scotland. Let's talk about that.
:08:00. > :08:04.That is your case. A referendum should be seen as an insurance
:08:05. > :08:10.policy in Scotland should be dragged out of the single market against its
:08:11. > :08:16.will. If you hate the Brexit that Theresa May is taking us towards, do
:08:17. > :08:22.you have the power to shout from the sidelines loudly and prominently to
:08:23. > :08:27.delay or obstruct? I think what people want is to see politicians
:08:28. > :08:31.working together. We are offering to the Government to get around a table
:08:32. > :08:34.to see we can represent the interests of those averse in
:08:35. > :08:39.Scotland and Northern Ireland who seek to have access to single
:08:40. > :08:44.market. If Theresa May does not play it like you want it, it you have the
:08:45. > :08:51.power to delay or obstruct the Brexit that she wants, like not
:08:52. > :08:55.voting for the Great Repeal Bill. We will have opportunities to influence
:08:56. > :08:58.the debate. There will also be a legislative consent motion has to be
:08:59. > :09:05.presented to the Scottish parliament. We are not talking about
:09:06. > :09:11.threatening anyone. In your back pocket it sounds like you do not
:09:12. > :09:19.have the power to stop it. We are going to have a legislative consent
:09:20. > :09:24.motion. What is your understanding if you refuse to consent? If we are
:09:25. > :09:28.in a position where we are dragged out of the single market then we
:09:29. > :09:32.need to have the option of giving the referendum right to the people
:09:33. > :09:38.of Scotland. That is the ultimate power we have. Will there be a
:09:39. > :09:45.second referendum before 2021 if Britain adopts a softer Brexit than
:09:46. > :09:50.Theresa May has been talking about? If the position of Scotland and the
:09:51. > :09:56.single market can be protected... If it cannot be protected, there will
:09:57. > :10:04.definitely be a referendum? In those circumstances, it is only right...
:10:05. > :10:08.You will definitely require one? At the end of the Brexit process, every
:10:09. > :10:13.member state of the EU will have a vote. It is only right and proper
:10:14. > :10:18.that people of Scotland are offered that opportunity as well. It is
:10:19. > :10:23.about making sure we have a parachute and can protect ourselves
:10:24. > :10:28.against the hard Brexit. There will be a referendum. You will request a
:10:29. > :10:33.referendum annual do it before 2021. We will need to move as quickly as
:10:34. > :10:44.possible. Let's talk about the DUP deal. Scotland has been
:10:45. > :10:47.short-changed by money being sent to Northern Ireland. It is not a good
:10:48. > :10:48.deal for the union and the United Kingdom. What you have is the
:10:49. > :10:53.Conservative government buying votes from the DUP with a ?1 billion
:10:54. > :10:57.bribe. How are you being short-changed? The Secretary of
:10:58. > :11:01.State for Scotland made it clear there have to be consequential is
:11:02. > :11:05.from the DUP deal. That should happen across the United Kingdom. If
:11:06. > :11:09.we were treated on an crippling basis, that would be an additional
:11:10. > :11:15.investment in Scottish public services and infrastructure of 2.9
:11:16. > :11:20.billion. That is a bit unfair on English taxpayers. It probably means
:11:21. > :11:25.another 30 billion for English taxpayers, doesn't it? They would
:11:26. > :11:31.not be treated on an equal basis if that were the case, would they? It
:11:32. > :11:36.is taking cash out of the pockets of the porous. We argue for an
:11:37. > :11:41.investment of 118 billion over the course of the parliament. Why would
:11:42. > :11:46.you want to leave? Your goal is to leave the United Kingdom. We want to
:11:47. > :11:51.be a progressive force in Parliament. We argued for investment
:11:52. > :11:53.across the United Kingdom. We're not playing one part of the United
:11:54. > :11:58.against another. Thank you. You might never have heard
:11:59. > :12:00.of the company Cambridge Analytica but for many of those lamenting
:12:01. > :12:03.the result of last year's Brexit vote it has become
:12:04. > :12:08.a bit of a bogeyman. Some believe the firm's
:12:09. > :12:10.psychological techniques were the secret weapon that
:12:11. > :12:12.swung the referendum. The idea that voters can be
:12:13. > :12:14.manipulated is not new, remember it was the Sun wot won it
:12:15. > :12:17.in the 1992 election. These claims are always aided
:12:18. > :12:20.by the perception that right wing billionaires are pulling strings
:12:21. > :12:22.behind the scenes. So what is the truth
:12:23. > :12:24.of Cambridge Analytica, Gabriel Gatehouse has
:12:25. > :12:30.been investigating. Every political campaign wants
:12:31. > :12:34.to get inside your head. The more they know about you,
:12:35. > :12:38.the more they can influence you. I think people understand
:12:39. > :12:43.that data is power. As we play out our lives online,
:12:44. > :12:48.we're making things easy for them. It is possible to target messages
:12:49. > :12:51.at particular individuals, who will be unaware of the fact
:12:52. > :12:59.you've been profiling them. Are there people out there who know
:13:00. > :13:02.you better than you know yourself? It's using psychological
:13:03. > :13:06.techniques to change people's Was Britain's EU referendum
:13:07. > :13:19.hijacked by the American alt-right, using a technique
:13:20. > :13:21.known as psychographics. They said, "Here's this
:13:22. > :13:25.company, can it help you?" This is the charge levelled
:13:26. > :13:28.at an obscure data analytics firm They now deny they ever worked
:13:29. > :13:37.on the Leave campaign So, is psychographics
:13:38. > :13:43.a menace or a myth? This is a complicated story
:13:44. > :13:45.involving politicians, financiers, and companies,
:13:46. > :13:49.on both sides of the Atlantic. It's also a story in
:13:50. > :13:55.which the main protagonists keep It raises troubling
:13:56. > :13:59.questions about whether, in the age of big data,
:14:00. > :14:02.our democracy is open Cambridge Analytica is a data
:14:03. > :14:11.analytics company with offices There are numerous, similar firms,
:14:12. > :14:17.whose services are retained by political parties
:14:18. > :14:21.during elections around the world. But, Cambridge Analytica's
:14:22. > :14:24.approach is different, according to its Eton-educated CEO,
:14:25. > :14:29.Alexander Nix. Psychographics, that is an
:14:30. > :14:32.understanding of your personality, because it is personality that
:14:33. > :14:36.drives behaviour and behaviour that Our story begins in 2015 at a press
:14:37. > :14:46.conference for Leave.EU, one of the two main groups
:14:47. > :14:51.campaigning for Britain's exit from One of the people on the platform
:14:52. > :14:56.is from Cambridge Analytica. We're going to be running
:14:57. > :14:59.large-scale research throughout the nation to really understand why
:15:00. > :15:02.people are interested in staying And the answers to that
:15:03. > :15:07.will help inform our policy and our communications,
:15:08. > :15:09.to make sure we turn out more first-time voters,
:15:10. > :15:11.more unregistered voters, more apathetic voters
:15:12. > :15:17.than ever before. In February last year, Alexander Nix
:15:18. > :15:20.gave a progress update. He wrote in an article
:15:21. > :15:22.that Cambridge Analytica "already helped supercharge Leave.
:15:23. > :15:26.EU's social media campaign. And that the campaign's Facebook
:15:27. > :15:30.page was growing in support to the tune of about
:15:31. > :15:36.3000 people every day." Leave.EU was the Ukip-led
:15:37. > :15:39.campaign for Brexit, fronted by Aaron Banks and Nigel
:15:40. > :15:43.Farage. Cambridge Analytica is financially
:15:44. > :15:47.backed by Robert Mercer, an American computer scientist
:15:48. > :15:50.turned hedge fund billionaire. He also backed the alt-right
:15:51. > :15:55.news site, Breitbart, founded by Steve Bannon,
:15:56. > :15:59.who was also on the board of Cambridge Analytica,
:16:00. > :16:01.until he became Donald Trump's Robert Mercer was a major
:16:02. > :16:08.contributor to Donald Trump's presidential campaign,
:16:09. > :16:13.which Cambridge Analytica It was through this network
:16:14. > :16:17.of mutual acquaintances that Cambridge Analytica
:16:18. > :16:20.and the Leave campaign. At least that's how a spokesman
:16:21. > :16:23.for Leave.EU told it to a reporter I went and had a cofee
:16:24. > :16:29.with Andy Wigmore of Leave.EU and he said it was just
:16:30. > :16:33.because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers -
:16:34. > :16:35.Robert Mercer - and of course knows Steve Bannon a long time,
:16:36. > :16:38.and they were happy to help. Political campaigning
:16:39. > :16:47.is strictly regulated. Whatever money you spend
:16:48. > :16:51.needs to be registered. Leave.EU's spending returns make no
:16:52. > :16:56.mention of Cambridge Analytica. When Leave.EU were first
:16:57. > :16:59.challenged about this, they said, "Oh, well,
:17:00. > :17:04.they did some work for us but they were just helping out
:17:05. > :17:07.and they didn't get paid." But that would be problematic, too,
:17:08. > :17:10.because donations in kind have to be registered as well and foreign
:17:11. > :17:13.donations are not allowed at all. In April, the Electoral
:17:14. > :17:16.Commission launched an investigation into Leave.
:17:17. > :17:20.EU's spending, including potentially impermissible donations,
:17:21. > :17:23.saying it had reasonable grounds to investigate whether
:17:24. > :17:26.the law had been broken. But now, in his first on-camera
:17:27. > :17:29.interview addressing this interview, Cambridge Analytica's CEO
:17:30. > :17:32.claims his company never in fact did any work on Brexit for
:17:33. > :17:36.any of the campaigns. I'd like to think we've been pretty
:17:37. > :17:39.clear about this and consistantly clear over the last year
:17:40. > :17:42.or so that we had absolutely no involvement in the Leave campaign -
:17:43. > :17:46.we did not do any paid Well, actually, that was
:17:47. > :17:58.really just an example We had a slightly overzealous PR
:17:59. > :18:04.adviser, who released You also had a colleague at
:18:05. > :18:14.the launch of Leave.EU's campaign. You were still saying
:18:15. > :18:21.you weren't working for them, We were exploring the possibility
:18:22. > :18:38.of working with them, as we were with actually other
:18:39. > :18:40.parties at that time. So, what does
:18:41. > :18:43.Cambridge Analytica do? Essentially, it's
:18:44. > :18:46.all about targeting. It uses data to help politicians get
:18:47. > :18:49.the right Facebook ad, for example, Every political campaign uses
:18:50. > :18:52.these sorts of companies but Cambridge Analytica claims
:18:53. > :18:54.to have something extra, a secret source, and that's
:18:55. > :18:58.psychographics come in. Cambridge Analytica is a behavioural
:18:59. > :19:01.science and data analytics company that tries to synthesise both
:19:02. > :19:04.psychology and big data and predictive analytics
:19:05. > :19:07.to understand audiences, both in the political space
:19:08. > :19:11.and the commercial and brand space, as well as the Government space,
:19:12. > :19:14.such that it can improve Cambridge Analytica was formed in
:19:15. > :19:23.2013 and is affiliated with a group SCL began developing a psychological
:19:24. > :19:29.component to marketing and messaging Their work isn't
:19:30. > :19:37.confined to elections. SEL's website says their services
:19:38. > :19:40.have been used by the US This has led some to accuse
:19:41. > :19:44.Cambridge Analytica of using techniques known as psyops,
:19:45. > :19:50.or psychological operations. This has come out of
:19:51. > :19:54.a background of doing 30 years of doing psychological
:19:55. > :19:57.operations all round the world. When people talk about winning
:19:58. > :20:01.hearts and minds in Afghanistan, It's using psychological
:20:02. > :20:05.techniques to change people's Cambridge Analytica is sensitive
:20:06. > :20:12.to the charge that they're using military grade psyops
:20:13. > :20:16.on elections in Western democracies. We train militaries all over
:20:17. > :20:21.the world in psyops and our military division
:20:22. > :20:23.is very separate from our In fact, so much so it's
:20:24. > :20:31.a different company, it's in a different building,
:20:32. > :20:35.it has a firewall between it, it's governed by a different board,
:20:36. > :20:38.it has its own security clearances. The only commonality between the two
:20:39. > :20:43.might be some key personnel Cambridge Analytica went on to work
:20:44. > :20:47.for the Trump campaign. At the time, they appeared
:20:48. > :20:51.to suggest they were using psychographics but they later
:20:52. > :20:53.clarified that they hadn't. Perhaps that's because when they did
:20:54. > :20:57.use psychographics on an earlier campaign, that of Senator Ted Cruz
:20:58. > :21:00.and his bid for the Republican nomination, it didn't really
:21:01. > :21:04.seem to work. What the company itself
:21:05. > :21:07.had promised to deliver And so we were paying a premium
:21:08. > :21:13.for something that we thought was a strategic advantage and turned
:21:14. > :21:16.out to have no I'd like to believe that the theory
:21:17. > :21:24.works and that it could be put to good use but, in the end,
:21:25. > :21:28.it was just bullshit. Cambridge Analytica says
:21:29. > :21:31.psychographics is a legitimate and effective component
:21:32. > :21:34.of its methodology. Scientists have, for years,
:21:35. > :21:36.been working on models that combined personal data with psychological
:21:37. > :21:38.tests, to better understand what In the 1990s, Barrie Gunter was one
:21:39. > :21:47.of a number of psychologists, This was two decades before
:21:48. > :21:54.Cambridge Analytica was formed. Even in those early days,
:21:55. > :21:57.there were concerns that the marketing of
:21:58. > :22:00.psychographics, sometimes Our job, mine and other
:22:01. > :22:09.psychologists, was really to make sure the science was adhered
:22:10. > :22:12.to properly and that the claims In the end, I'm afraid,
:22:13. > :22:15.that's where we parted company because he couldn't reach
:22:16. > :22:17.an agreement on that. But psychographics
:22:18. > :22:18.isn't science fiction. People volunteered to take
:22:19. > :22:29.a psychological survey online. Their answers are then matched up
:22:30. > :22:32.with details about their personal lives, their shopping habits,
:22:33. > :22:34.what car they drive, Put that together and it builds
:22:35. > :22:39.a psychological profile that can Eventually, once you've got
:22:40. > :22:48.the software and you've got the methodology that can accurately
:22:49. > :22:57.identify the mark as a personality, then it is possible then to target
:22:58. > :23:00.messages at particular individuals, who will be unaware of the fact
:23:01. > :23:02.you've been profiling them and that indeed
:23:03. > :23:05.you may be able to find out things about them, which they might not be
:23:06. > :23:08.consciously aware of themselves, becaise they wouldn't think
:23:09. > :23:10.about the information they're They're very sophisticated
:23:11. > :23:21.systems of analysis which are being developed which,
:23:22. > :23:23.in the future, could potentially And that's where some
:23:24. > :23:26.people get concerned. Could the stuff we post on Facebook
:23:27. > :23:29.and other social media sites be used without our knowledge to bombard us
:23:30. > :23:31.with psychologically-tailored Last month, the information
:23:32. > :23:35.commissioner opened a formal investigation into the wider use
:23:36. > :23:38.of data analytics by a number of different providers
:23:39. > :23:46.in political campaigns. What we're looking at here,
:23:47. > :23:49.and what the allegations have been about, is mashing up,
:23:50. > :23:51.scraping, using large amounts of personal data, online data,
:23:52. > :23:54.to micro-target or personalise, or segment, the delivery
:23:55. > :23:57.of the messages without I think the allegation is that fair
:23:58. > :24:04.practices and fair democracy is under threat if large data
:24:05. > :24:07.companies are processing data in ways that are
:24:08. > :24:11.invisible to the public. As part of their inquiries,
:24:12. > :24:13.both the information commissioner and the Electoral Commission
:24:14. > :24:15.are trying to establish whether Cambridge Analytica did
:24:16. > :24:17.in fact do any work If, as the company now said,
:24:18. > :24:34.they did no work at all, then perhaps they are simply
:24:35. > :24:37.a victim of a tendency to talk You said you were working
:24:38. > :24:43.on the EU referendum and it You said you were using
:24:44. > :24:49.psychographics on the Trump campaign We've been absolutely consistent
:24:50. > :24:59.in saying we did not work on the EU referendum,
:25:00. > :25:01.and we said this to you, We made statements to that fact over
:25:02. > :25:07.a nine or 12-month period, and we have also been consistent
:25:08. > :25:10.in saying when we transferred our data analytics capability
:25:11. > :25:12.from the Cruz campaign across to the Trump campaign
:25:13. > :25:14.it was only five months until polling and we did not have
:25:15. > :25:17.time to employ the rigorous psychological approach we had used
:25:18. > :25:27.on the Cruz campaign. So, the answer to your
:25:28. > :25:36.question is, of course, no. For some opponents of Brexit,
:25:37. > :25:39.the idea that the EU referendum was hijacked by alt-right
:25:40. > :25:42.hypnotists, wielding hi-tech, psychological weaponry looks perhaps
:25:43. > :25:46.like a reasonable explanation. But the known facts don't quite
:25:47. > :25:50.support this theory. Perhaps this is simply a case
:25:51. > :25:54.of theatrics and overzealous PR. But it remains a story
:25:55. > :26:01.of contradictions and More developments today
:26:02. > :26:12.on the investigations into the use We are up to 95 buildings with
:26:13. > :26:19.cladding found to be unfit here - There was, incidentally,
:26:20. > :26:22.one in Germany today as well. An 11 storey block of flats
:26:23. > :26:26.was evacuated there. Here, the government has
:26:27. > :26:28.appointed an expert group but the industry itself
:26:29. > :26:48.is already adapting. Remind us how many buildings can
:26:49. > :26:53.have the wrong cladding on? It is a tale of two rule books. The
:26:54. > :26:56.government issues its own building regulations with guidelines. Those
:26:57. > :27:02.guidelines say if you are going to put something on the outside of a
:27:03. > :27:08.building, a tall building, it has to be a minimal level of flame
:27:09. > :27:13.proofing, basically. In the jargon, it has to be level A2. But when you
:27:14. > :27:17.get the building inspector, what matters is the building is safe
:27:18. > :27:23.overall and nobody checks the fine print unless things go wrong. So the
:27:24. > :27:29.building inspectors have a different rule book and they say instead of
:27:30. > :27:33.everything having to be at that A2 level, they say, if we do at test
:27:34. > :27:38.and using this context, this bit is said, if you do this over here, you
:27:39. > :27:44.can use this slightly more combustible material. When the
:27:45. > :27:48.government has gone round pulling stuff of buildings and checking it,
:27:49. > :27:54.they have discovered it is not all to the high standard. So the
:27:55. > :28:00.industry is basically reacting to Grenfell? Yes, the NHP sea, one of
:28:01. > :28:04.the esteemed sector bodies, produce guidelines who have said so many
:28:05. > :28:10.people have done investigations and collected data and tests that showed
:28:11. > :28:17.that sub A2, insulation, could be used with what they call B grade
:28:18. > :28:21.cladding, so it is below the standards required by the
:28:22. > :28:26.government. In certain context and certain limitations, that was
:28:27. > :28:32.probably going to be fine. They have got in touch tonight to say that
:28:33. > :28:37.because of the concerns about Grenfell Tower, which this body was
:28:38. > :28:43.not involved in at all, they have pulled that stuff because they are
:28:44. > :28:46.concerned about, in particular, the use of polyethylene tiles, such as
:28:47. > :28:56.reused at Grenfell. They should point out the guidance they issued
:28:57. > :28:58.was never used to approve the tiling at Grenfell. Thank you very much.
:28:59. > :29:00.Yet another massive cyber attack hit organisations
:29:01. > :29:02.across the developed world today, a ransomware attack
:29:03. > :29:05.like the one that hit the NHS among others last month.
:29:06. > :29:08.This one has been called Petya, and it seems that Ukraine
:29:09. > :29:11.But as always, these viruses are to trace to a source.
:29:12. > :29:13.Becky Pinkard is Vice President for Intelligence Operations
:29:14. > :29:23.with the cybersecurity firm Digital Shadows.
:29:24. > :29:30.She spent ten years at an institute specialising in cyber security
:29:31. > :29:44.training. What do we know? What we are learning is they are calling it
:29:45. > :29:48.Petya and not Petya. There is still a lot to be learned about what is
:29:49. > :29:53.happening with this particular strain. It originated in the
:29:54. > :29:59.Ukraine. It appears potentially to have been spread through a software
:30:00. > :30:03.company which is a financial programming type of software. What
:30:04. > :30:07.they are saying and what security researchers are looking at right now
:30:08. > :30:16.is potentially the software company was attacked. The malware was
:30:17. > :30:22.embedded into their process and that was shared out. What happened, back
:30:23. > :30:30.in early May, the NHS and other institutions were attacked, the data
:30:31. > :30:38.was locked up. Did they get it all back? Highly doubtful. We saw this
:30:39. > :30:42.system was able to send the key to decrypt information and get any
:30:43. > :30:49.information back from the malware authors to perform the decryption.
:30:50. > :30:54.That was not working properly. There was no way for that experience to be
:30:55. > :30:59.completed successfully. The assumption is a lot of people did
:31:00. > :31:04.lose a lot of data. Absolutely. You would make the same assumption about
:31:05. > :31:11.this one. The bigger problem is there was an e-mail address
:31:12. > :31:22.associated with this. That has been shot of by the e-mail provider. You
:31:23. > :31:28.cannot send them the money. There is no way for the malware author to
:31:29. > :31:33.connect to that account. So, even if you want to pay the hostage ransom,
:31:34. > :31:39.you cannot do it. You could make a payment to the bit coin used
:31:40. > :31:44.separately e-mail your information to get the decryption key. You can
:31:45. > :31:49.go to the bit coin to count and there is barely anything. I last
:31:50. > :31:59.looked about an hour ago. There were 31 payments, about the time about
:32:00. > :32:05.$80,000. That is unbelievable. What is your feeling about the people who
:32:06. > :32:09.are hit by this, have back-up data or have it stored somewhere
:32:10. > :32:19.untouchable from the machines that have been hit? What we're saying is
:32:20. > :32:23.because of the Madoc experience, where clients are using that
:32:24. > :32:27.software companies have been infected, hopefully those kinds of
:32:28. > :32:34.companies will have back-up programmes in place. The fear of
:32:35. > :32:38.what some will run into our interview systems and potentially
:32:39. > :32:43.they will not have those back-up programmes. Some companies are
:32:44. > :32:50.basically not saying when this hits them, I think. The data is not being
:32:51. > :32:55.stolen. It is not like the customer data is being taken away. Is there
:32:56. > :33:03.any good, public policy reasons for them telling us? Is it helpful that
:33:04. > :33:11.the ransomware purveyors never find out that they have never actually
:33:12. > :33:13.succeeded? If personally identifiable information, if that is
:33:14. > :33:25.impacted, a lot of companies will have a regulatory need to report
:33:26. > :33:30.that. There are regulatory requirements over in the structure.
:33:31. > :33:32.For companies who do not have those impacts, we probably will not see.
:33:33. > :33:34.Thank you. The Americans said today,
:33:35. > :33:36.that they had evidence of President Assad planning another
:33:37. > :33:39.chemical attack and that it would be It's a measure of the strangely
:33:40. > :33:43.intense times that we are living The global role of the US is in flux
:33:44. > :33:48.- are they keeping out of wars, Meanwhile Russia is flexing
:33:49. > :33:52.its influence and the EU is working A good time to hold a conference
:33:53. > :33:56.on international security, as the Centre for Policy Studies did
:33:57. > :33:59.today. Among the speakers there,
:34:00. > :34:01.was the former chief of the defence staff,
:34:02. > :34:08.the professional head of the armed services,
:34:09. > :34:10.General, Lord Richards. I went to meet him at the event
:34:11. > :34:13.in the City of London, to get his take on where
:34:14. > :34:15.the world is. But first, should Britain
:34:16. > :34:17.support the US in any retaliation against a Syrian
:34:18. > :34:19.government chemical attack? I think the British reaction
:34:20. > :34:21.should be supportive, as I think Sir Michael Fallon said,
:34:22. > :34:27.it should be proportionate. I'm not quite certain what that
:34:28. > :34:29.means, but basically we should I think the key thing here,
:34:30. > :34:34.and it's nice to see a bit of statesmanship or state craft
:34:35. > :34:36.at work, is that they don't What they are saying is,
:34:37. > :34:41.we are happy to work with you against Isis,
:34:42. > :34:46.but don't, for goodness' sake, make the mistake of using chemical
:34:47. > :34:48.weapons again, because all bets And if we felt the intelligence
:34:49. > :34:53.was adequate, would you think we should actually join in,
:34:54. > :34:55.for example, punishment At a time when the relationship
:34:56. > :34:59.with America is probably more important than ever for us,
:35:00. > :35:04.certainly no less important than it has been than at other critical
:35:05. > :35:07.times in our history, I think it's very important
:35:08. > :35:09.that we are alongside America if they ask us and they want us
:35:10. > :35:13.to be there. Beyond the moral imperative
:35:14. > :35:15.to demonstrate to the man, he is not going to use chemical
:35:16. > :35:20.weapons and get away with it. There has been a dilemma
:35:21. > :35:23.in our foreign policy, in American foreign policy
:35:24. > :35:25.about which of the two objectives defeating Isis or defeating Assad
:35:26. > :35:30.is the more important. In your view, it should
:35:31. > :35:32.be Isis, I think? There's no doubt the
:35:33. > :35:35.American focus is Isis. They will then say once Isis
:35:36. > :35:39.is defeated, who knows? Assad's future might
:35:40. > :35:44.then be on the table. But I think it unequivocal
:35:45. > :35:46.in the American thing, They want to work with Russia to get
:35:47. > :35:53.rid of Isis as quickly as possible and they don't want the Syrians
:35:54. > :35:57.to interrupt that. Right, do you think on Syria
:35:58. > :36:00.we can work with Putin? I think it should be
:36:01. > :36:05.part of a bigger deal. There are things we could do
:36:06. > :36:12.with Putin that would be part of a deal that might be
:36:13. > :36:16.involved with Iran. The Iranians will very much not
:36:17. > :36:19.like the Americans and Russians Because they are very happy
:36:20. > :36:27.with Russia being clearly on their side and they don't
:36:28. > :36:30.want to see their great ally Russia, being drawn
:36:31. > :36:34.towards the western orbit. In a way, as you speak,
:36:35. > :36:37.one can sense your frustration with the lack of global leadership
:36:38. > :36:42.at the moment. You are not a fan of Trump,
:36:43. > :36:46.I wouldn't have thought, you were not a particular fan
:36:47. > :36:49.of Putin, strong man as he is. Who is the sort of global
:36:50. > :36:52.leader that you admire? I have been banging
:36:53. > :36:54.on at this conference about the need for statesmanship
:36:55. > :36:57.and the absence of it. And I do think we are at a point
:36:58. > :37:00.in world history where there I think we don't understand
:37:01. > :37:07.what I called at Opac, wrongly, I am not necessarily
:37:08. > :37:12.thinking negatively here. On social media, of the undermining
:37:13. > :37:16.of the state because the state is no longer fully trusted by populations,
:37:17. > :37:19.how are we going to deal with that? Because everyone believes whatever
:37:20. > :37:23.they read on social media, which may be completely
:37:24. > :37:24.incorrect or distorted. Where is society pulled,
:37:25. > :37:28.in what direction? So climate change, international
:37:29. > :37:34.crime, mass migration, there's all sorts of things that
:37:35. > :37:38.make me think the world is in a very troubled state and needs
:37:39. > :37:42.leadership and needs, what in the past, if you
:37:43. > :37:44.are like me, would have Where you try and solve multiple
:37:45. > :37:48.problems at the same time, because often there are deals to be
:37:49. > :37:51.done when you bring Exactly the point, none
:37:52. > :37:54.of that is happening, it's very transactional
:37:55. > :37:55.at the moment. It may take ten years,
:37:56. > :37:58.it's going to be difficult, it will take a lot of willpower
:37:59. > :38:00.and a lot of leadership. But in answer to your question,
:38:01. > :38:04.I think President Xi is a statesman. Now, is one of our deductions that
:38:05. > :38:08.democratic countries no longer can breed statesmen
:38:09. > :38:11.because they are beset by near Because there is a sense
:38:12. > :38:24.at the moment we are under attack, we have had terrorist attacks,
:38:25. > :38:26.we've had the Grenfell disaster. So there is a feeling of a nation
:38:27. > :38:29.that's been through a lot. We have a weakened government
:38:30. > :38:32.with a Prime Minister who is limping And we have, to put it mildly,
:38:33. > :38:42.an unsettled status with regard to our relationship with Europe
:38:43. > :38:45.and an awkward relationship with We are floating without an anchor
:38:46. > :38:50.here, in a big ocean I think, while I was thinking
:38:51. > :38:54.internationally of the need for strategy and strategic leaders
:38:55. > :38:58.and statesmanship, there is absolutely no doubt this country
:38:59. > :39:01.is crying out for that Now, I am a crossbencher
:39:02. > :39:06.in the House of Lords and I am very careful,
:39:07. > :39:09.or I try to be careful, not to get drawn too much
:39:10. > :39:12.into party political issues. But as far as I am concerned,
:39:13. > :39:15.we have a Prime Minister that's You know, her deal with the DUP,
:39:16. > :39:23.people may not like, but it I think, echoing one
:39:24. > :39:28.or two other people, we now must get behind the Prime
:39:29. > :39:32.Minister. If there is a lot of debate
:39:33. > :39:39.and discord over Brexit, that alone, let alone all the other things
:39:40. > :39:44.we have just been talking about, it means that this country
:39:45. > :39:46.is in a pretty sorry state Probably more so than the other
:39:47. > :39:51.nations we've been talking You are not a fan of the EU,
:39:52. > :39:56.you called them arrogant, I think and implied they had
:39:57. > :39:58.overreached themselves, What should the British be thinking
:39:59. > :40:02.in terms of security Because the Europeans are beginning
:40:03. > :40:07.to think those Americans are perhaps not quite the allies we thought,
:40:08. > :40:12.they will go it alone a little more. Nato becomes weakened
:40:13. > :40:15.and then where are we left? Clearly, our security is completely
:40:16. > :40:18.dependent on the security So Nato remains critical
:40:19. > :40:23.and if there are European leaders that are silly enough to disentangle
:40:24. > :40:26.themselves in some way from America, that would be a huge problem,
:40:27. > :40:35.a lesson learned bitterly through the 20th century,
:40:36. > :40:42.you don't do that. You need America to be locked
:40:43. > :40:45.in to the security of Europe. Now sensitive viewers really should
:40:46. > :40:54.look away at this point, as we leave you with a salute
:40:55. > :40:57.to England's hardest hard man. Simon Smith was walking
:40:58. > :40:59.through Reading on Saturday when an out-of-control double decker
:41:00. > :41:04.bus ran into him full tilt. Amazingly, with NO major
:41:05. > :41:07.injuries, Mr Smith got up, dusted himself off and,
:41:08. > :41:09.rather understandably, It's not known what he drank, but I
:41:10. > :41:50.bet it was Carling Black Label. Hello. A lot of rain in the forecast
:41:51. > :41:51.for the