:00:05. > :00:09.there is some kind of regulator within the editors' conference
:00:10. > :00:15.which says, you cannot expose that, there is no investigative
:00:15. > :00:21.journalism. That is not true, that is scaremongering. Did you do that
:00:21. > :00:25.programme? I wrote it. You would have thought as lawyers and we
:00:25. > :00:31.would want newspapers to misbehave because that would be in our
:00:31. > :00:35.interest. We do not, we are not feeding off some carcass. There are
:00:35. > :00:43.serious problems. They have not been addressed. You want to keep
:00:43. > :00:51.the status quo. That is so that you can continue to be not regulated.
:00:51. > :01:01.How would you strengthen in terms of the code for the press?
:01:01. > :01:01.
:01:01. > :01:05.suggested regulations for, if you like a super regulatory body, that
:01:05. > :01:09.is completely self regulatory, but it will produce an investigative
:01:09. > :01:15.arm, it will compel by contract that every newspaper group takes
:01:15. > :01:20.part in it, it will have feud, swingeing fines of up to �1 million,
:01:20. > :01:25.it will have an independent chairman, it will have a Labour-
:01:25. > :01:35.dominated body, it will not have serving editors on it, how much
:01:35. > :01:45.
:01:45. > :01:51.more do you want? Press freedom I would like the editors coated to
:01:51. > :01:57.be enshrined so there is a statutory underpinning -- editors'
:01:57. > :02:01.code. So we can have these dramatic statements about censorship by you
:02:01. > :02:06.and people who say they are waving a banner of freedom of speech when
:02:06. > :02:13.you know it is nothing to do with that. If it was about that and she
:02:13. > :02:19.really cared, you wouldn't be so frightened to obey these laws. In
:02:19. > :02:23.terms of editorial decisions, why are you saying that editor's
:02:23. > :02:30.decisions would be interfered with if they had to simply obey a code
:02:30. > :02:37.that they signed up to in the first place voluntary? You have just
:02:37. > :02:47.described the hunt proposal. this label to else is on the board
:02:47. > :02:52.with the lay members? Serving editors? Two-to-one lay members
:02:52. > :03:02.with some previous media figures. He would you put forward if you had
:03:02. > :03:02.
:03:02. > :03:11.to choose? Advertising places like the Guardian, advertised for a late
:03:11. > :03:17.regulator who would chosen by to industry figures -- two industry
:03:17. > :03:24.figures. If you had to now say which industry figures who would
:03:24. > :03:30.you choose? It is an industry that is very wide and goes from the
:03:30. > :03:39.Telegraph to the Daily Star. Anybody in mind? So I could
:03:39. > :03:46.understand he would be on this board? Earlier, Charlotte said what
:03:46. > :03:56.are you scared of. A I Usain we couldn't get the good stories? --
:03:56. > :04:05.
:04:05. > :04:08.are you saying. ITV made a great piece of dough has and it will be
:04:08. > :04:13.few want to buy the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Star, you
:04:13. > :04:19.have to buy it in a shop and you will vote with your 50p in your
:04:19. > :04:25.pocket. The BBC, ITN, come into your home. That is why it needs to
:04:25. > :04:29.be regulated. It is completely separate. The idea you can put the
:04:29. > :04:33.word state regulation and independent in the same sentence is
:04:33. > :04:36.laughable. I will thank you for being our guest of the day. You
:04:36. > :04:43.will have to come and do the or big piece from the other perspective
:04:43. > :04:47.and we will have a rematch. -- authored. From today households in
:04:47. > :04:49.which one parent earns �50,000 or more will start to receive letters
:04:49. > :04:53.from the government telling them their child benefit payments will
:04:53. > :04:56.be reduced or stopped altogether. The House of Commons Commission
:04:56. > :04:59.meets to discuss whether or not MPs and Lords should pack their bags
:04:59. > :05:06.and up sticks while essential word to the Palace of Westminster is
:05:06. > :05:09.carried out. -- work. Lord Heseltine will publish his report
:05:09. > :05:12.on how the government could do more to stimulate growth.
:05:12. > :05:16.MPs will debate the Government's negotiating position for next
:05:16. > :05:23.month's EU summit whether EU Budget will be agreed. Expect some
:05:23. > :05:28.fireworks. Joining us now is James Lyons and James Forsyth. James
:05:28. > :05:33.Forsyth, how difficult is this Budget negotiating position? It is
:05:33. > :05:40.very tricky. Labour are being tactically clever. They eat say
:05:40. > :05:44.David Cameron, you want to freeze it, why don't you want to cut it?
:05:44. > :05:47.David Cameron cat really do that because if he tries to get that
:05:47. > :05:52.through, there is no way the rest of Europe will agree and he will
:05:52. > :05:56.have to veto the budget and we will move to budgets agreed on an annual
:05:56. > :06:00.basis. So Britain can be outvoted and end up getting a worse deal.
:06:00. > :06:05.That is difficult to explain to the public. They will just say why are
:06:05. > :06:10.two of the three things you are seeing increasing, international
:06:10. > :06:15.aid and Our EU Budget contribution. Should Labour signed up to the
:06:15. > :06:20.amendment that has been put forward by Mark Pritchard? They are being
:06:20. > :06:23.very coy about that. The danger is if they sign up, they will minimise
:06:23. > :06:28.the Tory rebellion and they would like to see a repeat of the
:06:28. > :06:36.rebellion we saw 12 months ago when 81 Tory MPs defied the government
:06:36. > :06:39.over an issue of a referendum. It is whether they back to that of the
:06:39. > :06:48.do something of the Rhone. I don't expect them to announce that too
:06:48. > :06:52.quickly. -- of their Rome. In terms of these allies, do they exist?
:06:52. > :06:58.think a rather large number of countries that would back a freeze.
:06:58. > :07:02.But not a cut. The other thing clever about what Labour are doing,
:07:02. > :07:06.if David Cameron comes back with a real-terms freeze which would be an
:07:06. > :07:09.achievement it will not look that impressive or if he issues a veto
:07:09. > :07:13.to prevent an increase that will not look that impressive because it
:07:13. > :07:22.will look like he has been pushed into it by Eurosceptic backbench
:07:22. > :07:27.MPs. And the issue of child benefit, James lines, as far as the parties
:07:27. > :07:32.are concerned, none of them are keen to do it. He will lose the
:07:32. > :07:39.most? We heard Nick Clegg talking about how or difficult this would
:07:39. > :07:46.be although he was much more coy about who would lose out. This
:07:46. > :07:51.would cause huge amount of damage to the coalition, and there are a
:07:52. > :07:55.number of problems with it. In principle and in practice. In
:07:55. > :07:59.principle people find it very odd that child benefit is being cut
:07:59. > :08:03.when things like the winter fuel allowance isn't going to be, the
:08:03. > :08:08.problems of what happens with families way you have got one
:08:08. > :08:13.person earning over the limit as it posted to families with two bullet
:08:13. > :08:17.and there is a whole bureaucratic nightmare involved in people forced
:08:17. > :08:20.to fill out tax declaration and read into all this red tape. It
:08:20. > :08:25.will be a horrible mess that will cause all sorts of problems for
:08:25. > :08:30.George Osborne and the coalition. Do you think he is regretting this?
:08:30. > :08:35.Their idea is this is a symbol of their slogan, we are all in this
:08:35. > :08:38.together. They don't mind these arguments because it diffuses the
:08:38. > :08:41.charge they are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor,
:08:41. > :08:46.only going for the vulnerable pulled up the implementation of
:08:46. > :08:50.this policy will be very tricky. You are asking half-a-million
:08:50. > :08:53.people to fill in self-assessment tax returns and all that. I think
:08:53. > :08:58.they will not mind the headlines that the Tories are not picking a
:08:58. > :09:01.fight with the upper middle class. Would Labour reverse it? I don't
:09:01. > :09:05.think you would find them being prepared to say that but what I
:09:06. > :09:08.find difficult to understand is if supporters of the government are
:09:09. > :09:13.arguing we are all in this together this will happen a few months
:09:13. > :09:19.before the top rate of tax for very high earners is cut. Many people
:09:19. > :09:24.who consider themselves instinctive natural Tory voters will wonder why
:09:24. > :09:32.they are getting walloped when the very rich are being handed the
:09:32. > :09:38.stack more cash by George Osborne. We are joined by a Charlotte Leslie,
:09:38. > :09:41.in Lisa Nandy, and Julian Huppert. Let's talk about child benefit.
:09:42. > :09:45.What about people in your constituency who perhaps don't feel
:09:46. > :09:53.that wealthy and feel they are being hit by this? It is really
:09:53. > :09:59.tough. Do you agree with the policy? It is important to see who
:09:59. > :10:04.is affected, the rate is 90%, so the richest 85%, the poorest 90%
:10:04. > :10:08.will not be affected, the richest 10% well. Most people say yes, it
:10:08. > :10:14.is hard but it is right we do put the burden of settling the deficit
:10:14. > :10:20.on the shoulders of the richest. People do understand. Do you agree?
:10:20. > :10:23.It will only affect people who can afford it. The real problem is a
:10:23. > :10:28.principal position which is the money doesn't follow the child, it
:10:28. > :10:33.doesn't take account of children's circumstances so we are third from
:10:33. > :10:36.James line to have a household income of �90,000 will not lose out
:10:36. > :10:40.Atul where his family to help one- earner who earns 50,000 will the
:10:40. > :10:45.sixties 1,000 significantly and will cost all sorts of problems for
:10:45. > :10:49.families who are separated, people may ask -- people may be asked to
:10:49. > :10:53.pay that money been ever received. The money should follow the
:10:53. > :11:00.trialled and everything else should flow from that. How would you do
:11:00. > :11:05.it? I think you have to look at the situation of the children. In
:11:05. > :11:09.Duncan-Smith said recently he would cap child benefit at families with
:11:09. > :11:12.two children or more, completely ignores the situation of the child
:11:12. > :11:15.growing up in the circumstances. You have to take into account how
:11:15. > :11:20.much household income there is, combined household income, that is
:11:20. > :11:25.going to was the child. The great beauty of child benefit is that it
:11:25. > :11:29.is all about children. The money is for the children, goes to child,
:11:29. > :11:35.and that is the principle, we implemented that in government, and
:11:35. > :11:39.one of the reasons is we are concerned to see that. If Nick
:11:39. > :11:42.Clegg is saying it is excruciatingly difficult it doesn't
:11:42. > :11:46.abide he is completely and happy with the idea, he sees the
:11:46. > :11:51.unfairness as has been outlined. is certainly not ideal. Child
:11:51. > :11:56.benefit is good intensive Wollaton Perce transfer, and helping women,
:11:57. > :12:00.but the principle, we want to balance the budget, the idea the
:12:00. > :12:04.money should be taken from the top 10% is absolutely right and that
:12:04. > :12:09.money can be used to do what we have done and lift 2 million
:12:09. > :12:12.poorly-paid people out of income tax altogether and 22 million
:12:12. > :12:15.earners are paying less. This isn't easy. None of these decisions are
:12:15. > :12:20.easy. It could have been implemented better. It is better
:12:20. > :12:24.than when it was first announced. You agree with the idea you could
:12:24. > :12:29.have a joint income of 90,000, compared to somebody earning 52,
:12:29. > :12:33.and you will get the benefit and they will not. Absolutely, not a
:12:33. > :12:36.perfect solution and it is excruciating to get it right. The
:12:36. > :12:40.principle we need to find ways of taking money that we have to take
:12:40. > :12:45.an taking it from the richest 10% so we can support the people right
:12:45. > :12:49.at the bottom of society has to be the right printable. Would Labour
:12:49. > :12:53.reverse it? It depends on the state of the economy which is looking
:12:53. > :13:00.pretty dire at the moment so depends how much money we inherit
:13:00. > :13:03.and whether we could make that a priority. I agree with the
:13:03. > :13:12.principle that Julian aligned, the reduced should bear the heaviest
:13:12. > :13:15.burden and that is why it we. George Osborne wouldn't be getting
:13:15. > :13:21.a survey to find out how much support there is for this policy.
:13:21. > :13:26.The survey was interested. -- interesting. Can nobody is
:13:26. > :13:30.pretending it is an easy thing to do. We have a complex tax system.
:13:30. > :13:34.Anybody will find it hard to defend the richest 10% being paid by the
:13:34. > :13:38.poorest in the country. It is people on salaries of about �16,000
:13:38. > :13:43.he will lose their child benefit. Those above �50,000 it will be
:13:43. > :13:46.tapered down. I find it very hard when the average salary is about
:13:46. > :13:49.26,000 to have those people paying for the child benefit of the
:13:50. > :13:53.richest. The defence secretary Philip
:13:53. > :13:56.Hammond has announced the next stage in developing a replacement
:13:56. > :14:00.for the Trident nuclear submarine fleet base at Faslane naval base on
:14:00. > :14:04.the Clyde. The defence secretary's announcement of a further multi-
:14:04. > :14:09.million-pound contract for a new generation of submarines comes as
:14:09. > :14:12.details have emerged of a test launch of the unarmed Trident
:14:12. > :14:19.missile HMS vigilant in the Atlantic last Thursday. Nick Clegg
:14:19. > :14:26.was keen to restate coalition policy on Trident.
:14:26. > :14:30.Some people are jumping the gun on this Trident decision. The
:14:30. > :14:36.coalition agreement is crystal clear, it stands, it will not be
:14:36. > :14:39.changed, undermined, it will not be contradicted. The decision on the
:14:39. > :14:45.replacement, the final decision on the replacement of Trident will not
:14:45. > :14:51.be taken until 2016. However much other people may not like it, that
:14:51. > :14:56.way. Joining us now is the SNP MPs Stewart Hosie, welcome to the
:14:56. > :15:01.programme. Charlotte Leslie, is the Defence Secretary jumping the gun?
:15:01. > :15:07.Not at all. The coalition agreement still stands. While EC going ahead
:15:07. > :15:10.with what looks like a commitment to Trident replacement? When the
:15:10. > :15:15.alternatives have been looked at you need something to be suit
:15:15. > :15:17.against. It would be lunacy if we didn't look at what they like for
:15:17. > :15:22.like would look like. After the cheaper alternatives the Lib Dems
:15:22. > :15:26.wanted in a coalition agreement, how would you compare it against
:15:26. > :15:29.what you would be having? You cannot put the UK's national
:15:29. > :15:39.security on hold for that length of time. It will be completely
:15:39. > :15:47.
:15:47. > :15:53.$:/STARTFEED. Are you happy this is not pay lip jumping the gun? Philip
:15:53. > :16:00.Hammond has his mind made up. the Defence Secretary. His view is
:16:00. > :16:05.we should spend this money on a weapons system we do not need. We
:16:05. > :16:11.are the only party that is saying, we do not want to spend �100
:16:11. > :16:14.million. I wish Labour would change their position. There are a
:16:14. > :16:20.majority of parties in parliament that would like to go ahead with
:16:20. > :16:25.air. We have managed to delay it, so that would give people a chance
:16:25. > :16:30.to vote and hopefully for the parties to change their minds.
:16:30. > :16:33.Isn't the problem for the Liberal Democrats is that although this
:16:33. > :16:37.decision has been postponed, it looks like people like Philip
:16:37. > :16:43.Hammond are going to stealthily moved towards that replacement?
:16:43. > :16:46.This is nothing new. This is a further commitment. No, it is part
:16:46. > :16:51.of the same money that was announced previously. I wish it was
:16:51. > :16:55.not happening. I would much rather spend the money on a long list of
:16:55. > :16:59.things. As long as we have a Labour and the Conservatives saying they
:16:59. > :17:03.want to replace trident with a like-for-like replacement, the
:17:03. > :17:08.spending has to happen or that cannot be done. I would urge them
:17:08. > :17:12.to look at the money, look at the morals, look at whether we want is
:17:12. > :17:18.an change their positions and I hope the public will see this.
:17:18. > :17:22.you persuaded? That is why we supported the review and are still
:17:22. > :17:27.supporting the review. Because you are thinking you might not replace
:17:27. > :17:31.Dryden? We share the views of the Liberal Democrats that it would be
:17:31. > :17:37.much better if we did not have to spend that money on Trident. But I
:17:37. > :17:41.will say one thing, there are two issues here. One is the safety of
:17:41. > :17:46.the country, which is important, but the second is the jobs of the
:17:46. > :17:49.people involved in the industry. Although I would much rather we got
:17:49. > :17:54.to a position where we could ensure safety and spend that money on
:17:54. > :18:01.creating jobs and growth in other industries, you have to think about
:18:01. > :18:05.the people employed in those for them. Let's think about them.
:18:05. > :18:09.The MoD says the contract will sustain jobs at Faslane and create
:18:09. > :18:16.1200 more on the largest employment site in Scotland. You must be
:18:16. > :18:22.delighted. Trident sustains 520 jobs. How come the figures are said
:18:22. > :18:31.that different? I had the answer from the MoD in front of me. The
:18:31. > :18:36.larger number of jobs linked to the Faslane base as a whole. Whether it
:18:36. > :18:40.is the primary naval base, the jobs will be protected. But in terms of
:18:40. > :18:47.the decision taken today, I find this quite bizarre. A Government
:18:47. > :18:52.that chopped off Nimrods, having lost 1000 defence jobs this year in
:18:52. > :18:58.Scotland, has seen fit to renounce �350 million of spending, a
:18:58. > :19:03.decision that will not be taken until 2016. This is pure, unbridled
:19:03. > :19:08.politics with no economic base whatsoever. It is one of the most
:19:08. > :19:14.important things, our national security. We have heard that
:19:14. > :19:18.statement. We knew this. Why are we saying it again? Things move on,
:19:18. > :19:22.this is what we are doing. It is not about saying something again,
:19:22. > :19:30.it is about what is happening. It would be irresponsible to keep
:19:30. > :19:33.things as they are, we have to move on. This is a real announcement of
:19:33. > :19:41.350 million of that already announced, a complete waste of
:19:41. > :19:45.money. If we want to talk about security, this is a defence system
:19:45. > :19:49.that is planned never to be used, yet we have no vertical lift
:19:49. > :19:52.aircraft, no long-range reconnaissance, there are other
:19:52. > :19:56.things we could have spent this money on that are far more
:19:56. > :20:01.constructive to our defence than the Trident and his replacement.
:20:01. > :20:06.What do you say to that? We were left a mess by the previous
:20:06. > :20:11.Government, I know that has been said before. You have to balance
:20:11. > :20:16.the defence spending will start spend a 3 million... We have had
:20:16. > :20:21.the Arab Spring, we have had unprecedented instability in all
:20:21. > :20:25.sorts of areas. We have to make sure in the long term our nation is
:20:25. > :20:30.secure. We also have the question of Scottish independence, so we
:20:30. > :20:36.have to reaffirm what we are doing. In terms of the issue of Scottish
:20:36. > :20:40.independence, the SNP has changed its mind over joining NATO, so what
:20:40. > :20:48.is to say it will not change its mind over the naval base at
:20:48. > :20:55.Faslane? NATO was different. abandoned your pledge. Two people
:20:55. > :21:00.resigned over it. It was a policy change that was sensible. Norway,
:21:00. > :21:06.Denmark, Canada they are in NATO, and it is perfectly compatible to
:21:06. > :21:09.be in NATO and to be non-nuclear. That would be the first thing an
:21:09. > :21:15.independent Scotland would do, you would close at the Faslane naval
:21:15. > :21:20.base and send it back, to England? We have been sensible about what we
:21:20. > :21:24.have said here, as quickly and as safely as possible. They need to be
:21:24. > :21:30.moved to somewhere suitable and saved, but as quickly and as safely
:21:30. > :21:34.as possible after 2014. Does Labour dispute the figures about the
:21:34. > :21:38.economic cost it would have to Scotland? There are definitely
:21:38. > :21:42.disputes about the figures, but what I would say is one of the
:21:42. > :21:48.reasons why we find it hard to get to a sensible and a right answer,
:21:48. > :21:52.it is because of the party politics. This morning the Guardian is
:21:52. > :21:57.reporting the Tories are using this to put clear, blue water between
:21:57. > :22:03.them and the Lib Dems. You have got the SNP trying to make this an
:22:03. > :22:07.electoral issue between Labour and the SNP, understandably. You have
:22:07. > :22:11.got the dynamics of the Scottish independence referendum thrown into
:22:11. > :22:16.this. When you listen to what everyone has said, there are moral
:22:16. > :22:22.arguments, but there is also a pragmatic case on which we agree
:22:22. > :22:25.more than we disagree. That is being lost. Everybody is concerned
:22:25. > :22:33.about national security. I do not think that is something none of us
:22:33. > :22:37.care about. All of us are concerned about jobs. That is the argument we
:22:37. > :22:41.ought to be having and the politics are getting in the way of as
:22:41. > :22:47.getting to the right answer. We have got a review under way, we
:22:47. > :22:51.have supported that, all of the parties in the coalition agreement
:22:51. > :22:54.and in the Opposition's support that review. You have got no
:22:54. > :22:59.Liberal Democrats left in that department of defence. Are you
:22:59. > :23:03.worried you are going to lose the battle on this? Their real battle
:23:03. > :23:09.will after be the next election. National security is absolutely
:23:09. > :23:15.right. If you have �100 billion over 25 years, what gets you the
:23:15. > :23:21.best security? Is it having a one- shot mechanism like the nuclear
:23:21. > :23:26.deterrent. Thank you very much for coming on to the programme.
:23:26. > :23:32.Boris Johnson thinks guilt-ridden lefties need to swat the mosquitoes
:23:32. > :23:37.in Tuscany with it, or to align their little ones' lunch boxes as
:23:37. > :23:42.they pack them off to their fee- paying schools. I am talking about
:23:42. > :23:46.the Guardian. Rumour has it that it is thinking of ditching its paper
:23:46. > :23:50.version and producing dust an online version. The editor has
:23:50. > :23:56.denied it. Today this is the old world, hi-
:23:56. > :24:01.tech printing 10 years ago at the Sunday Times. Newspapers have been
:24:01. > :24:05.formed, inflamed, discovered, divided and sometimes lied for
:24:05. > :24:09.centuries. They have the best and worst of journalism. Churchill
:24:09. > :24:17.spent hours reading them all every day, but these days who has got the
:24:17. > :24:23.time? More of us are stealing time back by taking a tablet. This has
:24:23. > :24:28.now become, as Boris Johnson writes, the biggest threat to print since
:24:28. > :24:35.Gutenberg. It is starting in the States. Newsweek is going digital
:24:35. > :24:41.only. The trustee, perhaps must be, New York Times and Herald Tribune
:24:41. > :24:47.just added 57,000 digital subscribers, a 75% jump from one
:24:47. > :24:54.year ago, even as its paper ad revenues are down. Rumours abound
:24:54. > :25:00.about the Guardian going digital, and the editor has denied this. But
:25:00. > :25:05.the writing is increasingly on the pay wall. It is not just papers.
:25:05. > :25:09.Even as the PM tries to avoid the headlines, today as we speak The
:25:10. > :25:17.Big Issue offers a digital toys on the streets of Manchester for the
:25:17. > :25:22.first time. Do you think it is inevitable, bearing the mind --
:25:22. > :25:28.bear in mind the decline in sales, it will be online. I hope not,
:25:28. > :25:33.because I think there is a value to a tangible newspaper. But they will
:25:33. > :25:37.have to think differently about how they raise revenue. I would like to
:25:37. > :25:45.say the paper version stay as it is. Do you read newspapers, or do you
:25:45. > :25:48.get all of you press online? I do mainly these days. I mostly get it
:25:48. > :25:53.online because it is good for all of us to get different views. I
:25:53. > :26:00.read the Daily Mail and the Guardian. Do you read it in paper
:26:01. > :26:05.form? A only if I have time, but too often I read things only online.
:26:05. > :26:09.What is the shame is when you read things online, you only read things
:26:09. > :26:14.you are interested in. Reading the newspaper you can discover
:26:14. > :26:18.something you have never cared about before. Is it affordable to
:26:18. > :26:24.keep them going? It is clear there are real challenges for these
:26:24. > :26:29.papers. The only way they can make up revenue it is by going online.
:26:29. > :26:35.If you look at local newspapers, there is talk about them all going
:26:35. > :26:39.online and other alternative models, mergers, for example. That is
:26:40. > :26:46.controversial about things that have happened around Leveson. The
:26:46. > :26:51.issue is what happens to 10 million people who are not online. Around