29/10/2012 BBC World News

there is some kind of regulator within the editors' conference

which says, you cannot expose that, there is no investigative

journalism. That is not true, that is scaremongering. Did you do that

programme? I wrote it. You would have thought as lawyers and we

would want newspapers to misbehave because that would be in our

interest. We do not, we are not feeding off some carcass. There are

serious problems. They have not been addressed. You want to keep

the status quo. That is so that you can continue to be not regulated.

How would you strengthen in terms of the code for the press?

suggested regulations for, if you like a super regulatory body, that

is completely self regulatory, but it will produce an investigative

arm, it will compel by contract that every newspaper group takes

part in it, it will have feud, swingeing fines of up to �1 million,

it will have an independent chairman, it will have a Labour-

dominated body, it will not have serving editors on it, how much

more do you want? Press freedom I would like the editors coated to

be enshrined so there is a statutory underpinning -- editors'

code. So we can have these dramatic statements about censorship by you

and people who say they are waving a banner of freedom of speech when

you know it is nothing to do with that. If it was about that and she

really cared, you wouldn't be so frightened to obey these laws. In

terms of editorial decisions, why are you saying that editor's

decisions would be interfered with if they had to simply obey a code

that they signed up to in the first place voluntary? You have just

described the hunt proposal. this label to else is on the board

with the lay members? Serving editors? Two-to-one lay members

with some previous media figures. He would you put forward if you had

to choose? Advertising places like the Guardian, advertised for a late

regulator who would chosen by to industry figures -- two industry

figures. If you had to now say which industry figures who would

you choose? It is an industry that is very wide and goes from the

Telegraph to the Daily Star. Anybody in mind? So I could

understand he would be on this board? Earlier, Charlotte said what

are you scared of. A I Usain we couldn't get the good stories? --

are you saying. ITV made a great piece of dough has and it will be

few want to buy the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Star, you

have to buy it in a shop and you will vote with your 50p in your

pocket. The BBC, ITN, come into your home. That is why it needs to

be regulated. It is completely separate. The idea you can put the

word state regulation and independent in the same sentence is

laughable. I will thank you for being our guest of the day. You

will have to come and do the or big piece from the other perspective

and we will have a rematch. -- authored. From today households in

which one parent earns �50,000 or more will start to receive letters

from the government telling them their child benefit payments will

be reduced or stopped altogether. The House of Commons Commission

meets to discuss whether or not MPs and Lords should pack their bags

and up sticks while essential word to the Palace of Westminster is

carried out. -- work. Lord Heseltine will publish his report

on how the government could do more to stimulate growth.

MPs will debate the Government's negotiating position for next

month's EU summit whether EU Budget will be agreed. Expect some

fireworks. Joining us now is James Lyons and James Forsyth. James

Forsyth, how difficult is this Budget negotiating position? It is

very tricky. Labour are being tactically clever. They eat say

David Cameron, you want to freeze it, why don't you want to cut it?

David Cameron cat really do that because if he tries to get that

through, there is no way the rest of Europe will agree and he will

have to veto the budget and we will move to budgets agreed on an annual

basis. So Britain can be outvoted and end up getting a worse deal.

That is difficult to explain to the public. They will just say why are

two of the three things you are seeing increasing, international

aid and Our EU Budget contribution. Should Labour signed up to the

amendment that has been put forward by Mark Pritchard? They are being

very coy about that. The danger is if they sign up, they will minimise

the Tory rebellion and they would like to see a repeat of the

rebellion we saw 12 months ago when 81 Tory MPs defied the government

over an issue of a referendum. It is whether they back to that of the

do something of the Rhone. I don't expect them to announce that too

quickly. -- of their Rome. In terms of these allies, do they exist?

think a rather large number of countries that would back a freeze.

But not a cut. The other thing clever about what Labour are doing,

if David Cameron comes back with a real-terms freeze which would be an

achievement it will not look that impressive or if he issues a veto

to prevent an increase that will not look that impressive because it

will look like he has been pushed into it by Eurosceptic backbench

MPs. And the issue of child benefit, James lines, as far as the parties

are concerned, none of them are keen to do it. He will lose the

most? We heard Nick Clegg talking about how or difficult this would

be although he was much more coy about who would lose out. This

would cause huge amount of damage to the coalition, and there are a

number of problems with it. In principle and in practice. In

principle people find it very odd that child benefit is being cut

when things like the winter fuel allowance isn't going to be, the

problems of what happens with families way you have got one

person earning over the limit as it posted to families with two bullet

and there is a whole bureaucratic nightmare involved in people forced

to fill out tax declaration and read into all this red tape. It

will be a horrible mess that will cause all sorts of problems for

George Osborne and the coalition. Do you think he is regretting this?

Their idea is this is a symbol of their slogan, we are all in this

together. They don't mind these arguments because it diffuses the

charge they are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor,

only going for the vulnerable pulled up the implementation of

this policy will be very tricky. You are asking half-a-million

people to fill in self-assessment tax returns and all that. I think

they will not mind the headlines that the Tories are not picking a

fight with the upper middle class. Would Labour reverse it? I don't

think you would find them being prepared to say that but what I

find difficult to understand is if supporters of the government are

arguing we are all in this together this will happen a few months

before the top rate of tax for very high earners is cut. Many people

who consider themselves instinctive natural Tory voters will wonder why

they are getting walloped when the very rich are being handed the

stack more cash by George Osborne. We are joined by a Charlotte Leslie,

in Lisa Nandy, and Julian Huppert. Let's talk about child benefit.

What about people in your constituency who perhaps don't feel

that wealthy and feel they are being hit by this? It is really

tough. Do you agree with the policy? It is important to see who

is affected, the rate is 90%, so the richest 85%, the poorest 90%

will not be affected, the richest 10% well. Most people say yes, it

is hard but it is right we do put the burden of settling the deficit

on the shoulders of the richest. People do understand. Do you agree?

It will only affect people who can afford it. The real problem is a

principal position which is the money doesn't follow the child, it

doesn't take account of children's circumstances so we are third from

James line to have a household income of �90,000 will not lose out

Atul where his family to help one- earner who earns 50,000 will the

sixties 1,000 significantly and will cost all sorts of problems for

families who are separated, people may ask -- people may be asked to

pay that money been ever received. The money should follow the

trialled and everything else should flow from that. How would you do

it? I think you have to look at the situation of the children. In

Duncan-Smith said recently he would cap child benefit at families with

two children or more, completely ignores the situation of the child

growing up in the circumstances. You have to take into account how

much household income there is, combined household income, that is

going to was the child. The great beauty of child benefit is that it

is all about children. The money is for the children, goes to child,

and that is the principle, we implemented that in government, and

one of the reasons is we are concerned to see that. If Nick

Clegg is saying it is excruciatingly difficult it doesn't

abide he is completely and happy with the idea, he sees the

unfairness as has been outlined. is certainly not ideal. Child

benefit is good intensive Wollaton Perce transfer, and helping women,

but the principle, we want to balance the budget, the idea the

money should be taken from the top 10% is absolutely right and that

money can be used to do what we have done and lift 2 million

poorly-paid people out of income tax altogether and 22 million

earners are paying less. This isn't easy. None of these decisions are

easy. It could have been implemented better. It is better

than when it was first announced. You agree with the idea you could

have a joint income of 90,000, compared to somebody earning 52,

and you will get the benefit and they will not. Absolutely, not a

perfect solution and it is excruciating to get it right. The

principle we need to find ways of taking money that we have to take

an taking it from the richest 10% so we can support the people right

at the bottom of society has to be the right printable. Would Labour

reverse it? It depends on the state of the economy which is looking

pretty dire at the moment so depends how much money we inherit

and whether we could make that a priority. I agree with the

principle that Julian aligned, the reduced should bear the heaviest

burden and that is why it we. George Osborne wouldn't be getting

a survey to find out how much support there is for this policy.

The survey was interested. -- interesting. Can nobody is

pretending it is an easy thing to do. We have a complex tax system.

Anybody will find it hard to defend the richest 10% being paid by the

poorest in the country. It is people on salaries of about �16,000

he will lose their child benefit. Those above �50,000 it will be

tapered down. I find it very hard when the average salary is about

26,000 to have those people paying for the child benefit of the

richest. The defence secretary Philip

Hammond has announced the next stage in developing a replacement

for the Trident nuclear submarine fleet base at Faslane naval base on

the Clyde. The defence secretary's announcement of a further multi-

million-pound contract for a new generation of submarines comes as

details have emerged of a test launch of the unarmed Trident

missile HMS vigilant in the Atlantic last Thursday. Nick Clegg

was keen to restate coalition policy on Trident.

Some people are jumping the gun on this Trident decision. The

coalition agreement is crystal clear, it stands, it will not be

changed, undermined, it will not be contradicted. The decision on the

replacement, the final decision on the replacement of Trident will not

be taken until 2016. However much other people may not like it, that

way. Joining us now is the SNP MPs Stewart Hosie, welcome to the

programme. Charlotte Leslie, is the Defence Secretary jumping the gun?

Not at all. The coalition agreement still stands. While EC going ahead

with what looks like a commitment to Trident replacement? When the

alternatives have been looked at you need something to be suit

against. It would be lunacy if we didn't look at what they like for

like would look like. After the cheaper alternatives the Lib Dems

wanted in a coalition agreement, how would you compare it against

what you would be having? You cannot put the UK's national

security on hold for that length of time. It will be completely

$:/STARTFEED. Are you happy this is not pay lip jumping the gun? Philip

Hammond has his mind made up. the Defence Secretary. His view is

we should spend this money on a weapons system we do not need. We

are the only party that is saying, we do not want to spend �100

million. I wish Labour would change their position. There are a

majority of parties in parliament that would like to go ahead with

air. We have managed to delay it, so that would give people a chance

to vote and hopefully for the parties to change their minds.

Isn't the problem for the Liberal Democrats is that although this

decision has been postponed, it looks like people like Philip

Hammond are going to stealthily moved towards that replacement?

This is nothing new. This is a further commitment. No, it is part

of the same money that was announced previously. I wish it was

not happening. I would much rather spend the money on a long list of

things. As long as we have a Labour and the Conservatives saying they

want to replace trident with a like-for-like replacement, the

spending has to happen or that cannot be done. I would urge them

to look at the money, look at the morals, look at whether we want is

an change their positions and I hope the public will see this.

you persuaded? That is why we supported the review and are still

supporting the review. Because you are thinking you might not replace

Dryden? We share the views of the Liberal Democrats that it would be

much better if we did not have to spend that money on Trident. But I

will say one thing, there are two issues here. One is the safety of

the country, which is important, but the second is the jobs of the

people involved in the industry. Although I would much rather we got

to a position where we could ensure safety and spend that money on

creating jobs and growth in other industries, you have to think about

the people employed in those for them. Let's think about them.

The MoD says the contract will sustain jobs at Faslane and create

1200 more on the largest employment site in Scotland. You must be

delighted. Trident sustains 520 jobs. How come the figures are said

that different? I had the answer from the MoD in front of me. The

larger number of jobs linked to the Faslane base as a whole. Whether it

is the primary naval base, the jobs will be protected. But in terms of

the decision taken today, I find this quite bizarre. A Government

that chopped off Nimrods, having lost 1000 defence jobs this year in

Scotland, has seen fit to renounce �350 million of spending, a

decision that will not be taken until 2016. This is pure, unbridled

politics with no economic base whatsoever. It is one of the most

important things, our national security. We have heard that

statement. We knew this. Why are we saying it again? Things move on,

this is what we are doing. It is not about saying something again,

it is about what is happening. It would be irresponsible to keep

things as they are, we have to move on. This is a real announcement of

350 million of that already announced, a complete waste of

money. If we want to talk about security, this is a defence system

that is planned never to be used, yet we have no vertical lift

aircraft, no long-range reconnaissance, there are other

things we could have spent this money on that are far more

constructive to our defence than the Trident and his replacement.

What do you say to that? We were left a mess by the previous

Government, I know that has been said before. You have to balance

the defence spending will start spend a 3 million... We have had

the Arab Spring, we have had unprecedented instability in all

sorts of areas. We have to make sure in the long term our nation is

secure. We also have the question of Scottish independence, so we

have to reaffirm what we are doing. In terms of the issue of Scottish

independence, the SNP has changed its mind over joining NATO, so what

is to say it will not change its mind over the naval base at

Faslane? NATO was different. abandoned your pledge. Two people

resigned over it. It was a policy change that was sensible. Norway,

Denmark, Canada they are in NATO, and it is perfectly compatible to

be in NATO and to be non-nuclear. That would be the first thing an

independent Scotland would do, you would close at the Faslane naval

base and send it back, to England? We have been sensible about what we

have said here, as quickly and as safely as possible. They need to be

moved to somewhere suitable and saved, but as quickly and as safely

as possible after 2014. Does Labour dispute the figures about the

economic cost it would have to Scotland? There are definitely

disputes about the figures, but what I would say is one of the

reasons why we find it hard to get to a sensible and a right answer,

it is because of the party politics. This morning the Guardian is

reporting the Tories are using this to put clear, blue water between

them and the Lib Dems. You have got the SNP trying to make this an

electoral issue between Labour and the SNP, understandably. You have

got the dynamics of the Scottish independence referendum thrown into

this. When you listen to what everyone has said, there are moral

arguments, but there is also a pragmatic case on which we agree

more than we disagree. That is being lost. Everybody is concerned

about national security. I do not think that is something none of us

care about. All of us are concerned about jobs. That is the argument we

ought to be having and the politics are getting in the way of as

getting to the right answer. We have got a review under way, we

have supported that, all of the parties in the coalition agreement

and in the Opposition's support that review. You have got no

Liberal Democrats left in that department of defence. Are you

worried you are going to lose the battle on this? Their real battle

will after be the next election. National security is absolutely

right. If you have �100 billion over 25 years, what gets you the

best security? Is it having a one- shot mechanism like the nuclear

deterrent. Thank you very much for coming on to the programme.

Boris Johnson thinks guilt-ridden lefties need to swat the mosquitoes

in Tuscany with it, or to align their little ones' lunch boxes as

they pack them off to their fee- paying schools. I am talking about

the Guardian. Rumour has it that it is thinking of ditching its paper

version and producing dust an online version. The editor has

denied it. Today this is the old world, hi-

tech printing 10 years ago at the Sunday Times. Newspapers have been

formed, inflamed, discovered, divided and sometimes lied for

centuries. They have the best and worst of journalism. Churchill

spent hours reading them all every day, but these days who has got the

time? More of us are stealing time back by taking a tablet. This has

now become, as Boris Johnson writes, the biggest threat to print since

Gutenberg. It is starting in the States. Newsweek is going digital

only. The trustee, perhaps must be, New York Times and Herald Tribune

just added 57,000 digital subscribers, a 75% jump from one

year ago, even as its paper ad revenues are down. Rumours abound

about the Guardian going digital, and the editor has denied this. But

the writing is increasingly on the pay wall. It is not just papers.

Even as the PM tries to avoid the headlines, today as we speak The

Big Issue offers a digital toys on the streets of Manchester for the

first time. Do you think it is inevitable, bearing the mind --

bear in mind the decline in sales, it will be online. I hope not,

because I think there is a value to a tangible newspaper. But they will

have to think differently about how they raise revenue. I would like to

say the paper version stay as it is. Do you read newspapers, or do you

get all of you press online? I do mainly these days. I mostly get it

online because it is good for all of us to get different views. I

read the Daily Mail and the Guardian. Do you read it in paper

form? A only if I have time, but too often I read things only online.

What is the shame is when you read things online, you only read things

you are interested in. Reading the newspaper you can discover

something you have never cared about before. Is it affordable to

keep them going? It is clear there are real challenges for these

papers. The only way they can make up revenue it is by going online.

If you look at local newspapers, there is talk about them all going

online and other alternative models, mergers, for example. That is

controversial about things that have happened around Leveson. The

issue is what happens to 10 million people who are not online. Around