temperatures and we could see highs of 2a degrees. temperatures and we could see highs of 24 degrees-— there's more analysis of the top stories on newsnight, just getting underway on bbc two. but the news continues here on bbc one as we join our colleagues for the news where you are. tonight, the calls for notting hill carmival to be moved it's not a golden era, but nor is it in a deep freeze, so what exactly is britain's china policy? on the day of the highest level uk ministerial visit to beijing in half a decade, mps decry the secrecy around britain's china policy, and aggravates beijing by asserting that taiwan is an "independent country"... but number 10 seem pretty keen on a face to face meeting between the pm and president xi as early as next month, so is the government holding back on criticism or is the brutal reality that china is now creating new diplomatic alliances, having amassed such economic superiority, that it doesnt matter what britain's china policy is? we'll speak to former uk national national security advisor lord ricketts, hong kong pro—democracy activist simon cheng, and one of the authors of today's critical report by mps, bob seely. also tonight, what is known as ultra processed food is under attack from scientists and health charities, leading to some calls for a government crackdown. but has the backlash against products including weetabix, baked beans, and even bread gone a little too far? and a special report on the solemn promises of fairness across the generations — a routine feature of political rhetoric in all parties — is unattainable, with younger generations now systematically squeezed by housing tax and spend policy. good evening. a "pragmatic, sensible" relationship is what the foreign secretary james cleverly promised in beijing for the first uk—china meeting at that level for half a decade. it appeared to be part of the mechanics of what might lead to a face to face meeting between the prime minister and president xi, possibly as soon as the 620 summit in india next saturday. rishi sunak is the only member of the g7 who has not met the leader of the world's second economic power face to face. while we are a world away from david cameron's selfies with xi on the state visit at the start of what was supposed to be a "golden era" in 2015, it's pretty clear that britain, and the west in general, appears to have shied away from cutting certain links in a process of what was known as "decoupling". conversations are required on global priorities from ukraine to climate change. china, meanwhile, is attempting to forge new diplomatic alliances, building on the so—called brics grouping including russia. in the background is the emerging reality that china has stolen a march in many of the industries of the future through careful multi—decade planning, and the west is playing catch—up. is the plan to contain china if it follows russia and invades taiwan? or is it something bigger, to try to prevent what is often seen as inevitable — china's ascent to becoming the world's number one economy? here's nick. leader of a revolution and leading a country initially shuttered from the outside world. then a giant raises its sites and the next generation cements china's place on the global stage. but the helmsman of today has far greater ambitions, to shake that stage. president xijinping in the limelight at the recent brics summit of emerging superpowers and the big messages. an expansion of the block to strengthen china's voice on global economics and potentially swelled the number of china friendly countries if beijing decides to move against taiwan. and china making clear its determination to be an indispensable player in diplomacy around ukraine. a china expert and no doubt about the significance of xijinping, a president with a clear global strategy. xi jinping, a president with a clear global strategy-— global strategy. when you look at this, consider _ global strategy. when you look at this, consider the _ global strategy. when you look at this, consider the international i this, consider the international order is largely decided by the western economies back to 1916. and that no longer suits the purpose for china. and china would be interested in shaping this international order, notjust according to china's preferences but also according to the preferences of many of the large —sized developing countries, for example india as well. so for the moment we are at a very critical juncture. on the one hand you have the old guard of the g7 who desperately want to preserve the old international order, where on the other hand china and other emerging economies are hoping to bring more chairs to the table. abs, economies are hoping to bring more chairs to the table.— chairs to the table. a fading symbol of britain above _ chairs to the table. a fading symbol of britain above a _ chairs to the table. a fading symbol of britain above a once _ chairs to the table. a fading symbol of britain above a once grand - chairs to the table. a fading symbol. of britain above a once grand london address and a sign of china's ambitions that it wants to make its own uk home in the old royal mint. the process to move the chinese embassy here is on hold after a row over planning much to the annoyance of beijing. but buying this iconic and large london site has an unmistakable signal that beijing sees itself as a major global player. keep them at a distance in light of china's human rights record says a powerful wing of the conservative party, but rishi sunak has decided to engage. diplomacy beijing's style and the first visit in five years by a senior british minister, who had a message for critics back home. i fundamentally disauree critics back home. i fundamentally disagree with _ critics back home. i fundamentally disagree with those _ critics back home. i fundamentally disagree with those voices, - disagree with those voices, including people who i regard as good friends, who feel we should disengage from china. i don't think thatis disengage from china. i don't think that is a credible option. {hind that is a credible option. china thinks that _ that is a credible option. china thinks that this _ that is a credible option. china thinks that this is _ that is a credible option. china thinks that this is their - that is a credible option. chinal thinks that this is their century, this is— thinks that this is their century, this is the — thinks that this is their century, this is the century in which they become — this is the century in which they become the world's biggest economic power— become the world's biggest economic power and _ become the world's biggest economic power and they hope the leading political— power and they hope the leading political power, a future superpower. i think president xi is the most — superpower. i think president xi is the most significant leader since xiaoping — the most significant leader since xiaoping. a the most significant leader since xiaoinu. �* ., . ., . the most significant leader since xiaoinu. ., . ., . , xiaoping. a former national security adviser is in — xiaoping. a former national security adviser is in no _ xiaoping. a former national security adviser is in no doubt _ xiaoping. a former national security adviser is in no doubt about - xiaoping. a former national security adviser is in no doubt about the - adviser is in no doubt about the need to go into the relationship with eyes wide open.— need to go into the relationship with eyes wide open. there is a lot to ob'ect with eyes wide open. there is a lot to object to — with eyes wide open. there is a lot to object to about _ with eyes wide open. there is a lot to object to about chinese - with eyes wide open. there is a lot| to object to about chinese policies, unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property, human rights record, behaviour towards hong kong and taiwan, support of russia over ukraine, but this is 20% of the world's population, the world's second biggest economic power, crucial to any progress we need to make on climate change, and we have important commercial and economic relations with china, so what i think rishi sunak is trying to do is basically have it both ways. we need to be able to continue to trade with china at current levels are perhaps even better so we have to be able to see our piece on human rights, on the hong kong and ukraine and china's current policies on climate change and so on.— change and so on. forging a new a- roach change and so on. forging a new approach in _ change and so on. forging a new approach in difficult _ change and so on. forging a new approach in difficult diplomatic. approach in difficult diplomatic waters. a clear move by rishi sunak but on these among core supporters. and now i am joined by british hong kong exiled pro—democracy activist — simon cheng, the former national security advisor and foreign office permanent secretary lord ricketts, and the conservative mp bob seely, who sits on the foreign affairs select committee. simon, i will start with you. since that golden era, the situation in hong kong is probably the most tangible change in the uk— china relations, are you satisfied in that meeting they have stood up to china? that man is seen as one of the architects of the hong kong crackdown.— architects of the hong kong crackdown. ~ , , , ., crackdown. absolutely it is not ideal because _ crackdown. absolutely it is not ideal because too _ crackdown. absolutely it is not ideal because too many - crackdown. absolutely it is not| ideal because too many people crackdown. absolutely it is not - ideal because too many people now see that _ ideal because too many people now see that they are _ ideal because too many people now see that they are holding _ ideal because too many people now see that they are holding the - see that they are holding the power, but absolutely — see that they are holding the power, but absolutely they _ see that they are holding the power, but absolutely they don't _ see that they are holding the power, but absolutely they don't represent i but absolutely they don't represent the interests — but absolutely they don't represent the interests of _ but absolutely they don't represent the interests of the _ but absolutely they don't represent the interests of the people - but absolutely they don't represent the interests of the people of- but absolutely they don't representj the interests of the people of china and even _ the interests of the people of china and even hong _ the interests of the people of china and even hong kong, _ the interests of the people of china and even hong kong, so _ the interests of the people of china and even hong kong, so i - the interests of the people of china and even hong kong, so i would i the interests of the people of china i and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if— and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if any— and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if any agreement _ and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if any agreement or— and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if any agreement or deal- and even hong kong, so i would doubt that if any agreement or deal had - that if any agreement or deal had been _ that if any agreement or deal had been made — that if any agreement or deal had been made between _ that if any agreement or deal had been made between the uk - that if any agreement or deal had - been made between the uk government and the _ been made between the uk government and the chinese — been made between the uk government and the chinese government— been made between the uk government and the chinese government would - been made between the uk government and the chinese government would go. and the chinese government would go really hand—in—hand _ and the chinese government would go really hand—in—hand with _ and the chinese government would go really hand—in—hand with the - really hand—in—hand with the interests _ really hand—in—hand with the interests of— really hand—in—hand with the interests of our— really hand—in—hand with the interests of our people. - really hand—in—hand with thel interests of our people. hong really hand—in—hand with the - interests of our people. hong kong we definitely— interests of our people. hong kong we definitely see _ interests of our people. hong kong we definitely see that _ interests of our people. hong kong we definitely see that the - interests of our people. hong kong | we definitely see that the freedoms guaranteed — we definitely see that the freedoms guaranteed by— we definitely see that the freedoms guaranteed by the _ we definitely see that the freedoms guaranteed by the declaration - we definitely see that the freedoms guaranteed by the declaration are l guaranteed by the declaration are gone _ guaranteed by the declaration are gone and — guaranteed by the declaration are gone and what _ guaranteed by the declaration are gone and what is _ guaranteed by the declaration are gone and what is the _ guaranteed by the declaration are i gone and what is the consequences? what has _ gone and what is the consequences? what has the — gone and what is the consequences? what has the uk _ gone and what is the consequences? what has the uk government - gone and what is the consequences? what has the uk government done? | gone and what is the consequences? - what has the uk government done? the deeds meant— what has the uk government done? the deeds meant more _ what has the uk government done? the deeds meant more than— what has the uk government done? the deeds meant more than words— what has the uk government done? the deeds meant more than words and - what has the uk government done? the deeds meant more than words and we i deeds meant more than words and we hope that— deeds meant more than words and we hope that the — deeds meant more than words and we hope that the uk_ deeds meant more than words and we hope that the uk government - deeds meant more than words and we hope that the uk government could i deeds meant more than words and we| hope that the uk government could be tougher. _ hope that the uk government could be tougher. to _ hope that the uk government could be tougher. to live — hope that the uk government could be tougher. to live up— hope that the uk government could be tougher, to live up to _ hope that the uk government could be tougher, to live up to their— hope that the uk government could be tougher, to live up to their words - tougher, to live up to their words of safeguarding _ tougher, to live up to their words of safeguarding human _ tougher, to live up to their words of safeguarding human rights. i tougher, to live up to their words of safeguarding human rights. asking for a tougher — of safeguarding human rights. asking for a tougher position _ of safeguarding human rights. asking for a tougher position from _ of safeguarding human rights. asking for a tougher position from the - of safeguarding human rights. asking for a tougher position from the uk i for a tougher position from the uk government. lord ricketts, what is the uk hoping to achieve? it seems that the least they are hoping to get that face—to—face meeting with xijinping? i get that face-to-face meeting with xi jin - in: ? ~ get that face-to-face meeting with xijin-uin? , get that face-to-face meeting with xijinina? , , xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is uuite xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right _ xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right to _ xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right to go _ xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right to go to _ xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right to go to china, - xi jinping? i thinkjames cleverly is quite right to go to china, he l is quite right to go to china, he needs— is quite right to go to china, he needs to — is quite right to go to china, he needs to have a working relationship with his _ needs to have a working relationship with his chinese counterpart. there is a huge _ with his chinese counterpart. there is a huge commercial relationship, but also _ is a huge commercial relationship, but also we — is a huge commercial relationship, but also we have really important issues _ but also we have really important issues to — but also we have really important issues to raise with china about their— issues to raise with china about their disgraceful behaviour in hong kong _ their disgraceful behaviour in hong kong we _ their disgraceful behaviour in hong kong, we are not going to change chinese _ kong, we are not going to change chinese mines, but it is right that james _ chinese mines, but it is right that james cleverly goes there and makes the british— james cleverly goes there and makes the british case in an articulate way the british case in an articulate wav to— the british case in an articulate wav to the _ the british case in an articulate way to the chinese foreign minister. there _ way to the chinese foreign minister. there are _ way to the chinese foreign minister. there are a — way to the chinese foreign minister. there are a whole range of issues we will need _ there are a whole range of issues we will need to— there are a whole range of issues we will need to work with china on the. it is will need to work with china on the. it is complex — will need to work with china on the. it is complex and difficult but foreign — it is complex and difficult but foreign policy is about talking to those _ foreign policy is about talking to those you — foreign policy is about talking to those you disagree with as well as your friends. fits those you disagree with as well as your friends-— those you disagree with as well as your friends. as lord ricketts says, this process — your friends. as lord ricketts says, this process is _ your friends. as lord ricketts says, this process is important _ your friends. as lord ricketts says, this process is important and - your friends. as lord ricketts says, this process is important and he - this process is important and he needs a meeting with xi jinping as a part of the process? what needs a meeting with xi jinping as a part of the process?— part of the process? what grips me listenin: part of the process? what grips me listening to — part of the process? what grips me listening to james _ part of the process? what grips me listening to james who _ part of the process? what grips me listening to james who i _ part of the process? what grips me listening to james who i think - part of the process? what grips me listening to james who i think is - listening to james who i think is a great diplomat and a top bloke, he says either we do what we are doing at the moment we stick our heads in the sand. i am sorry, you have to engage but you don't have to engage in the way we are doing. one of the things in the report says we need a more coherent come across department approach to china. the human rights abuses are serious but the most serious issue facing us as economic dependency, which if it comes to war in the pacific against the us are taiwan, if europe does not put down sanctions against china or at least tries to be engaged to support our allies, it will destroy the western alliance. so there are really big thing to play for and either saying it is follow the current line or heads in the sand is a dichotomy and this distinction that i think is wrong and prevents debate. which is wh he wrong and prevents debate. which is why he thinks _ wrong and prevents debate. which is why he thinks the _ wrong and prevents debate. which is why he thinks the g7 _ wrong and prevents debate. which is why he thinks the g7 diplomacy - wrong and prevents debate. which is why he thinks the g7 diplomacy sent| why he thinks the g7 diplomacy sent a message to putin. i why he thinks the g7 diplomacy sent a message to putin.— a message to putin. i completely auree. a message to putin. i completely agree- you _ a message to putin. i completely agree. you don't _ a message to putin. i completely agree. you don't disagree - a message to putin. i completely agree. you don't disagree with i a message to putin. i completely. agree. you don't disagree with the idea of going _ agree. you don't disagree with the idea of going on — agree. you don't disagree with the idea of going on the _ agree. you don't disagree with the idea of going on the visit? - agree. you don't disagree with the idea of going on the visit? ethicall idea of going on the visit? ethical foreian idea of going on the visit? ethical foreign policy _ idea of going on the visit? ethical foreign policy is _ idea of going on the visit? ethical foreign policy is talking _ idea of going on the visit? ethical foreign policy is talking to - idea of going on the visit? ethical foreign policy is talking to peoplej foreign policy is talking to people in the more you disagree with people, whether russia or the chinese, the more you should be talking to them at least so they know what you are on about and you know what you are on about and you know what you are on about and you know what they are on about. but it is actually protecting ourselves at the same time and we are not doing that enough and we are not protecting our values. china streets itself as a hostile power and its documents, in what it says about ours. it is not a right—wing conspiracy theory, it is the chinese themselves that say the west as a threat and needs to be countered and defeated, these are in economic documents. did defeated, these are in economic documents-— documents. did you try in this re ort documents. did you try in this report today _ documents. did you try in this report today to _ documents. did you try in this report today to be _ documents. did you try in this i report today to be provocative? documents. did you try in this - report today to be provocative? no, it is a great — report today to be provocative? iifr, it is a great report. report today to be provocative? no, it is a great report. let's _ report today to be provocative? no, it is a great report. let's bring - it is a great report. let's bring lord ricketts _ it is a great report. let's bring lord ricketts back _ it is a great report. let's bring lord ricketts back in. - it is a great report. let's bring lord ricketts back in. the - it is a great report. let's bring i lord ricketts back in. the report criticises the secrecy but what is the policy as you see it? it is not the policy as you see it? it is not the secrecy _ the policy as you see it? it is not the secrecy but _ the policy as you see it? it is not the secrecy but the _ the policy as you see it? it is not the secrecy but the generality, l the policy as you see it? it is not. the secrecy but the generality, we need _ the secrecy but the generality, we need to— the secrecy but the generality, we need to engage in china where we haveissues need to engage in china where we have issues at stake, we can be very tough _ have issues at stake, we can be very tough with— have issues at stake, we can be very tough with the chinese on issues of security _ tough with the chinese on issues of security i— tough with the chinese on issues of security. i think it is right that we woke — security. i think it is right that we woke up too late to dominate —— to china's _ we woke up too late to dominate —— to china's wish to dominate in next—generation technology. it needs both of— next—generation technology. it needs both of those things and also to call out — both of those things and also to call out china's unacceptable behaviour when it happens. when parliamentarians _ behaviour when it happens. when parliamentarians and _ behaviour when it happens. when parliamentarians and the - behaviour when it happens. “thrush parliamentarians and the foreign affairs committee keeps talking about the need for understanding our economic dependency. government are still unwilling and it is a government i am very supportive of but they are unwilling to look at the nature of our dependency and it is increasing and that is the great danger. brute is increasing and that is the great dancer. ~ . is increasing and that is the great danter, . ., ., is increasing and that is the great dancer.~ . . , , danger. we have a case study with russia and — danger. we have a case study with russia and ukraine _ danger. we have a case study with russia and ukraine were _ danger. we have a case study with russia and ukraine were big - russia and ukraine were big sanctions were put on russia. we cannot do the same thing with china. we would collapse the global economy. so you acknowledge we are too dependent on china? we economy. so you acknowledge we are too dependent on china?— too dependent on china? we would risk collapsing _ too dependent on china? we would risk collapsing the _ too dependent on china? we would risk collapsing the global— too dependent on china? we would risk collapsing the global economy. and you are left in the middle of this big power dependency trying to assert your rights and the importance of the crisis in hong kong but maybe not being heard? absolutely. it is really important although — absolutely. it is really important although understandable - absolutely. it is really important although understandable that. absolutely. it is really important| although understandable that we absolutely. it is really important - although understandable that we have to engage _ although understandable that we have to engage with — although understandable that we have to engage with china _ although understandable that we have to engage with china due _ although understandable that we have to engage with china due to _ although understandable that we have to engage with china due to their- to engage with china due to their status, _ to engage with china due to their status, the — to engage with china due to their status, the power— to engage with china due to their status, the power and _ to engage with china due to their status, the power and wealth, i to engage with china due to theirl status, the power and wealth, but more _ status, the power and wealth, but more importantly— status, the power and wealth, but more importantly we _ status, the power and wealth, but more importantly we need - status, the power and wealth, but more importantly we need to i status, the power and wealth, butl more importantly we need to make status, the power and wealth, but i more importantly we need to make it very clear— more importantly we need to make it very clear why — more importantly we need to make it very clear why we _ more importantly we need to make it very clear why we should _ more importantly we need to make it very clear why we should not - more importantly we need to make it very clear why we should not give i more importantly we need to make it very clear why we should not give a l very clear why we should not give a wrong _ very clear why we should not give a wrong signals— very clear why we should not give a wrong signals to _ very clear why we should not give a wrong signals to china _ very clear why we should not give a wrong signals to china and - very clear why we should not give a wrong signals to china and the i wrong signals to china and the chinese — wrong signals to china and the chinese government— wrong signals to china and the chinese government that i wrong signals to china and the chinese government that they| wrong signals to china and the i chinese government that they will feel it _ chinese government that they will feel it is _ chinese government that they will feel it is without _ chinese government that they will feel it is without consequences, i feel it is without consequences, what _ feel it is without consequences, what they have _ feel it is without consequences, what they have done _ feel it is without consequences, what they have done in - feel it is without consequences, what they have done in hong i feel it is without consequences, i what they have done in hong kong feel it is without consequences, - what they have done in hong kong and the threat _ what they have done in hong kong and the threat posed — what they have done in hong kong and the threat posed to _ what they have done in hong kong and the threat posed to taiwan, _ what they have done in hong kong and the threat posed to taiwan, with - the threat posed to taiwan, with consequences _ the threat posed to taiwan, with consequences. those _ consequences. those western countries — consequences. those western countries will _ consequences. those western countries will come _ consequences. those western countries will come back- consequences. those western countries will come back to i consequences. those westernl countries will come back to us. consequences. those western i countries will come back to us. you seem to be — countries will come back to us. you seem to be saying _ countries will come back to us. seem to be saying more thanjust countries will come back to us.“ seem to be saying more thanjust we seem to be saying more than just we are trying to prevent this dynamic around potential invasion of taiwan. are we trying to prevent china from becoming the world's number one economy? i becoming the world's number one econom ? . ., , ., economy? i am not sure it will do because china — economy? i am not sure it will do because china now— economy? i am not sure it will do because china now has _ economy? i am not sure it will do because china now has a - economy? i am not sure it will do because china now has a massive j economy? i am not sure it will do i because china now has a massive debt bubble problem. a lot of people assume that china, there is going to be some sort of upward trajectory. at the moment it is badly stalling and it might be that in 20 years we will look back on this era in a very different way. there are two versions for humanity on the 21st century, open societies and closed societies. open societies have been doing very well for the last 20 years, and this is a battle that humanity cannot afford to lose. you could argue — humanity cannot afford to lose. you could argue close societies have been doing very well. that could argue close societies have been doing very well.— could argue close societies have been doing very well. that is what i have been saying. _ been doing very well. that is what i have been saying. and _ been doing very well. that is what i have been saying. and the - been doing very well. that is what i have been saying. and the horse i been doing very well. that is what i l have been saying. and the horse has bolted? the dangers _ have been saying. and the horse has bolted? the dangers of— bolted? the dangers of artificial intelligence. — bolted? the dangers of artificial intelligence, big _ bolted? the dangers of artificial intelligence, big data _ bolted? the dangers of artificial intelligence, big data and i intelligence, big data and old—fashioned state violence, we have to be countering these and that is the battle for humanity. i have to be countering these and that is the battle for humanity.— is the battle for humanity. i don't think the authoritarian _ is the battle for humanity. i don't think the authoritarian states i is the battle for humanity. i don't| think the authoritarian states have done _ think the authoritarian states have done all— think the authoritarian states have done all that well actually. vladimir putin has made a massive error intervening in ukraine. xi jinping— error intervening in ukraine. xi jinping crashed the chinese economy. but we _ jinping crashed the chinese economy. but we are _ jinping crashed the chinese economy. but we are playing catch up on all these industry and it looks like china has been planning for 15 years. china has been planning for15 ears. �* �* , ., ., ., china has been planning for15 ears. �* �*, ., ., ., , years. but let's not over do this. i think xi jinping — years. but let's not over do this. i think xi jinping is _ years. but let's not over do this. i think xi jinping is vulnerable, i years. but let's not over do this. i think xi jinping is vulnerable, he i think xi jinping is vulnerable, he is also _ think xi jinping is vulnerable, he is also now— think xi jinping is vulnerable, he is also now scared because there is a big _ is also now scared because there is a big, looming economic problem with m billion— a big, looming economic problem with 1.4 billion people. we have a good case in _ 1.4 billion people. we have a good case in the — 1.4 billion people. we have a good case in the us now that we have a policy— case in the us now that we have a policy on — case in the us now that we have a policy on looking carefully at chinese _ policy on looking carefully at chinese investment into economies, in making _ chinese investment into economies, in making sure that we have the critical— in making sure that we have the critical position on issues of the future _ critical position on issues of the future like _ critical position on issues of the future like batteries, like ai, like chips _ future like batteries, like ai, like chips the — future like batteries, like ai, like chips. the west is well—placed if we can work— chips. the west is well—placed if we can work together. the crucial thing is we _ can work together. the crucial thing is we have _ can work together. the crucial thing is we have not been working together, europe, the uk and the us and finally— together, europe, the uk and the us and finally we are beginning to come together— and finally we are beginning to come together but we have been dispersed. so you're _ together but we have been dispersed. so you're 0k buying, cheap tvs so you're ok buying, cheap tvs from china but you wouldn't want to buy electric cars. where is the line? things that are basic to our national— things that are basic to our national security are the things we must _ national security are the things we must worry— national security are the things we must worry about. furniture and children's— must worry about. furniture and children's toys is fine. it was absolutely right in the foreign affairs— absolutely right in the foreign affairs committee, the government has not _ affairs committee, the government has not done enough to say to business. _ has not done enough to say to business, to universities, where is the line? — business, to universities, where is the line? where should you not go in terms _ the line? where should you not go in terms of— the line? where should you not go in terms of allowing the chinese to take ownership or send thousands of students? _ take ownership or send thousands of students? more clarity on the lines is good _ students? more clarity on the lines is aood. ,, , . , is good. students are fine but when the come is good. students are fine but when they come from _ is good. students are fine but when they come from military _ is good. students are fine but when | they come from military universities to study military technology to effectively do a legalised version of intellectual property theft and take back to china, that is bad. while confucius institutes are spying on students and harassing and beating up people like simon, that is not acceptable and it is not acceptable by a british passport holders in hong kong at being arrested, that is a disgrace. it is aboutjudgment but finding a about judgment but finding a coherent aboutjudgment but finding a coherent policy, we are not there yet. coherent policy, we are not there et. ., . ., . . , yet. you are not against disengagement, - yet. you are not against disengagement, you i yet. you are not against| disengagement, you just yet. you are not against i disengagement, you just want yet. you are not against _ disengagement, you just want hong kong to be mentioned more? —— you are not against this engagement? brute are not against this engagement? we should notjustify are not against this engagement? we should not justify engaging with china _ should not justify engaging with china because _ should not justify engaging with china because they— should not justify engaging with china because they are - should not justify engaging with. china because they are powerful. should not justify engaging with i china because they are powerful. we -ive china because they are powerful. we give the _ china because they are powerful. we give the wrong — china because they are powerful. we give the wrong signal— china because they are powerful. we give the wrong signal to _ china because they are powerful. we give the wrong signal to the - china because they are powerful. we give the wrong signal to the world i give the wrong signal to the world and to— give the wrong signal to the world and to our— give the wrong signal to the world and to our british _ give the wrong signal to the world and to our british people - give the wrong signal to the world and to our british people to - give the wrong signal to the world. and to our british people to believe that because — and to our british people to believe that because they— and to our british people to believe that because they are _ and to our british people to believe that because they are powerful- and to our british people to believe that because they are powerful we. that because they are powerful we should _ that because they are powerful we should succumb— that because they are powerful we should succumb to _ that because they are powerful we should succumb to such _ that because they are powerful we should succumb to such power- that because they are powerful we| should succumb to such power and that because they are powerful we i should succumb to such power and we should _ should succumb to such power and we should live _ should succumb to such power and we should live up — should succumb to such power and we should live up to— should succumb to such power and we should live up to our— should succumb to such power and we should live up to our values _ should succumb to such power and we should live up to our values to - should live up to our values to stand — should live up to our values to stand up— should live up to our values to stand up to _ should live up to our values to stand up to egregious - should live up to our values to stand up to egregious human. should live up to our values to i stand up to egregious human rights abuse _ stand up to egregious human rights abuse which — stand up to egregious human rights abuse which is _ stand up to egregious human rights abuse which is happening _ stand up to egregious human rights abuse which is happening to- stand up to egregious human rights abuse which is happening to the i abuse which is happening to the chinese — abuse which is happening to the chinese and _ abuse which is happening to the chinese and hong _ abuse which is happening to the chinese and hong kong - abuse which is happening to the chinese and hong kong people. j abuse which is happening to the i chinese and hong kong people. we need to— chinese and hong kong people. we need to keep — chinese and hong kong people. we need to keep speaking _ chinese and hong kong people. we need to keep speaking out. - chinese and hong kong people. we need to keep speaking out.- need to keep speaking out. simon, lord ricketts _ need to keep speaking out. simon, lord ricketts and _ need to keep speaking out. simon, lord ricketts and bob _ need to keep speaking out. simon, lord ricketts and bob seely, i need to keep speaking out. simon, lord ricketts and bob seely, thankj lord ricketts and bob seely, thank you very much. the backlash against what is known as ultra—processed foods is everywhere. health charities say this approach to mass food production is responsible for populaion—wide ill health, obesity and heart disease. two studies presented at a scientific conference this week showed those who eat more ultra—processed foods have higher risks of heart attacks, high blood pressure and strokes. shoppers are encouraged en masse to check labels for a surfeit of ingredients. the government is under pressure to act, as it did over sugar or tobacco. experts have described ultra—processed food as harmful, as a harmful tidal wave causing a huge rocket in cases of heart attacks and strokes. ..and they say that ultra—processed food, which largely makes up about 80% of the diet of people in the uk, particularly those from disadvantaged areas, is having a catastrophic impact... these substances are addictive, they are marketed as healthy i and they are all around us. the story of how the food we eat in the uk could be leaving us at greater risk of health conditions like heart attacks and strokes has been hard to avoid over the last few days. the term ultra—processed food has been everywhere, but what is it? one definition is called the nova classification. it ranks food as unprocessed edible parts of plants and animals, processed ingredients like oils, butter, sugar and salt which are derived from nature, processed foods which mix the first two groups — so things like bread or tinned fish — and ultra—processed foods. these contain little if any unprocessed food and contain things you wouldn't normally find in your kitchen, like additives. in britain, more than half of our daily calories come from ultra—processed foods, one of the highest rates in the world. but when we talk about ultra—processed foods, that headline can cover everything from frozen pizzas to strawberry flavoured fat—free yoghurt, and the nova definition doesn't take into account the nutrient composition of the food at all. the uk government's scientific advisory committee on nutrition has previously said the nova classification system is limited and called for a new version to apply to processed foods in the uk diet. so is it time for us to comb through our cupboards, searching for unfamiliar terms, or is this criticism unfairly demonising for food that, let's face it, is often cheaper? i“m joined by dr federica amati, a nutritionist who works closely with the zoe app that aims to provide personalised nutrition, and chef and food manufacturing consultant anthony warner. one could understand that bad sounding fast food ready meals are bad for you, but baked beans, margarine, bread, really that bad? it really depends on which one we are looking at, that you have touched on a really important point. lots of these are ultra—processed foods but will have a health halo attached to them, they will claim to be good for your heart or a source of fibre, with brown bread, but it does not contribute to a healthier diet overall. i don't have so much of a problem with foods that are clearly sweets or lollipops or cakes because, at the end of the day, you know what you're getting, but the ultra—processed foods with health claims on them that make them seem really helpful, especially in children's foods, they cause more of an issue. ~ . .., children's foods, they cause more of an issue. ~ . children's foods, they cause more of anissue.~ . _ an issue. what could you possibly ob'ect to an issue. what could you possibly object to any _ an issue. what could you possibly object to any message _ an issue. what could you possibly object to any message that i an issue. what could you possibly i object to any message that simple, fresh food is good for you and good for kids? i fresh food is good for you and good for kids? ., ., ., , . fresh food is good for you and good for kids? ., ., .,, . ., . for kids? i would not ob'ect to a messaue for kids? i would not ob'ect to a message that h for kids? i would not ob'ect to a message that simple, i for kids? i would not object to a message that simple, fresh i for kids? i would not object to a | message that simple, fresh food for kids? i would not object to a i message that simple, fresh food is .ood message that simple, fresh food is good for— message that simple, fresh food is good for you. i would not quite say object _ good for you. i would not quite say object but — good for you. i would not quite say object but what i find difficulty with the — object but what i find difficulty with the ultra—processed foods is that it _ with the ultra—processed foods is that it is — with the ultra—processed foods is that it is such a wide category across— that it is such a wide category across such a huge, different group of disparate types of foods, from brown _ of disparate types of foods, from brown bread and tins of baked beans like you _ brown bread and tins of baked beans like you said through to sweets and pringles, _ like you said through to sweets and pringles, and categorising them altogether is not a very useful way to help _ altogether is not a very useful way to help people improve their diets and make — to help people improve their diets and make better choices because they williust_ and make better choices because they willjust be _ and make better choices because they willjust be confused. something that they— willjust be confused. something that they have which is a perfectly sensible _ that they have which is a perfectly sensible choice that they can afford is suddenly being demonised as ultra—processed because it has been categorised in this way. i find that problematic to say the least. demonised, dr federica amati? in some ways i agree but lots of non—processed foods are very affordable, nobody is arguing that processed foods are very healthy. baked beans are maybe something we do not have to worry about, we could all do with eating more beans and pulses generally, but the category is so big, especially in the uk. the consumption of ultra—processed foods that europe is 14% of daily calorie intake, much lower, we are more like 50% year and intake, much lower, we are more like 50% yearand up intake, much lower, we are more like 50% year and up to 80% in children's diets. because so many supermarket foods qualify as ultra—processed we end up eating so much more of them when we could be eating a lot less and we know the health benefits from reducing are really measurable. surely this ultra—processed wave has been with us for 20, 30, 40 years, perhaps even since the second world war, life expectancy has gone up, is their firm war, life expectancy has gone up, is theirfirm evidence war, life expectancy has gone up, is their firm evidence of causality between these ultra—processed foods and some of the obesity issue or life expectancy are general? causality is hard to prove, there have been some welcome trials but they are few and far between so i appreciate more studies need to be done to prove the causal links of individual foods, done to prove the causal links of individualfoods, but done to prove the causal links of individual foods, but the done to prove the causal links of individualfoods, but the huge amount of epidemiological data, big numbers of millions of people we have been able, thanks to the nova classification, to categorise food... classification, to categorise food. . . classification, to categorise food... �* , food... the british government ex - erts food... the british government experts were — food... the british government experts were not _ food... the british government experts were not so _ food... the british government experts were not so hot - food... the british government experts were not so hot on i food... the british government experts were not so hot on the | food... the british government - experts were not so hot on the nova classification, they said it was too broad. m0 classification, they said it was too broad. ,, , a, , a , broad. no there is not perfect but it is the best _ broad. no there is not perfect but it is the best tool _ broad. no there is not perfect but it is the best tool we _ broad. no there is not perfect but it is the best tool we have - broad. no there is not perfect but it is the best tool we have and - broad. no there is not perfect but| it is the best tool we have and has helped us categorise food so we could look at associations and a helpful way. could look at associations and a helpfulway. high could look at associations and a helpful way. high fat, salt and sugar was not working. this is one approach which is still the best out there, it might be improved. anthony, one criticism as corporations use these methods to maximise profits and sometimes create addictions with an ordinary foods,is create addictions with an ordinary foods, is that not anything... food addiction is — foods, is that not anything... food addiction is not _ foods, is that not anything... food addiction is not a _ foods, is that not anything... food addiction is not a phenomenon that we can_ addiction is not a phenomenon that we can call— addiction is not a phenomenon that we can call addiction in that way. my view— we can call addiction in that way. my view is — we can call addiction in that way. my view is when i'm looking for nutrition — my view is when i'm looking for nutrition advice and to understand the huge — nutrition advice and to understand the huge amount of data out of the, i look_ the huge amount of data out of the, i took to— the huge amount of data out of the, i look to these boring scientific committees like the scientific advisory— committees like the scientific advisory committee on nutrition and the nordic_ advisory committee on nutrition and the nordic guidelines committee who have all_ the nordic guidelines committee who have all come to the conclusion that there _ have all come to the conclusion that there is_ have all come to the conclusion that there is a _ have all come to the conclusion that there is a lot — have all come to the conclusion that there is a lot of evidence but not very— there is a lot of evidence but not very conclusive and it is based on observational studies with very little _ observational studies with very little mechanisms to possibly explain — little mechanisms to possibly explain what is going on with ultra—processed food, so i look to those _ ultra—processed food, so i look to those committees and say they are who we _ those committees and say they are who we should be getting advice front _ who we should be getting advice from. unfortunately lots of people are coming into the media and setting — are coming into the media and setting a — are coming into the media and selling a simple story for a complex issue _ selling a simple story for a complex issue. �* selling a simple story for a complex issue. . , ., selling a simple story for a complex issue. . i. ., selling a simple story for a complex issue. �* y., ., ., ,., issue. are you worried about the im act issue. are you worried about the impact on _ issue. are you worried about the impact on the — issue. are you worried about the impact on the quality? _ issue. are you worried about the impact on the quality? here - issue. are you worried about the impact on the quality? here she| impact on the quality? here she worries, demonising _ impact on the quality? here she worries, demonising those - impact on the quality? here shei worries, demonising those sorts impact on the quality? here she i worries, demonising those sorts of foods _ worries, demonising those sorts of foods. what i worry about most is when _ foods. what i worry about most is when people take these ultra—processed idea, the scientific advisory— ultra—processed idea, the scientific advisory commission on nutrition says— advisory commission on nutrition says it _ advisory commission on nutrition says it is — advisory commission on nutrition says it is not a good way of categorising foods, if that becomes so popular— categorising foods, if that becomes so popular it starts to be put into policy _ so popular it starts to be put into policy that — so popular it starts to be put into policy that what you people want? do they want _ policy that what you people want? do they want these foods to all be made more expensive, to be limited in how we can— more expensive, to be limited in how we can buy— more expensive, to be limited in how we can buy them?— we can buy them? should they be treated like _ we can buy them? should they be treated like sugar, _ we can buy them? should they be treated like sugar, with _ we can buy them? should they be treated like sugar, with a - we can buy them? should they be treated like sugar, with a sugar i treated like sugar, with a sugar tax? ., ., , ., ., , tax? there are lots of solutions, one b&b tax? there are lots of solutions, one 5&5 just — tax? there are lots of solutions, one b&b just reduce _ tax? there are lots of solutions, one b&b just reduce the - tax? there are lots of solutions, i one b&b just reduce the availability of in a huge way. —— one being that wejust reduce. in plenty of of in a huge way. —— one being that we just reduce. in plenty of places in the uk ultra—processed foods are the easiest to access. that should not be the case, affordable food should be accessible but is healthier. it is cheaper, i'll we making food for profit or trying to keep the nation healthy? there are countries with lower gdp cars banners who are doing a betterjob, it is not an impossible task but it is not a priority for politicians. i saw a message on benjamin netanyahu's twitter about sd printed state, will things even get more ultra—processed? i state, will things even get more ultra-processed?— state, will things even get more ultra-processed? i think the future of food might _ ultra-processed? i think the future of food might include _ ultra-processed? i think the future of food might include sd _ ultra-processed? i think the future of food might include sd printing . ultra-processed? i think the future | of food might include sd printing as it might include microbes making milk proteins instead of using powers to make milky, right? that is not necessarily as problematic, making food in a futuristic way, we do not know the health impacts of sd printing but ultra—processed food does not have the same constituents of whole foods, it has many added chemicals which we know has an impact on the gotts microbiome and other parts of the body. fin impact on the gotts microbiome and other parts of the body.— other parts of the body. on the gotts bio michu, _ other parts of the body. on the gotts bio michu, i _ other parts of the body. on the gotts bio michu, i must - other parts of the body. on the gotts bio michu, i must leave l other parts of the body. on the l gotts bio michu, i must leave it, thank you forjoining us, anthony warner and dr federica amati. —— on the dirt biome issue, i must leave it. another substantial increase in the state pension next year is looming thanks to the triple lock. if average wages rise by some 8% between may and july, as seems likely, that means the state pension, as the prime minister has confirmed, going up by an equivalent amount next april. while that would be welcomed by pensioners, it would come at a permanent cost to the taxpayer of around £10 billlion a year — £2.5 billion more than estimated in the spring budget. and it comes against a backdrop of rising taxes on working age people, while pensioners are largely being spared. the looming decision is already putting the issue of intergenerational fairness back in the spotlight. so are older generations really stealing the economic future of the young? and what might be the electoral consequences? here's ben. tom foote is one of the lucky millennials. he and his family have managed to buy a house in the suburbs of nottingham, but he says it's not been easy. having spoken to the likes of my parents, my grandparents and how they were able to buy property and what their journey has been and when they were able to do thatjourney comparative to now, itjust seems completely foreign. theirfirst two bed maisonette, they made the equivalent of about 100 grand in 18 months on that property. and i don't think we would be anywhere near achieving that sort of thing now. it does just seem to be weighted to those older, typically more established and wealthy generations as to how policies are derived. so many people i know have not yet decided to start a family because they don't feel they are financially ready, and i think that's a really sad state of affairs. rosemary stewart andd anya robinson, both retired social care workers, meeting in a nottingham coffee shop, stress that not all pensioners are economically fortunate. not all older people own their home, not all older people still don't have housing costs. so this idea that older people are all done and dusted and have a place of security. i think people look around and there's always somebody that's more comfortable or got more or whatever, but there are a lot of people with debt that they have had to accrue because of high needs. the data is clear. when it comes to things like incomes, housing and pensions there is a clear economic divide between those born after 1980 and those born before, especially the baby boomers. to some extent that's due to bad economic luck. the pay of millennials and generation z has been blighted by the general slowdown in wages since the global financial crisis, but it's also a divide that's been exacerbated by government policy. this shows the impact of government policy since 2010 for those over the age of 60. an average increase of £600 due to measures such as the triple lock. this shows the impact for those below the age of 60, an average fall of £800 due to decisions such as working age benefit cuts. so what we have seen is this government generally has introduced taxes and benefits policies which have generally favoured the older population, so for example the triple lock. what that has resulted in is pensioners generally being better off as a result of these policies than working age people. but are older generations just getting out of the system what they contributed in previous years? and won't younger generations and future benefit from what's going to older people today such as the pensions triple lock? actually, it might not be as simple as that. work by the resolution foundation suggests that the post—war baby boomer generation well over their lifetime receive 25—s0% more from the welfare state than they put in. for post—1980 millennials, they could be on course to receive only 10—20% more than they put in, so still a positive return but a much smaller one. moreover, experts believe that the generous spending today on older generations effectively crowds out spending that could help younger generations today. if the triple lock is maintained then that will benefit cohorts as they move into retirement. however, it's very expensive and it has to be funded some way and generally it comes at the cost of the generosity of working age benefits. only a quarter of people in the uk now think that the future will be better for young people than it was for their parents, so what is this doing to relations between the generations? one of the great myths about generational difference is there is a big sense of conflict between old and young. in many ways, younger people should be angrier than they are about the economic outcomes they have experienced. but actually, there is a lot of support up and down the generations for each other, but particularly younger people are quite protective of older generations. but is this sense of economic unfairness driving people's voting intentions? younger people are considerably more likely to say they are voting for labour than older voters, but experts say this is likely to be as much to do with cultural policies as economic ones. there is also a strong cultural aspect to this where culture war type debates have been put more at the centre of our politics, and as— soon as you do that you are building in a generational divide in voting intentions, because by definition younger generations are more comfortable with emerging social norms than older generations, because they were brought up in a different time. back in nottingham there is a call for a new approach. what we are getting into is a very convenient blame game, so we can blame the young people for having unrealistic expectations or we can blame the old people for being better off, and actually there is a bigger conversation because we are all in it together, in a sense. a reminder that the generational wheel inevitably turns, its axle greased by a sense of mutual responsibility and fairness. i'm joined by pensions expert and former minister baroness altmann. and with me in the studio is columnist martha gill. thanks forjoining us. for many years you have defended the triple lock as it has clearly helped bring pensioners out of poverty. can you still defend it now even as it gives an 8% rise when it is clearly diverting resources away from younger people without these resources?— younger people without these resources? ., ., resources? thank you for asking me here and what _ resources? thank you for asking me here and what i _ resources? thank you for asking me here and what i have _ resources? thank you for asking me here and what i have continuously . here and what i have continuously defended and always will as the protection that pensioners need. as it happens, since the new state pension started in 2016, the triple lock itself is a bit of a political misnomer. it doesn't properly protect the oldest and poorest pensioners and therefore i would be in favour of what i call a double lock, so that pensioners don't fall behind in terms of cost of living or the earnings standards that everyone else in the country lives by. but don't forget, this is about the lowest state pension in the developed world. to talk about taking protection away from it and plunging more pensioners into poverty which would inevitably be the resultjust doesn't seem to stack up to me. dropping the 2.5% of the triple lock i don't have a problem with. it seems to unnecessarily add to the cost. but politicians have used this word triple lock as some kind of a smoke screen to try and demonstrate that they are properly protecting pensioners, but actually we have still lots of pensioners who have very little income. you still lots of pensioners who have very little income.— still lots of pensioners who have very little income. you have been a minister, very little income. you have been a minister. isn't _ very little income. you have been a minister, isn't it _ very little income. you have been a minister, isn't it more _ very little income. you have been a minister, isn't it more that - very little income. you have been a minister, isn't it more that it - minister, isn't it more that it seems it is never up for debate, it is an absolute axiom, a rule that you cannot change this, whereas every other aspect of spending is affecting the working age population is up for debate?— is up for debate? again i must disauree is up for debate? again i must disagree with _ is up for debate? again i must disagree with you, _ is up for debate? again i must disagree with you, i _ is up for debate? again i must disagree with you, i am - is up for debate? again i must disagree with you, i am so - is up for debate? again i must i disagree with you, i am so sorry. but the triple lock itself was just junked two years ago. the but the triple lock itself was 'ust junked two years ago. the earnings data was a bit _ junked two years ago. the earnings data was a bit strange _ junked two years ago. the earnings data was a bit strange because - junked two years ago. the earnings data was a bit strange because of l data was a bit strange because of covid, that was wide. that data was a bit strange because of covid, that was wide.— data was a bit strange because of covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used _ covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used but _ covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used but it _ covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used but it was _ covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used but it was quite - covid, that was wide. that was the excuse used but it was quite clear| excuse used but it was quite clear at the time that inflation was taking off and energy prices were about to soar. pensioners were granted a s.1% rise reflecting the previous year's inflation just at a time when inflation was heading to double digits. so even if politicians promise a so—called triple lock they don't always deliver it. i think i would like to see proper support for pensioners, a decent state pension. it is very difficult to suggest one of the richest countries in the world cannot afford it especially when it has so much lower than most other countries in the world. but the political angle is correct. people are frightened of seeming not to protect pensioners, but in fact they do get away with not doing so. let’s do get away with not doing so. let's brina do get away with not doing so. let's bring on martha. _ do get away with not doing so. let's bring on martha. every _ do get away with not doing so. let's bring on martha. every generation thinks it is hard done by and your generation no different. yes. thinks it is hard done by and your generation no different.— thinks it is hard done by and your generation no different. yes, but my aeneration generation no different. yes, but my generation is — generation no different. yes, but my generation is different _ generation no different. yes, but my generation is different in _ generation no different. yes, but my generation is different in that - generation is different in that there — generation is different in that there are measures by which we are not controversially hard done by and one of— not controversially hard done by and one of which is housing wealth. 40 years— one of which is housing wealth. 40 years ago— one of which is housing wealth. 40 years ago it — one of which is housing wealth. 40 years ago it took the average couple three _ years ago it took the average couple three years — years ago it took the average couple three years to save up to buy a home, — three years to save up to buy a home, now— three years to save up to buy a home, now it takes them nine years. and that _ home, now it takes them nine years. and that is _ home, now it takes them nine years. and that is something which isjust a fact _ and that is something which isjust a fact. lt— and that is something which is 'ust a fact. , ., , ., ,, a fact. it is the housing market. now what _ a fact. it is the housing market. now what is _ a fact. it is the housing market. now what is interesting - a fact. it is the housing market. now what is interesting with - a fact. it is the housing market. | now what is interesting with this whole _ now what is interesting with this whole concept of intergenerational