resignation. there is no issues there. i got tax advice which said there. i got tax advice which said there was no capital gains tax. it is a nonstory manufactured to try and smear me. tonight on newsnight, angela rayner speaks at length on the question of whether she paid all the taxes due on the sale of her home. for weeks her political opponents have accused the deputy leader of the labour party of dodging key questions around the 2015 sale of her stockport house. this is 15 or more years ago, when i was a care worker. i have an expert advice saying that i did not owe any capital gains tax. that should be an end to it. also tonight, is the government heading for another huge compensation bill as the parliamentary and health service watchdog finds thousands of women were not advised about changes to the retirement age? we'll hear from someone asking for compensation and an expert on the ins and outs of the case. as european neighbours fearing war with russia up their defence spending, why is the uk keeping it level? the chair of parliament's defence committee is here to tell us why he thinks we're getting it wrong. and the usjustice department throws the book at apple. we'll double click on the fed's argument that the iphone has been designed to crush the competition. good evening. for weeks labour's deputy leader angela rayner has been facing questions from critics regarding her tax affairs related to the sale of a house in stockport nine years ago. tonight she has come out to face those questions in an interview with newsnight, describing allegations about the house made in a biography by the former conservative treasurer lord michael ashcroft as smears. today she was in manchester to talk about devolution, and nick took the chance to ask her about that and those questions over that house. nick. this has been a difficult month for angela rayner, since those questions, those allegations were first raised. a lot of focus on her family and her personal tax affairs. as she tells me tonight, she didn't owe any tax and she has got professional advice to prove that. but angela rayner who quite likes the cameras hasn't really been appearing in front of the cameras for the last month or so, so you get the impression that there was a feeling that perhaps she should give an explanation. but before we hear from angela rayner, let'sjust an explanation. but before we hear from angela rayner, let's just take a brief look at what this is all about. this is a tale of two houses, one couple, and one big question about tax. in 2007, eight years before she became an mp, angela rayner bought her house in vicarage road in stockport. in 2010 she married mark rayner, who also owned his own home in lauder�*s lane in stockport. when two people who each own their own property marry or become civil partners, this has implications around capital gains tax. this is a tax levied when you sell an asset, including a home for a profit. the tax is not applied on people's main residence. however, the law states that a married couple who each own their own property can jointly nominate only one of those homes as their main residence at any one time. only that property is exempt from capital gains tax, regardless of what properties they owned before marrying. in march 2015, two months before her election to parliament, angela rayner sold her vicarage road house at a profit. in 2016, mark rayner sold his launders lane house. ms rayner says she owes no tax because the vicarage road home was "my home and the only one i owned". the tax expert dan neidl says two conditions would have to be met to avoid tax. first, the couple would have to have had jointly declared that home as their main home at that time, or ms rayner could have spent £15,000 or more on home improvements to escape tax. whether or not tax was due is the big question at the heart of this story. angela rayner insists her professional advice says none is owed. earlier i sat down with angela rayner at the manchester art gallery, and i began by saying to her that she has been very open about the challenges faced by her family, but that naturally makes her very protective, and obviously in the last month, a lot of focus on her tax affairs, a lot of focus on her tax affairs, a lot of focus on herfamily, including the her family, including the publication herfamily, including the publication of her son's birth certificate. so i began by asking angela rayner, how difficult is the last month been? publishing my son's birth certificate, which they know is absolutely not acceptable, i think was a low blow because my children are teenagers. they already have to deal with a lot because of the job that i do. so, when it comes to my children, i am fiercely protective of them. but look, i've been very clear. there was no rules broken. the police, they tried to manufacture a police investigation. they said there's no issues there. i got tax advice which says there was no capital gains tax. it's a non—story manufactured to try and smear me. but at the same time, you've got the chancellor in the budget making snide jokes at the dispatch box while many working people are struggling with their bills. and he forgot he has seven luxury flats, conveniently. i've never been in those circumstances before. and yet the way in which that was portrayed over the last couple of weeks, i felt was unacceptable. to go to those depths when quite clearly i'd done nothing wrong. i felt when they went for my children, that upset me. i'm a mother and my children are teenagers. so that upset me a little bit, because my children don't ask for to be in the public eye, and any mother would feel that way and be protective of them. so you're saying no tax was due on the sale of that property, because you've received advice, official legal advice. i got expert i got expert tax advice that was very clear that there was no capital gains tax and there was no wrongdoing. there was no unlawfulness or anything else in regards to my property 15 years ago. and was that tax advice at the time of the sale in 2015 or more recently? well, i got the advice... if you recall, 15 years ago, as a home help, i sold my house, put it on the market, had a solicitor and an estate agent. but since there was accusations that i'd done something wrong, i went and got expert tax advice, because, look, if i had, i'd have said i've done, you know, i would never want to do anything wrong in that regard. and i got that advice that says quite categorically i didn't. so that's since the lord ashcroft book. since those allegations were put to me, i got expert advice because i had advice at the time. i don't have an accountant, i was a home care worker. you know, i didn't have an accountant. i had, as most people would, you put your house on the market, you get a legal conveyancing solicitor and you get an estate agent. but since those allegations were put to me, i got expert tax advice to make sure that i hadn't done anything wrong. and let me ask you about the statement that you released on the 26th of february, because it said that you were not liable for tax on the vicarage road house, because you said, "it was my home and the only one i owned". but hmrc rules say that married couples and civil partners can only count one property as their main home at any one time. were you aware of those hmrc rules when you sold vicarage road in march 2015? no, i wasn't aware of the hmrc rules 15 years ago when i sold that property. as i say, i sold it, as most people would, put it on the market, got the solicitor and the estate agents, etc. since those allegations were put to me, the tax laws on capital gains tax and principal private residency, etc is very complex, including marriage. i got that advice that is categoric that i do not owe any capital gain tax on that property. i mean, the reason why i ask you this is that dan needle, who's obviously very respected, he led all the investigations into nadhim zahawi. he says that under the hmrc rules, you would only be liable for no tax on vicarage road if it was also mark rayner, your then husband, his principal property as well. because a couple can only have one principal property. and then he would have been liable for capital gains when he sold his separate property in april 2016. that's the first condition. the second one is if you spent around £15,000 on home improvements. so you have to meet one or both of those conditions. what dan was saying and he acknowledged is that, look, she could owe nothing, actually, because the rules are complex and these various different ways to which it's calculated. but i got that expert advice, because if i did owe any capital gains tax, i would have said and i would have paid it. but i don't owe any capital gains tax, because of the circumstances. and i've gone through that with a tax expert and they've given me that advice. but he's estimating... that's the point, he's estimating because he doesn't know my circustances. he's estimated £1,500, but he is estimating a liability, unless you meet one of these two conditions. one is it wasjointly the principal property with your then husband, or you spent £15,000 on home improvements. and obviously the question is, did you meet one of those two conditions? i've made it very clear that i've had expert tax advice and i do not owe any capital gains tax on the sale of my property at vicarage road. because obviously there are questions about this, it might be annoying, but you hope to be deputy prime minister if you become deputy prime minister, permanent secretary, cabinet secretary, sort of go through everything, and dan needle is quite respected. as i say, this is 15—plus years ago when i was a home care worker. i sold the property, as most people do. i did it through the estate agents, with the solicitor. these allegations came to light. i've had expert tax advice that say i do not owe any capital gains tax. that should be the end. i shouldn't have to then go justifying what my living arrangements were or anything else, because that's not where i think — my children and my family arrangements and where i lived at a certain point 15 years ago before i was an mp, etc, i just don't think that... privacy is obviously really important, and the point is we all have lives, people get married and perfectly natural when you get married, both couples might have a house and sometimes people don't realise that you can only have one principal residence and obviously you didn't know that those were the rules at the time. so therefore inevitably there are going to be questions. and i've answered those questions. fascinating to hear angela rayner there saying i shouldn't have to go justifying my living arrangements of all those years ago. on the plan today was that she was in manchester today was that she was in manchester to talk about devolution, wasn't she? thatis she? that is right. talking about her idea of completing the new labour devolution journey with even more devolution journey with even more devolution of powers, two mayers and more devolved powers. i said, devolution of powers, two mayers and more devolved powers. isaid, here we are in greater manchester, your home turf, surrounded by some beautiful ls lowry paintings, and i said to her that her roots in greater manchester shows how she does not like the idea of, as she puts it, hoarding power at westminster. so i began by asking, just how far are you willing to go with that devolution of powers? devolution is incredibly important. i have seen how it's transformed greater manchester having those mayoral powers. we have just taken our buses back into public ownership, which means that bus fares are coming down. it means we have got other routes now that were commercially considered not viable but actually are crucial for people to get to work. i have seen where devolution has happened it's made a real difference. so i want to turbo charge it. and in your prospectus you're talking about empowering mayors and local authorities across the country to basically reverse what's been happening, the deregulation of buses. are we talking about the re—nationalisation of buses? well, i will certainly give people the option to do that, because the point is if you're not getting value for money, then too often now people feel like they're not able to pull the levers to say, this public service is not working for us, we want it to be directly controlled, so that we can have an impact and make it better. with seen it with the rail. we have had a big debate about that and the contracts with avanti trains. we said we'd bring that back into public ownership once those contracts are up. because we want value for money. but are you not talking about actually taking powers further away from people? it's going to go further away from local communities, up to this combined authority layer, because isn't your strategy, your yimbies, "yes in my back yard" not nimbies, "not in my back yard". aren't you disempowering local people? no, we are empowering local people. what we are also looking at are strategic national missions and using the mayoral model and using the combined authority to say actually big infrastructure programmes that we need to boost productivity in the uk are these housing developments that we need, which will stop some of the problems we see at a local level. because if we have had sites, we have transport, we have got local services, gps, hospitals, things, services that people need and they're all part of a strategic plan, that actually it makes much better sense to put it at a mayoral level and working collaboratively with local authorities. but keir starmer, who is a proud "yimby", yes in my back yard, has been very clear, hasn't he, that the current rules are too lax, to able to stop development, because they're so decided at a local level and you are taking it up a level, aren't you? not only that, we haven't got enough planners. that is another problem we have. far too many of the strategic plans are stuck in local planning and it's taking years to come to fruition. so we have been very clear about doing things like the grey belt, you know these issues around car parks that are considered part of the green belt, it's a car park, it's not green belt, is actually bringing these sites forward with brownfield sites so we can develop big housing infrastructure to build the units of homes that people really need. and we're seeing the crisis in housing at the moment in the uk, because we have had you know this decade and a half of not building the homes we so desperately need. look at what sadiq khan's doing in london. you know, he has pledged 40,000 new homes as part of his mayoral campaign — council homes. i want to turbo charge that and work with him to make that happen. because people desperately need those homes. so you're talking about new powers, new ideas, but isn't the big thing that local authority needs is hard cash. there is a funding crisis. and we all know if there is a labour government there won't be any extra cash. dare i mention rachel reeves and her fiscal rules? we do have fiscal rules and it's actually the conservatives that crashed the economy that has left us in this situation where interest rates have been really high, which has taken more pressures on local councils. there is a number of things we said. first of all, rishi sunak famously said that he was going to take money from the most deprived areas and funnel it away into areas like tunbridge wells. i will fund councils on the basis of need. we will review the core budgets and enable them to have a more longer term sustainable funding model and we will stop this gimmicky, dragon's den, you know bidding for pots of money which is costing millions of pounds for councils to do that. angela rayner. a parliamentary watchdog has found that when the retirement age for women was changed from 60 to 65, the government mismanaged the transition. it should have informed women more effectively of the implications that would have. the finding marked a victory for the waspi campaign group who argued that failure meant thousands have suffered in their retirement. joe pike is here to explain. thanks, mark. for decades, women got their state pensions at 60, and men at 65. that changed with the 1995 pensions act which raised the qualifying age for women to 65, the age of men. but it was to happen gradually. the change was supposed to be phased in between 2010 and 2020, but the coalition government accelerated it to 2018, both the phasing in and the acceleration was controversial, in particular with women born in the 1950s, for whom the change was notjust rapid, but, campaigners claim, badly communicated, leaving some lives ruined, with others pushed into poverty. and so the waspi campaign, women against state pension inequality, was born. today, nine years after it was founded in five years after the parliamentary ombudsman started investigating, that watchdog has concluded the department for work and pensions is guilty of maladministration, which left women losing opportunities to make informed decisions, and it diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control. yet whilst campaigners are pushing for compensation of £10,000 each, the ombudsman is suggesting a lot less, between £1,000 and £2950. yet when you are talking about millions of women, the total bill is of course big. the cost to the taxpayer of between 3.5 and £10.5 billion. with 10.5 billion, you could build three aircraft carriers or, asjeremy hunt chose to do this month, deliver a 2p cut in national insurance. however, all of that may be irrelevant if the government and the prime minister doesn't act. the ombudsman said it has no powers to compel it to do so. it says it doesn't think the government will comply, and says that situation is unacceptable. the dwp has also used a classic whitehall phrase, saying it will respond in due course, and also added this. that neatly dodges the point. and of course this is just one of many long—running calls for compensation. the government has already budgeted £1 billion for victims of the post office's horizon computer system scandal. that dodgy software was first introduced 25 years ago in 1999. and of course there's the infected blood scandal where up to 30,000 people were infected with hiv and hepatitis c, and more than 3,000 are thought to have died. that happened in the 1970s and 1980s, and decades on, only interim compensation of around £400 million has been paid out. the total bill is likely to be billions. and when the government is giving out tax cuts based on wafer thin economic projections, these sums are really do matter. waspi campaigners have acknowledged today that as the clock is ticking, women are dying, and the longer the delay, the few who are likely to get a payout. to discuss this we're joined by frances neil, who coordinates that campaign group, waspi, in essex. and helen morrissey, head of retirement analysis at hargreaves lansdown. welcome to you both. frances, the key thing, the key finding seems to be the delay of two years in letting people know what. difference did that make to you? i people know what. difference did that make to you?— that make to you? i didn't know about the 95 — that make to you? i didn't know about the 95 changes _ that make to you? i didn't know about the 95 changes which - that make to you? i didn't know i about the 95 changes which moved that make to you? i didn't know - about the 95 changes which moved my pension age. i had a letter about a yearish before i hit 60. which told me that i was going to be retiring at 62. that was the first i heard of it. i knew of it. actually an employee of mine gave me that knowledge. that moved my pension age to 62. how far, i worked past 60 to get to 62 and retired then. 0nly to 62. how far, i worked past 60 to get to 62 and retired then. only to find out that actually my retirement age was 65 and nobody told me that it had moved forward another three years. i had left myjob. figs it had moved forward another three years. i had left myjob. $5 a years. i had left my 'ob. as a teacher? * years. i had left my 'ob. as a teacher? fortunate _ years. i had left my job. as a teacher? fortunate that - years. i had left my job. as a teacher? fortunate that i - years. i had left my job. as a| teacher? fortunate that i had years. i had left my job. as a i teacher? fortunate that i had a teacher's pension _ teacher? fortunate that i had a teacher's pension that - teacher? fortunate that i had a teacher's pension that i - teacher? fortunate that i had a teacher's pension that i was - teacher? fortunate that i had a l teacher's pension that i was able teacher? fortunate that i had a - teacher's pension that i was able to take. so the state pension was not going to be my only source of income, but it was going to be a payment that i was going to have, which i didn't have forfive payment that i was going to have, which i didn't have for five years. then you were back to work from 62 to 65 to make ends meet? i then you were back to work from 62 to 65 to make ends meet?— then you were back to work from 62 to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension _ to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension and _ to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension and at _ to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension and at 62 - to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension and at 62 and - to 65 to make ends meet? i took my teacher's pension and at 62 and left| teacher's pension and at 62 and left my work. but i did start up my own small company, so i had some income to compensate for the loss of state pension. so i have suffered two delays with no notice.— delays with no notice. helen, i mean, delays with no notice. helen, i mean. this _ delays with no notice. helen, i mean, this is _ delays with no notice. helen, i mean, this is a _ delays with no notice. helen, i mean, this is a very _ delays with no notice. helen, i mean, this is a very specific i delays with no notice. helen, i. mean, this is a very specific case with its parameter, to what extent is it of a piece with a broader problem for women with pensions? women face significant challenges across_ women face significant challenges across the pensions landscape. they tend to _ across the pensions landscape. they tend to get — across the pensions landscape. they tend to get lower state pensions, because — tend to get lower state pensions, because of time spent out of the workforce — because of time spent out of the workforce. but if we lack at kind of the private — workforce. but if we lack at kind of the private pension market, there has been — the private pension market, there has been data put in the gender pension— has been data put in the gender pension gap at around 36%. this is because _ pension gap at around 36%. this is because women, we tend to earn less than men. _ because women, we tend to earn less than men, take more time out of workforce — than men, take more time out of workforce to look after children and that time _ workforce to look after children and that time out of the workforce, if you come — that time out of the workforce, if you come back in, it is often part-time _ you come back in, it is often part—time. you are earning less and you out— part—time. you are earning less and you out less — part—time. you are earning less and you put less into your pension and over time — you put less into your pension and over time that adds up to quite a significant — over time that adds up to quite a significant amount. how over time that adds up to quite a significant amount.— significant amount. how can the government _ significant amount. how can the government or _ significant amount. how can the government or society - significant amount. how can the government or society as - significant amount. how can the government or society as it - significant amount. how can the | government or society as it were make this right for you? what is it you're after? taste make this right for you? what is it you're after?— you're after? we are after compensation _ you're after? we are after compensation and - you're after? we are after compensation and we - you're after? we are after compensation and we are| you're after? we are after - compensation and we are pleased you're after? we are after _ compensation and we are pleased that it's been justified today that our complaint has been found to be right. and that there was mal administration. the appg, the all party group in parliament, cross party group in parliament, cross party group, have recommended that our injustice sits at level 6 and thatis our injustice sits at level 6 and that is the highest level. and that is around £10,000 each for women affected. but the recommendation in the report is significantly lower than that. and so obviously now it's for parliament now to sort that and for parliament now to sort that and for mps to come together with the political will to sort it out. and to support us. and to pay us for our work, our care and our paying in our ni through the years of our adulthood. in ni through the years of our adulthood.— ni through the years of our adulthood. , ., ., . , , adulthood. in terms of frances is takin: of adulthood. in terms of frances is taking of reaching _ adulthood. in terms of frances is taking of reaching a _ adulthood. in terms of frances is taking of reaching a view - adulthood. in terms of frances is taking of reaching a view about i adulthood. in terms of frances is i taking of reaching a view about the appropriate level of compensation, quite a broad range in the figures between 3 and 10 billion as the cost. is what your own feeling about what the bill will be? the government, _ what the bill will be? the government, you - what the bill will be? the government, you know, l what the bill will be? the government, you know, it is in difficult — government, you know, it is in difficult financial circumstances now~ _ difficult financial circumstances now you — difficult financial circumstances now. you can imagine if they do try and bring _ now. you can imagine if they do try and bring a — now. you can imagine if they do try and bring a compensation package forward _ and bring a compensation package forward they will try to keep those figures _ forward they will try to keep those figures as— forward they will try to keep those figures as low as possible. as you say, _ figures as low as possible. as you say, the _ figures as low as possible. as you say, the level of compensation recommended is between £1,000 and £2950 _ recommended is between £1,000 and £2950 so _ recommended is between £1,000 and £2950. so they will want to keep to it the _ £2950. so they will want to keep to it the lower end. it is £2950. so they will want to keep to it the lower end.— it the lower end. it is an awful thin to it the lower end. it is an awful thing to speculate _ it the lower end. it is an awful thing to speculate about, - it the lower end. it is an awful thing to speculate about, this| it the lower end. it is an awful. thing to speculate about, this a sense that governments drag their heels in the hope that people pass away and they're no longer liable for some of these payments. {lane for some of these payments. one thin i've for some of these payments. one thing i've noticed _ for some of these payments. one thing i've noticed about the government with regards to this situation — government with regards to this situation they have been very steadfast in their view that they will not — steadfast in their view that they will not compensate this group. i think— will not compensate this group. i think they— will not compensate this group. i think they have taken the view the shift from — think they have taken the view the shift from 60 to 65 was the right thing _ shift from 60 to 65 was the right thing but— shift from 60 to 65 was the right thing. but the issue is how that shift _ thing. but the issue is how that shift was — thing. but the issue is how that shift was communicated. that is the bil shift was communicated. that is the big issue _ shift was communicated. that is the bi issue. . , , shift was communicated. that is the bi issue. ., , �*, shift was communicated. that is the bi issue. , �*, big issue. lastly, let's ask the question. _ big issue. lastly, let's ask the question. i — big issue. lastly, let's ask the question, i mean _ big issue. lastly, let's ask the question, i mean the - big issue. lastly, let's ask the question, i mean the public. big issue. lastly, let's ask the - question, i mean the public finances of pensions are difficult. it is possible in the future that men and women will be asked to accept another delay. what are the lessons? what should they do next time. plenty of notice so people can put their plans in order and they know. this is where we actually were dealt such a hard blow. we did not know. and the rules and the laws had changed and we were not informed enough time for us to make our plans or enough time to realise that we were going to be working much later. we have so many stories of ladies who had already given up work prior to their retirement age of 60, because of their caring responsibilities for elderly parent, grandchildren, husbands and partners might have needed care and for health reasons. and then of course to find at 60 they had no income. very bad. it is a bad day for the government. they need to stand up and we are waiting for labour to come forward and support us. thank ou both come forward and support us. thank you both very _ come forward and support us. thank you both very much _ come forward and support us. thank you both very much for— come forward and support us. thank you both very much forjoining - come forward and support us. thank you both very much forjoining us. it was time for the commons to debate defence today. it followed a report from last month deeply critical of the armed forces�* readiness for war, and expressions of disappointment, including from two ministers, that the recent budget did not allocate more money to defence. today conservative danny kruger spoke of a "national security crisis" and labour's kevanjones that the ministry of defence needed a "radical revolution" in the way it employs people. dame meg hillier, chairwoman of the public accounts committee, though put much of the blame on the forces�* mismanagement of procurement. so have the cries of alarm across europe about a possible war with russia changed the way that the public view this issue? polling by the british foreign policy group suggests that 59% support raising defence spending and 78% strongly support nato. but of course that's asking about those specific issues — other surveys suggest that the british public overestimates by a factor of four the proportion of government spending that goes on the military, and when you ask people to choose three priority areas, only 20% pick defence, which is the same for crime, but behind immigration on 37%, health on 45% and the economy which is a top three issue for 53% of people. to explore that we're joined now by scarlett maguire at pollstersjl partners. you've looked at the electoral figures on this, the opinion research. this ought to be an issue that plays well for the conservatives, shouldn't it? yes, traditionally _ conservatives, shouldn't it? yes, traditionally speaking _ conservatives, shouldn't it? yes, traditionally speaking you - conservatives, shouldn't it? yes traditionally speaking you would think the conservatives would be doing better with defence, and relatively speaking they are doing, but this is only relative to their performance elsewhere, so the public do think that the conservatives would handle defence marginally better than they think the labour party would, however in terms of having a lead over the labour party on an issue, that is fine, it is definitely better than they are doing on things like immigration, the economy and the health service. but more members of the publics do not still think that that initial statistic that they mentioned is quite an interesting one. we did the polling, and even though close to 60% of britons say they would like to increase the defence spending to 2.5%, only 25% say they would like that to happen immediately, and that is where you run into the political problems of trying to do such a thing now. problems of trying to do such a thing now— problems of trying to do such a thing now. problems of trying to do such a thin now. �* , ., ., , thing now. and in terms of how this works across _ thing now. and in terms of how this works across the _ thing now. and in terms of how this works across the electorate, - works across the electorate, presumably there are certain cohorts, younger people, women, who are not as convinced about the value of defence spending. that is absolutely right. there are some interesting splits when you go into that, you are right. younger people are much less likely to be convinced, so to give you an idea of that, i think it is about one in ten under 25s would like to see defence spending increased in immediately. that goes up to 40% of over 60s. so thatis that goes up to 40% of over 60s. so that is a big difference, really big difference between how men and women see it as well with significantly more men supporting the idea of defence spending, more interest in it. and there is also a party political split too, so that conservative voters are much more likely to want to see increases in the defence budget than labour voters. ., ., ,, , ., , voters. scarlett thank you very much. with us now to discuss this is sirjeremy quin, who served as a defence producement minister and now chairs the house of commons defence select committee. welcome to newsnight. what do you think the government have got to put right? think the government have got to put riuht? , , think the government have got to put riiht? ,.,,,., , ., think the government have got to put riuht? , , ., ., , right? there is absolutely no doubt that we have _ right? there is absolutely no doubt that we have got _ right? there is absolutely no doubt that we have got very _ right? there is absolutely no doubt that we have got very professionall that we have got very professional armed forces and they do a tremendousjob, but the armed forces and they do a tremendous job, but the dynamics of change, the threat has changed, and our question was, are we ready for the worst of all scenarios, which is a prolonged, high intensity... russia? , , . a prolonged, high intensity... russia? , , , russia? russia, yes. would we be able to step _ russia? russia, yes. would we be able to step up — russia? russia, yes. would we be able to step up if _ russia? russia, yes. would we be able to step up if that _ russia? russia, yes. would we be able to step up if that happened, l able to step up if that happened, because the reason you need to have the right answer to that is that thatis the right answer to that is that that is deterrence, knowing that there is no circumstance where this will happen because we are devoting the investment to make sure it cannot. �* , , the investment to make sure it cannot. ,,. cannot. and basically, your report found that — cannot. and basically, your report found that readiness _ cannot. and basically, your report found that readiness was - cannot. and basically, your report found that readiness was very - found that readiness was very important for that scenario. late important for that scenario. we believe important for that scenario. - believe there is a lot of work to do, so in terms of retaining, recruiting the brilliant people we need to have in our armed forces, in terms of the mission stockpiles that we need to have in those scenarios, in terms of being able to train and put enough resources and energy alongside our allies to prepare for that, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. find that, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. and presumably, i don't want to — needs to be done. and presumably, i don't want to presume, _ needs to be done. and presumably, i don't want to presume, but - needs to be done. and presumably, i don't want to presume, but we - needs to be done. and presumably, i don't want to presume, but we won l don't want to presume, but we won the conservatives who were disappointed in the last budget? yes, there is a lot that the government is getting right, so they are spending more money on defence, this country was right up there when ukraine kicked off, and we showed a leading role, so there is a lot that the government has got right, and they do have this ambition to get to 2.5%, but i really want to see a timescale for that. it 2.5%, but i really want to see a timescale for that.— timescale for that. it is vaguely defined. timescale for that. it is vaguely defined- lt _ timescale for that. it is vaguely defined. it is _ timescale for that. it is vaguely defined. it is defined _ timescale for that. it is vaguely defined. it is defined as - timescale for that. it is vaguely - defined. it is defined as sometimes 2.5% whereas a lot of other european countries are stepping up significantly. late countries are stepping up significantly.— countries are stepping up significantly. countries are stepping up sianificantl . ~ . , ., significantly. we have been at the riaht lace significantly. we have been at the right place in _ significantly. we have been at the right place in terms _ significantly. we have been at the right place in terms of— significantly. we have been at the right place in terms of nato, - significantly. we have been at the right place in terms of nato, but i j right place in terms of nato, but i don't think it is sufficient in the current context, so we need to get to 2.5%, it is right that it is an ambition but wejust to 2.5%, it is right that it is an ambition but we just need to know what the timing is for that to be invested. ~ ., , ., , . ., what the timing is for that to be invested. ~ ., , . ., , invested. would you expect to see that 2.5% solidly _ invested. would you expect to see that 2.5% solidly with _ invested. would you expect to see that 2.5% solidly with a _ invested. would you expect to see that 2.5% solidly with a timescale | that 2.5% solidly with a timescale on the next conservative manifesto? i would certainly want to see that. and there is good news. the economy is turning, the government has said in terms of the timing for that, that will be when that fiscal circumstances are right, and i think getting that investment should be whatever the economic circumstances, we have got to move on it, but there is also good economic news coming through, we have seen that with inflation and the growth forecasts. now, you know that a lot of people, whether it is in the treasury or in the wider public, the case that has to be made. we have been hearing from a lot of sections of the public feeling that defence has wasted a lot of money, and billions have been wasted. we have a flavour of that from some of the speakers today. so what you do about that? how do you solve that problem? how do you convince people that this money won't be frittered away?- convince people that this money won't be frittered away? well, there is a certain amount _ won't be frittered away? well, there is a certain amount of _ won't be frittered away? well, there is a certain amount of money - won't be frittered away? well, there is a certain amount of money you . is a certain amount of money you just need to spend on defence, it is not discretionary. we need to spend a certain amount of money to keep us safe. there are always things the mod can do better, and we will be asking difficult questions as we always do. but i think there has been some positive changes over the last five years in how the mod has approached procurement, and a lot of these projects are very long—term, but the defence security and industrial strategy will say, good step forward, working more collaboratively. latte step forward, working more collaboratively.— step forward, working more collaboratively. step forward, working more collaborativel . ~ . ., . collaboratively. we have that much time, but collaboratively. we have that much time. but you _ collaboratively. we have that much time, but you are _ collaboratively. we have that much time, but you are fairly _ collaboratively. we have that much time, but you are fairly recently - time, but you are fairly recently defence procurement minister, and we now hear about a 16 billion gap in funding, so it sounds like the same on problems haven't been gripped in spending, equipment spending, by this government. riff spending, equipment spending, by this government.— spending, equipment spending, by this government. of the number you are referring — this government. of the number you are referring to, _ this government. of the number you are referring to, 10 _ this government. of the number you are referring to, 10 billion _ this government. of the number you are referring to, 10 billion of - this government. of the number you are referring to, 10 billion of that - are referring to, 10 billion of that was inflation in the system, partly because there has been war in ukraine, the kind of things we are trying to deter by spending appropriately on defence. there is more that the mod needs to do, the integrated procurement model announced in the last couple of weeks is a good step forward, they need to get their house better and get it in order, but that will come alongside additional investment. we will get to where we need to be. thank you very much indeed. making money and blitzing the competition are values close to the heart of corporate america. but there are limits, and today the justice department alleged that apple has gone well beyond them. with iphones making up 65—70% of the smartphones used in america and the company's annual income exceeding the gdp of 100 countries, the biden administration has evidently decided enough's enough. the company disputes the accusation that there are five specific features of their device that are designed to crush competitors. vittoria elliot, who covers tech for wired joins us now from the us. vittoria, what are these features of the iphone that crush competition in the iphone that crush competition in the view of the justice the iphone that crush competition in the view of thejustice department? i think one of the most salient ones is the app store, because that allows apple to not only determine what can show up on an iphone, but it also allows them to take a big cut of the money for purchases, 30%, which is quite high. and apple is famous for its walled garden approach to its technology, so, you know, they all seamlessly work together, but also means that if you have an android operating system, it is very hard to integrated into the ios is very hard to integrated into the i0s system, and they have said we do this for security purposes, to support our users, but also it means that when you have the kind of user ship that they have in the us where 70% of people use it, it becomes incredibly inconvenient to have a cheaper or different option, so i think that is the primary one and when we are talking about what was brought up today. find when we are talking about what was brought up today-— when we are talking about what was brought up today. and for those who haven't comparatively _ brought up today. and for those who haven't comparatively use _ brought up today. and for those who haven't comparatively use different i haven't comparatively use different types of phones, is it essentially the case at the different manufacturers of android devices, be it samsung or whoever, all those devices effectively interact pretty well together, but if you try sending a message from an iphone to an android, some of the functionality is lost, is that another issue?— functionality is lost, is that another issue? , ., another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so another issue? yes, that is a huge one- so for — another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so for instance _ another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so for instance it _ another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so for instance it could - another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so for instance it could be - another issue? yes, that is a huge one. so for instance it could be as| one. so for instance it could be as small as when you are typing on an iphone to another iphone, you can see that someone is typing, you can't do that if someone has an android. sometime if someone sends you a photo, the quality won't be as high. these are all smaller frustrations that when someone is thinking about what they are going to purchase next, it can feel more convenient to just be on an apple product, especially if that is what everyone else you know is using, even though the rest of the world outside the us, especially in the global south, android operating systems are incredibly popular. right, and in the us, people use the term anti—trust, but i guess we would call that antimonopoly or anti—competitive type of action by the government, but in the us, the anti—trust position is an important theme for the biden administration, but it is quite late in president's administration to be launching such an important plank in their anti—trust case. an important plank in their anti-trust case.— an important plank in their anti-trust case. this is actually the third anti-trust _ anti-trust case. this is actually the third anti-trust case - anti-trust case. this is actually the third anti-trust case that l anti-trust case. this is actually i the third anti-trust case that the the third anti—trust case that the administration has launched against administration has launched against a big tech company, so we had the big lawsuit against google last year and the ftc case ongoing against amazon. i don't think. it takes time for the government to build these cases, it takes years and years of research and gathering of evidence, and there also was an anti—trust case against apple that was working its way through the courts up until january from epic games, and the supreme court declined to hear that case in january. supreme court declined to hear that case injanuary. it stuck supreme court declined to hear that case in january. it stuck with the lower court ruling that essentially favoured apple, with some changes needing to be made for it in app purchases in the app store, but i think also there was this anti—trust case moving through the system meaning that it gave the government a lot of time to sort of observe that case and use that to conduct its own, but also if that case was going to end up in the supreme court, that they have done the work for them. ., ., ., ,, ,., court, that they have done the work for them. ., ., ., ,, y., , for them. vittoria, thank you very much indeed _ for them. vittoria, thank you very much indeed for _ for them. vittoria, thank you very much indeed forjoining _ for them. vittoria, thank you very much indeed forjoining us. - so let's take a look at some of the front pages. of the