26/10/2011 Newsnight

The make or break meeting on the future of the euro has neither made

it nor broken it, it looks as if the series of decisions due to be

taken today, won't now be taken until tomorrow. That is at the

earliest, it is already gone 11.30 in Brussels. A lot of talk but no

detail, can Europe's leaders agree how to save the project, they claim

is key to the continent's future. There is no substantive deal

tonight, but we may just have seen the birth of a non-euro group.

Banking has rules that need to be learned and followed. What is a

billion or so to bank, how can it go missing and no-one notice. John

Lanchester believes the whole system is so opaque, no-one at the

top can have any confidence they have a clue what is going on. Nick

Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank, knows exactly how

true that is. As the seven billionth inhabitant of the planet

arrives, we look at population in this country. That is the end for

me, no more sex! Much of it is to do with foreign

women giving birth in Britain. What does it promise for the future. At

the global level, the head of the United Nations Population Fund is

here with Liones Shriver, who needs to talk about the number of babies

A Greek, an Italian and an Irishman go into a bar, a German settles the

bill. Much of what was agreed to by the German Parliament today was

that. But tonight's so-called final and decisive meeting, which was

supposed to save the euro, is still going on and looks set to go on.

The Italian Prime Minister did turn up at the EU summit in Brussels

today, like a schoolboy handing in late homework, with a letter said

to be promising his Government will try to get a grip. Whether the big

scheme on the brink of being agreed, we don't know. Paul Mason may have

an idea. What is up? It will be several hours before

anybody gets to the bar here in Brussels. They are still behind me

at it, trying to do the deal. The three things they are trying to do

is to save Greece, save the banks and then save the eurozone from a

meltdown following on from not doing the first two. They have

actually managed to come up with a deal we this already done on Sunday,

which is to recapitalise Europe's banks. There will be conditions put

on those banks, shareholders will take some deillusion, anybody who

can't take the hit of Greece effectively going part bust, will

be recapitalised. That is a done deal. The other two are not. Across

the road from me the banks are in negotiation with the EU about how

much of a hit they are prepared to take. They don't want to take much.

Meanwhile, there is this huge issue of what does Italy do in return for

the best part of a trillion euros, for the megabailout that is so

eluding them. Van Rompuy's spokesman said there

would be a deal, is there going to be a deal or not? There will be a

deal. The deal will be a sort of agreement in principle. To come

back, not even at the Cannes summit, I'm led to understand, but in mid-

November, and that all the options that are on the table now, about

the shape of the bailout fund, the ESFS, will still be on the stable

even after Cannes. If the draft they are discussing tonight, I have

had sight of the draft, comes out as it went in. The deal is very

general. The British officials are saying don't expect anything more

than principles. They live in an armour-plated world,

he canueding power. But Europe's leaders came here today, because

for 18 months they have been powerless in the face of market

logic. And nobody has been more powerless than George Papandreou,

the Greek Prime Minister. Of all the crises facing the summit, only

one is imminent. This man's country is rapidly going bust, and soon the

banks that lent the money will have to decide by how much. And only

then does this get real. On Friday, Europe's leaders were warned that

Greek debt is, like its streets, running out of control. The task in

Brussels to decide how much of the 200 billion worth of debt, held by

banks, will be written off. The IMF wants 75%, the European Commission

wanted 60%. The Germans 50%, the banks as little as possible, and to

do it voluntarily. The voluntary principle is key, because it

imposes losses on those who have speculated against Greek debt.

Buyers of derivative, known as credit default swaps. Some think it

would be better just to let Greece go, formally, bust. The banks are

resisting haircut, they don't want the losses on the balance sheet.

They don't want to be recapitalised. There is also a more cynical move

by the European Commission, and political leaders in Europe, to

close down the Credit Default Swap market, we which they believe has

exacerbated the debt markets. Effectively, if they can ban

trading in the CDS market, and avoid a default, these instruments

become worthless as a hedge, which is what they were primarily set up

to achieve. It is a backhand way to close down market they don't like.

So far the Greek debt issue remains unsolved, but on one issue there is

progress. Tonight, the European Union

announced a deal on bank recapitalisation. European banks

will be forced to raise their core capital to 9% by June 2012.

Regulators, including in Britain, would force the banks to raise the

money rather than shrinking back their loans, and those that can't

raise it privately would be part nationalised. TRANSLATION:

Everything the euro group does has to be in keeping with the idea of

the unity of the European Union. We will, in that spirit, present

certain practical solutions, so we can reconcile these two important

European interests. The euro area integration on the one hand, and

the maintaining of the integration of 27 member states. But there is

one final bit of the jigsaw which is huge, and still missing. It

concerns the European Financial Stability Facility, the ESFS, a

megabailout fund. Today has been the tale of two Parliaments, the

German one, in an orderly way, rubber stamping a deal to expand

the ESFS. And the Italian Parliament, where the far right,

and the hard right, had a punch-up over somebody's comment about

somebody else's wife. To those studying the merging deal

in Brussels, the contrast sun fortunate, since Italy is the main

reason why they need to expand the bailout fund. The country is slowly

being frozen out of the sovereign debt markets, and the Government is

faltering. The problem with Italy is the paralysis. This Government

is in a paralysis situation, without the capability to approve

and to decide what is necessary for the country, and for the country

the priorities are debt reduction and policies for growth. So for Mr

Berlusconi, the question is obvious. REPORTER: How can the rest of the

world take you seriously when you can't deliver austerity?

David Cameron left the meeting early tonight, Britain not part of

the core eurozone 17, but not before making this statement.

made good progress on the bank recapitalisation, that wasn't

watered down, it has now been agreed. It will only go ahead when

the other parts of a full package go ahead, and further progress on

that needs to happen tonight. Well, Paul is in Brussels now. What

is David Cameron trying to do, Paul? What I think he's trying to

do, Jeremy, is stealthy create a kind of non-euro group, of the ten

nations that are not in the single currency. He met the Danes, the

Swedes, the Poles and the Czechs tonight, that is who he chose to

meet. The Telegraph is reporting tomorrow it has had sight of the

diplomatic notes. Britain's negotiating position is this, it

wants concrete and effective mechanisms to prevent the emerging

eurozone, it is a were, solidarity, that we are seeing hopefully behind

us, from damaging Britain's national interest. Mr Cameron made

it clear last weekend, that will be a condition of Britain, as it were,

butting out of the whole treaty renegotiation, that will need to

take place to make the eurozone new mechanisms work. The problem

Britain has, is that we want, the British Government wants the

eurozone to work, and to get more like a fiscal union. But as it does,

and John Major the former Prime Minister is righting in the papers

tomorrow, in the FT, saying this, we have to decide what powers we

want to take back. Cameron was laser like in that meeting and

outside it. That is as significant for us as the Brits, as what is

going on now still behind me in the negotiating chamber. When are you

expecting any kind of announcement here? Midnight, maybe afterwards.

Look, the announcement will be very vague. We don't know how big a hit

the banks are going to take, if at all. There is still no way they can

finalise the commitment to bailout Italy, best part of a trillion,

that is what the ESFS is for. Until Berlusconi comes along with a plan

for Italian growth based on more that prof Ligacy. He won't do it

until November 17th, nobody knows the symbolism or significance of it,

he picked the date. With us is Terry Smith, and Katynka Barysch,

from Centre For European Reform, and Megan Greene economist. What do

we make of the fact that there hasn't been the promised decisive

agreement today, tonight? They said it would be a comprehensive

solution, but they have been backing down from that since, and

saying it probably wouldn't end the crisis. There is no surprise there

isn't a comprehensive solution. think it is impossible for them to

come up with a comprehensive solution. It was a pipe dream to

think they could. And you? I agree with that. The problem goes so much

deeper. The problem is we have overindebted nations in Europe that

don't grow. We have lack of solidarity, we don't know how to

get the ECB in. These aren't problems you will sort out in one

night. Like previous summits. say you will? They are trying to

calm down financial markets and buy time. Do you think they will?

think they will. The markets are placid enough, easily led enough,

to calm down now, are they, and back off? I think the markets

understand that what they are trying to do now, this three-part

package, is fiendishly complicated. I would be surprised if they came

up with a quick solution, with all the numbers and here is the package,

and this is what it looks like. Because there is so many different

things that need to come together. It is complex, I'm not too

surprised by that. The sharks like you in the market, are you going to

be pacified by this? No, they have not done anything to address, even

in the things they are discussing, the underlying causes of this. The

peripheral countries are still all falling short of their deficit

reduction. It is quite clear that Greece has defaulted, and will go

further into default, and some other countries will have to leave

the currency to recover. baffled by some of the talk. All

this talk about a deal on recapitalising banks, a deal

involves two contracting parties. The banks have to agree to this,

they haven't agreed to it? It is not just agreeing, the capital has

to come, it comes from the Governments putting this forward,

already too heavily indebted and putting more money into the banks.

It is not a solution. This is a closed system, there isn't any more

money other than in one place, which is Germany, even then there

is not enough so save this without bankrupting Germany, frankly.

do you make of it? I think the markets might be pacified for a

week or two, they will see it is not the best solution, but second

or third best. It doesn't matter f they leverage the ESFS and able to

support Italy and Spain for 12 months, it is OK if the markets are

putting pressure on those countries. Do you get the impression that

these political leaders gathering in Brussels actually have much

understanding of how markets work? None, it seems to me. Talk of

leveraging the ESFS, isn't that what got us into the problem in the

first place. The bailout fund? you stopped someone on the street

and said you would solve the problem of being overindebted by

borrowing more money, they would look at you strangely.

The German Chancellor said this morning, she had this rather

apocalyptic talk when she talked to the German Parliament, saying

nobody should take for granted another 50 years of peace and

prosperity in Europe, they are not for granted, that is why I say if

the euro fails, Europe fails. This is pretty dark talk? She has been

saying the same sentence many times over many months. It is expected.

Will they start war again? Not war, of course. She talked about 50

years of peace and pros port not taken for granted? The political

instability you are seeing in the streets of Greece, if this fails

and we go into a deep, deep recession, you might see it more

widely in Europe. This is what she's warning about. She's also the

Chancellor of Germany, expected make statements about the future of

Europe, strongly. In the beginning when she sounded modest and making

it sound that it wasn't a problem, she was criticised. Now she has

brought it up a bit, that is exactly what she should be doing,

she got a big majority for her mandate to negotiate in Brussels on

the back of it. What about this idea that Paul Mason was talking

about just there, of the attempt to form a non-euro group. Many people

have pointed out that the British ambition, that the euro problem be

solved by greater fiscal integration, if necessary, in

Europe, marginalises Europe. But this non-euro group within the

European Union, actually would be a counter balance thing? Why are we

worried about being marginalised, the Swiss don't have problems with

being in the centre of Europe and out, even though they have the

independent currency and in the centre of Europe. What is the worry.

It sounds like people saying what they were saying when we were urged

to join in the first place, we were told it would be a catastrophy, and

the opposite is true. I think England is trying to stage its

recovery on balancing the economy on exports mostly going to the

eurozone. Britain has a choice to make about the role in Europe.

is the reason it matters, because it matters to us it directly

effects the well being of everyone in this country. Not just within

the eurozone. But this idea of there being some sort of balancing

entity within the European Union is a really interesting one, is it

viable? I don't think it is viable, I also don't think the eurozone is

viable in the medium to long-term. Longer term, supposing they do,

supposing the markets hold off and say we will accept your assurances

tonight, and they will hold off until November or when ever it is

we get a few more details, long- term, is the euro viable? I don't

think it is, I think in 12 months time when this leveraged ESFS runs

out of money and Italy Spain go to the markets, they won't look any

better than they do now. At that point the future of the euro really

is called into question. inherent contradictions in the euro

will still be there, whatever is agreed, won't they? I'm still a

believer the euro can hold together. Italy and Spain might have

liquidity problems, but they are countries that should be able to

service their debt in the medium to long-term, if we get through the

rough patch. And if we put enough support into place that the markets

stop worrying about Italy and Spain, then, of course, the interest rates

go down and they are able to service their debt. Greece can't,

Greece is insolvent, this is why they are talking about a bigger

reduction in debt. I still believe there is a lot of political will in

Europe to save this. For me, the most important statement today, did

not come from the German Parliament or David Cameron, it came from

Mario Dragiewho said they would continue to buy in the markets.

He's a politically appointed figure? The head of the European

Central Bank. That is still a reasonably independent institution.

Hasn't this whole crisis shown us the crisis of political political

expectations when it comes to the real world? The issue is the

eurozone is made up of 17 sovereign countries, and you cannot expect 17

sovereign countries getting together to make policy with the

same speed as, let's say, the Federal Reserve in America. Where

will we be in a year's time? In a year's time I think Greece will

have defaulted, it has defaulted already. Everyone agrees that.

will be out of the euro, and one of the greatest things is he who

defends everything defends nothing, the defence of Greece may make it

impossible to defend Spain, Portugal and Italy. They may have

to go for capital controls, like in the UK, when we had exchange

control, to stay in there, otherwise they will have a flight

of euro deposits from banks that will bring down the banking system.

I don't understand what you mean? On the day the euro deposits are no

longer eurobut drachma, all the deposits from Italy, Spain and

Portugal will get up and leave, and that will cause a domino effect

that will be very bad. They have to follow out of the euro or put up

capital controls such as we used to have. Thank you very much.

Earlier this evening a former director at the environment bank,

Goldman Sachs, handed himself into the europolice, Rajat Gupta has

been charged with insider trading. UBS, the big Swiss bank, proudly

said today, they won't need to cut any bonuses this year, despite the

fact last month they discovered what is called a $2.3 billion

unauthorised trading loss. The scandals keep coming. What has gone

wrong with banking? In my job, every account, every

letter, is not just a soulless piece of paper, but a reflection of

some man's life, hope and ambition. Within living memory banks were

seen as bastions of respectability, your local branch manager was a

formidable pillar of society, guarding your money and

occasionally admonishing you to live within your means.

But during the 1980s, as the walls between riskier trading and high

street banks fell, we grew accustomed to seeing a privileged

few in the world's major cities, quaffing champagne and driving

Ferraris, greed had become good. And as the rogue trader, Nick

Leeson's practices were exposed, the public saw the risks behind the

profits. Time and again we were told the ruems were tightening up,

time and again rogue traders hit the headlines, and images of

conspicuous consumption in the City never went away. Now the title of

banker seems to conjure up nothing but contempt in the public mind,

despite the fact that the financial sector employs more than a million

people in the UK, and last year formed 10% of our GDP. The occupy

movement is loudly lamenting the respectablisation of greed. The

image of banking is of an opaque world where very few understand the

rules, and those who do, are ruthlessly selfish, and beyond

control. It is our bank and they need to

follow our rules. How did banking fall so far from grace? Can it ever

return to its position as a pillar of society?

With us now, Nick Leeson, who found infamey as the rogue trader who

brought about the collapse of Barings Bank, and the journalist,

John Lanchester, who wrote a book about the financial crisis, Whoops

Why Everybody Owes Everybody ska nobody Can Pay. Nick Leeson, are

you surprised these scandals keep on happening? I am, the most recent

scandal shocked me extremely. I know how incompetent and negligible

I was in Singapore and the bank. Each scandal is described as the

wake-up call that nobody should forget. But they occur far too

frequently. Why is it that people do forget? I think there is

something about you know, it is often to do with arbitrage, people

making huge bets supposed to cancel each other out and making a profit

from the sliver in the middle. What you have is people leaving out half

of the bet, they are so confident about something they make gigantic

unhedged punts, because they are certain they will work out. How is

it the bosses don't spot it? think it is to do with the size,

the speed, the interconnectiveness, the complexity. Banking is so

colossal now, it moves at the click of a mouse, hot money moves around

the world. I think the idea that you can have adult supervision of

it, and someone wisely casting judgment and assessing the risks is

just not true any more. Do you think the men on the boards, they

are mainly men, the men on the boards of these banks, actually

understand what is happening on their trading floors? I think not.

I think sometimes in a very broad level they do. Some of these things

called black box financial instruments, which featured a lot

in the credit crunch, the whole point is the person buying them and

the person selling them don't know what is in them. They are put

together by financial engineers, with maths PHds, it is a black box.

This is nuts? It is a market place based on financial innovation.

Speed and complexity is extreme. It is a very competitive environment.

The speed and complexity dwarfs other industries. There should be

more control. You look at any financial scandal it is down to a

very simple control not being in place. Why are the regulators so

useless? They always have been. The regulators are always behind the

curve. The innovation, the creativity, happens with such speed

and complexity that they are always trying to catch up. And you look

back 50 years, they were behind the curve then, you look back 16 years

ago, which was the time of Barings, they were further behind the curve.

If you try to look into the future they will still be behind. What

would you do about that? For me it is not the quantity of regulation,

whether there should be more or less, the quality has to improve.

There is an awful lot of people who were employed by the FSA, being

paid large salaries, but not really controlling the market place. So

the output needs to be improved. I think you need better people,

getting paid more, probably less people, but achieving more output.

Public servants being paid a lot more, being paid salaries

competitive with bankers? You have to, because the industry is

cannibalistic, if you have a good regulator, a good auditor, or

somebody on the market place, controlling what is going on, the

banks employ them, because they pay them more money. Do you reckon that

would work? It is a start. I think, tomorrow by the way, is the 25th

anniversary of the big bank, in 1986, they have within on a 25-year,

quarter century journey away from deregulation, we have to look at

how that worked out for us, and head back in the general way.

the question of how we see bankers, you know, it is an embarrassing

thing to be for many people nowadays, isn't it? Are we being

naive in expecting them to behave some how altruisticically? It seems

so, not so long kaing Captain Mannering was the image of banking,

scruplous and unsympathetic, now we have this regulatory journey where

they are seen as unscrupulous, greedy spivs. Is it fair? Not for

everyone, there is a lot of principled people in banking. But

it is said once a Government loses its reputation for competence, you

never get it back. In the world of business, money and ethics, if you

lose your reputation for basic decency, it is gone. You look at

the last Labour Government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were clearly

in awe of these nay bobs of finance, they were awestruck, why is that?

think it is the case since the time of the big bang, the markets have

moved on at such pace, that central banks and Governments have all been

unable to keep up with it. There is not the degree of understanding

there should be. I was never challenged during my time in

Singapore, people didn't understand the business I was trying to

transact. That is not acceptable, to anybody. When it gets to the

extreme of tax-payers bailing out the banks, that makes it more

unpalatable. What do you think, how they came to be so inspiring to

many in the political class? think they are partly scared. They

are the richest lobby in the world, and therefore the most powerful. It

is a bit like one of those things when you have a very complicated

chore to do, it is like having stand over you watch you get it

wrong, and eventually say would you like me to sort it out for you, and

that is what they did. They wrote their own rules and regulations.

The idea was the market couldn't create any problems the market

couldn't solve. It is that maxim that we now know, conclusively, is

not true. Do you think the public need to wise up a bit about how

banking operates? Absolutely, I think, you know, growing up, there

were probably two industries that would have always had a bit of

mystique for me, medicine and banking, the world of finance. I

don't think people know enough about them. I had my own experience

with cancer, I had to go and see an oncologist, and for a while I was

passive recipient of what he told me. I changed that equation around

by reading, empowering myself and being part of the process. That was

really good for me, and helped me through the whole battle with

cancer. I think right now, at this stage, the general public need to

empower themselves, and rather than being passive recipients of what

the bankers tell them, they need to be part of the equation and ask

some searching questions. The degree of leverage people have put

themselves under over the last number of years shocking. And for a

banker to encourage that, and encourage at their own benefit, as

well, they have sold as much of this product, these banking

products as they can, around the globe, is not the way it should be.

I completely agree. Britain's Government, plus private, plus

corporate debt, is 466% of our GDP, that is a scarely big number. That

came from people lending us money we didn't necessarily need to buy

stuff we didn't necessarily need. There is a whole cycle of

excessively cheap credit, which has brought us to a properly, serious

predicament. We can extract ourselves, but it will take years

and the road is uphill. The seven seventh billionth person will be

born next week, the rate of population is increasing by 80

million a year. We have been reporting the implications in

Africa this week. But it is not just the developing world with

problems. Figures today show our population is rising faster than

any time in the past century. The total will reach 70 million in next

10 years. 47% of the predicted rise will be down to immigration, the

other increase, 53%, will be natural increase, the difference

between births and deaths. Much of that is due to a leap in the number

of children born to migrant mothers. Catrin Nye has spent three days on

a maternity ward in Leicester for There we go. More babies were born

in the UK last year than at any time since 1972. Hello sweetheart.

Liz and kneel Franklin welcome the latest addition to the babyboom at

Leicester Royal Infimary. In 2003, 8,800 babies were born here. This

Did you know about this little babyboom you are having, did you

know it was coming? No we didn't. The national statistics weren't

indicating quite the increase that we have seen over the last couple

of years. In an ethically diverse city like Leicester, the influence

of women born overseas is particularly apparent. 45% of women

having babies here were born outside the UK. Across England and

Wales, that is 25%. Midwives say they are having to adapt, as well

as increase capacity. We knew it was twins, we didn't know the sex

at that time. Sandra has just had someones, elij ja and Alicia, they

met as teenagers in the Congo, and chanced upon each other many years

later in a Leicester church. We have one boy already. What did you

feel when you found out you were having twins? She phoned and said

you know what it is twins, I screamed, God I'm going to die this

time. That is the end of me, and no more sex!

Are you planning to stay in Leicester? Yeah, I have been in

Leicester for 11 years, I'm not planning to move anywhere else.

Unless there is a good place to live.

Sure? Honestly, you don't know that. I know. Do you like it here?

you? I'm not welcome because I can't work, that is why I was even

planning to have more babies, because it is like I was doing

nothing. Midwives tell us free movement

within the EU has seen a rise in women from Eastern Europe having

their children here. Ava and Thomas are from Slovakia and also

expecting twins. Thomas was a chef there, and cooks in a KFC here,

they are not sure if they will remain in the UK, but are happy to

travel back and forward until they decide. It is nothing different the

UK or Slovakia, it is a European country, it doesn't matter if it is

here or there. Here or there, it doesn't matter.

You have an Indian lady, any translators there. The only thing

with this lady is her baby has been separated from her, from all ladies,

no matter what ethnicity, it is about extra concern to get her to

see the baby on the neo-natal unit. Is English her first language?

but she can communicate. Sometimes they come and English is not their

first language but they can speak good English. If it isn't their

first language we need translation services for. We do use the family

sometimes, we try not to, to make sure what we are conveying is

translated to the woman in the same way.

It is the diversity of women having children here that is so apparent,

and the pressures that go with that. They have to have specialists to

deal with refugee mums, teenage mums, mothers with cardiac problems.

Even a dedicated clinic for expectant mothers who have suffered

genital mutilation. Reflective of the facilities here, the UK is has

seen a significant jump in the number of over-40s having children,

caused by both choice and medical advancement, meaning it is now a

more realistic option. Emma Giltinam has just had her third

baby at 43, it has not been without its difficulties. She has had five

miscarriages because of an immune system abnormalty. During her last

pregnancy her placenta didn't detatch after birth, something that

would mean previously a hysterectomy. He's a double miracle.

I had the thing to stop me miscarrying, at a lot of hospitals

I wouldn't have a uterus to get pregnant with him. Are you

considering a fourth? I walls warranted four, but, I - wanted

four, I think I have used my nine lives up now, I'm not sure I would

risk it again. With all the problems that we have had. I think

I should probably count my blessings and stick at three now.

We have got older mums like Emma, mums not born here, mums with

medical conditions that used it mean they couldn't have children.

For policy makers, any response is complicated by the sheer number of

factors influencing the increase. Ten years ago the average woman in

England and Wales had 1.63 children. Last year that had risen to 2. The

average foreign-born woman used to have far more children than women

born here, but recently that gap has narrowed. We have got to a

point where the actual physical capacity of our units, can no

longer cope with that increase, so what we are having to do this year,

is put some capital investment in to created a decisional delivery

rooms, additional maternity beds, and we are talking 50 additional

midwives. This is when other places are having to see cutbacks, you are

having to increase spending here? We are, yes. The challenge here is

about numbers, how we adapt to having more children to deliver,

mouths to feed, families to house. Wherever they hail from.

We are simply having more babies, baby Franklin, just one of many.

think there really is babyboom at the moment. There is a lot of

people we know that have had babies. To some they are a work force,

others a burden on our ever- decreasing resources. For Liz and

Neil, simply everything they hoped for.

That was Nye reporting. Here to discuss the - Catrin Nye reporting,

here to discuss the rise in not just the Britain's population but

the world's, is Babatunde Osotimehin, and Lionel Shriver,

author and patron of Population Matters. What is your estimate of

the total number sustainable on this planet? I don't think anybody

knows that. Do you have an estimate? I would rather not put an

estimate to it. Can we sustain this level of growth? Let me

contextualise that growth, it is important to put that right out

there. We have seven billion people today, and the growth rate of the

world's population peaked in the 1960s, at about 2%. It has come

down, gradually since then, it is about 1% now. If you take all these

seven billion people in the world today, and you line them up, to

have a group photograph. It would only fill the size of Los Angeles

city. It is not about space. It is about distribution, it is about

equity, and it is about social justice. If you really believe that

people can live that closely cramped together? I'm not saying

they are living. It is a pointless comparison that? It is a comparison

you have to make, because when you...Why Don't you put a figure on,

if you are prepared to make that sort of judgment, why won't you put

a figure? Because in the middle 1960s, everybody said there was a

population explosion, and that the world would not be able to sustain

3.5 billion people. Today we have seven. They talked about lack of

food, we produced more than 300% rise in food production. We can

carry on indefinitely? I'm not saying that. Why not? I will throw

out a figure for you. At about 9.5 billion people we are

going to run out of fresh water, and that is, even if that fresh

water were evenly distributed throughout the earth, which as we

know it is not. The real limit is before that. We're getting pretty

close that. You would accept that figure would you? I don't work with

that kind of figures. That is political correctness? I tell you,

no. We have to look at this diversity of the population

dynamics. It is not just about growth. There are many other issues

in populations. Shortage of water is a bit of a problem? It is, to

everybody. But the context I want us to look at is that there is

growth in some places, there is shrinking in some places, and there

are issues around ash bannisation on some issues. On - Urbanisation

on some issues. I would agree on some of that. All week on the news

there is the question, how many people can the earth support.

Ultimately that is not the right question, it is not about absolute

capacity. It is a question of what number is optimal, what is a good

future for the human race? If we allow our numbers to multiply up to

the UN top projection, which is 16 billion, what is life like for

those people, that is the proper question to ask. If that life is

not the kind of life we want to live, if it is on the edge of the

ability to feed people, then maybe we should take somes and now.

would you propose? I feel that population organisations and

Government funding has got distracted in the last 20 years. It

has gone very PC, the emphasis has been on improving women's rights,

which is good in itself, right. But that's supposed to have a knock-on

effect. Women tend to have fewer children if you educate them in

human rights? Yes. That is the evidence we have. Once we empower

women, you educate them, they make choices which are different, and

which tend to ensure that you have less babies, better quality of life,

and we have examples. We are on the same page. Brazil is a good example.

I completely agree with you. One of the things that helps women is just

having birth control. That's what I mean that population organisations

and Government policy has to folk cuss a little more on the nitty

gritty of Jews making sure that people who don't have access to -

just making sure that people who don't have access to family

planning do. You are in favour of that in the Population Fund? I am,

but I want to state it differently. Because the issue of being able to

access also has issues around women's status and the issue of

freedom. You know, we can talk about that in London, when you do

have family planning clinics everywhere, and people have the

right to walk into places and get it. You would be in favour of

having them anywhere in the world? Right, but then it has to be in the

context of the culture and the place you are working. For crying

out loud there are places in the world you cannot set up these

things without breaking some barriers and working with them.

What I'm saying is that Huang Fang Wen a young girl of 13 or 14 is

married off, she has no voice. Trying to provide family planning

in a distant clinic won't make a difference to her life. You are

saying the same things about empowering women, do you think

there sanctions that ought to be taken beyond that, one-child

policies? I don't believe coercion is necessary. Unless you have a

really repressive Government it won't be effective. You can take a

look at a country like Iran. It is hard to find something to admire in

Iran, but they produced a miracle demo graphically. In the 1980s they

reversed what was a pro-natalist policy and decided they really

wanted to bring it down, at that time the total fertility rate for a

woman was seven, and within a single generation by 2000, they

brought it down to 2.1. How did they do it? A combination of

changing the rhetoric and the religious policy, it was a cultural

element, but it was also very practical. They put clinics

everywhere. Including in the rural countryside and not just in the

cities. And between those two policies, they made history demo

graphically. We are saying the same thing. We are saying the same thing,

if you didn't get mast the Mullahs that would never happen. That was a

cultural intervention in Iran. You have to do that in other places,

that is empowering them to access what they need to access. You said

it, and it is absolutely cerbt, the only sustainable human - correct,

the only sustainable thing that works magic is educate girls, give

them what they need, make it available. And give them

contraception. I know. That goes with it. So it is not just about

educating, it is educating, but making it accessible to them.

also, this is awkward in the American context, but part of

providing contraception is the ultimate contraception is giving

people access to abortion. Safe abortion, that will be

culturally sensitive in some countries I grant you. That became

a problem. Would you accept the availability of abortion? In place

where is it is legal, there are countries where it is legal, it

should be available safely. Look what happened with the Bush

administration, they cut way back on funding for population, because

the stipulation was the organisation which you gave funding

could not even advise on abortion, much less provide it, unfortunately

we got a saneer man in the White House. One point has to be made,

that is that preproductive health has to be provided to build women's

rights, because it is not just about contraception, it is also

about prevention of HIV transmission and several things, so

it is not just contraception, it is a whole package. On tomorrow's

night programme, Justin Rowlett has been investigating unlikely

solutions to the growing demand on the planet's resources. With the

world population about to hit seven billion, is it time we all started

eating these? That's all from Newsnight tonight,

join us tomorrow for another bucket Lloyd of doom and gloom. In China,