27/06/2013 Newsnight

The chances of the lights in Britain going out in Britain are

many times higher than we thought a year ago, came the warning today.

Yet beneath these fields lie huge untapped reserves of gas. There is

just the problem of extracting it. This boss of a fracking company

swears it is safe to do so. This activist thinks it isn't. And this

minister will have to decide as well as reassuring the rest of us

the Government knows what it is doing.

Also tonight: I feel like a criminal that I'm on

benefits. I shouldn't do because we haven't been on full benefits. My

partner used to work but he had had a breakdown.

We test the claim that generation Y thinks benefits are too generous

and we all have to stand on our own two feet.

The riots in Brazil may have been relatively middle-class in origin,

but how much do the people of the shantytowns support them.

TRANSLATION: In my opinion Brazil is becoming more unequal, the era

of slavery is not over yet. The only difference is that now we are

getting paid. That's it. Funny old dayk we discovered that successive

British Governments have been so incompetent about energy supplies

that in less than a year the risk of power cuts has trebled. But we

also learned that Britain has probably twice as much shale gas

under the earth than had been thought. "few" you might think,

what is the talk of the odd earthquake and such. With the

economy in its current etherised state, surely everyone is

celebrating. No they are not. We explain why.

Official warnings that we face a future when the lights will go out

stepped up a notch today, as old oil plants and coal plants are shut

and cleaner replacements are yet to be replaced. The blackout will be

in 47 years, a new estimate put that at one in 12 years in 2015,

and possibly one in four years if demand doesn't drop, as is expected.

What a stroke of luck then that this morning we got eye-watering

new figures on a huge untapped resource of shale gas, buried under

a swathe of northern England. Suggesting a source of energy that

has transformed the market in America.

The Government is keen on renewables, nuclear and coal for a

while longer, but the question now is could shale gas keep the lights

on and the economy growing. Shale gas in the United States has

had a huge impact, the price of gas in the United States, if you

express it in oil terms is about $25 a barrel. That is a quarter of

the price of oil. That is getting into the economy and it is a very

flexible economy in the United States. It is brings prices down

for industry and the consumer. It is giving a big economic boost.

The numbers are impressive, the shale lies in two layers, some

areas have gas held in a thin upper layer, some have it in a lower

layer, others hold gas in both. In total, 1329 trillion cubic feet in

this part of Britain alone. And there are unquantified shale

resources elsewhere in the UK too. Shale gas is extracted through

fracking, a process which frees gas trapped thousands of feet below

ground by pumping millions of gallons of wart, plus sand and

chemicals into a well, lined with alternate layers of metal tubing

and casing. Done report properly it can be safe. But if there is corner

cutting then the risk of problems goes up. Local communities where

fracking first began have complained of gas leaks into their

water wells, earth tremors and huge disruption as the wells are dug.

Exploratory fracking in the UK in Lancashire also caused small

earthquakes and some here worry about the effect that might have on

house prices. One key question is can methane gas escaping from wells

be minimiseed so it doesn't reach ground water. This is a former gas

engineer, Mike Hill, who used to work in the industry. He's not

against fracking, but he lives locally and wants to ensure it is

done properly. I think understandably the general public

and the people in this area don't really know what's coming down the

line to them at this point in time until it happens. When they see,

over a period of time, ten years, for example, 3,400 wells being

drilled, flaring, truck, chemicals, total industrialisation of the

coast, damage to the tourist industry, damage to the

agricultural sector, people will be very angry indeed. What I say to

people in the public meetings in Lancashire is this is the price

that the coast has to pay for the benefit of the nation.

The industry says that once producing the well heads sit

quietly on a pad and can be hidden from view. What's more they are

offering local people an incentive, at least �100,000 for each well

where fracking takes place to explore, and 1% of revenues if

drilling proves commercially viable. Government promises it will be

properly regulated. Whether it is water issues, which the Environment

Agency has a robust regime on. Whether it is the integrity of the

wells that are dug, with independent well examiners that we

have used for many decades in the North Sea. Whether it is methane

emissions and so on, we have taken a very robust approach to making

sure this can be done in a way that is safer, safer for communities,

property and the environment. burn more gas and want to keep

carbon emissions down, we will need technology like this. Burning gas

releases half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. This

demonstration plant at London's Imperial College, traps those

emissions to be stored, called carbon capture and storage. It will

be many years before shale gas comes on stream, in the meantime

coal will play an important part in our energy mix. Both our fossil

fuels and technology being developed here to capture carbon

dioxide emissions will be really important if we want to minimise

the impact of emissions from the industry and energy tech sectors. -

- energy sectors. Today so energy announcements, including renewables

and a multibillion guarantee to raise finance for a new nuclear

power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. This is the day the

Government says the search for shale gas gets serious, as it seeks

to keep the public on side and the lights on. With us now is the

Energy Minister, Michael Fallon, also with us Andrew Austin the

chief executive of iGas Energy, which has fracking sites in the UK.

And Jenny Banks, the energy spokesperson for the WWF UK.

Can we speak for a moment or two about the electrical shortage and

the predictions. Does the word "negligence" occur to you at all?

From previous Governments that didn't build enough power station,

they knew the nuclear would come offline in a few years time, they

didn't do anything to replace nuclear power, they didn't build

enough stations. How many have closed since you came to office?

few have had to close because of European regulation and they have

come off line. Have any opened? Only one is being built at the

moment, others are gas generation, others have consent but the world

gas price doesn't allow that. stories running in tomorrow

morning's newspapers about how factories and businesses are going

to be asked to switch off in order that power isn't cut to people's

homes in 2015, are they true? The latest assessment is, as shown,

that the position is slightly worse than the previous assessment last

year. And they have got to make sure, the regulator, Ofgem, has to

make sure with all the tools at its disposal bringing the mothball

plant out back in action, back on- line, but all the tools it has at

its disposal it has to make sure the lights stay on and they will.

That is based on heroic assumptions about a lacklustre performance in

the economy, is that correct? based overall, they do assessments

of what demand is likely to be. They have to assess what plants

will be lost to the system, what new plant is coming on. There is a

lot of wind farms coming on the system. They make that assessment,

I assure you the lights won't go out. You can give us that

categorical assurance, and supposing in the unlikely event

that the economy suddenly improves, that will still be true? They

factor in the growth in the economy as well as everything else. Can you

tell us on the question of shale gas, what status does David

Cameron's promise to be the greenest Government ever have now?

We are meeting our targets. We are still on track to decarbonise the

economy. To meet our obligations under European and international

treaties, to make sure that we bring on more renewables. Shale gas

is the cleanest form of fossil fuel there is. It is a new form of

fossil fuel isn't it? It is new, it doesn't mean we don't meet our

decarbonisation target. We can do that as well. How does producing a

new fossil fuel to the mix equate with being the cleanest Government

ever? A couple of minutes ago you said we would be short of energy.

This adds to the mix. You have a choice about how you meet the gap?

We have to meet it at home. We can't keep importing very expensive

energy from abroad at a time of very volatile prices. You have

given up on green energy have you? No we have not. We are going to

meet our green targets. We will meet our renewables target. Have

you met the Green Deal target? have started on that, it is a new

scheme and only just opened. many homes have signed up? We have

had several thousand assessments being done. How many have signed up

to? I don't know how many have signed up. It is a very new scheme,

it will run for 20, 30 years as people build energy efficiency into

their homes. Going to the question of shale gas, is it safe to extract

it? It will only be done, it will only be extracted if it is safe. We

had a moratorium on this structure. You don't know? We will make sure.

Now they will have to not only have a license and planning permission,

they will have to have permits from the Environment Agency. They will

have to authorisation from Health & Safety Executives, they will have

to have all these permits to make sure it is extracted safely and

properly without damaging the environment. Just to be clear about

this, you are offering communities bribes of �100,000 a pop to have

one of these extraction plants, experimental extraction plants

without knowing whether it is safe or not? The developers are offering

community some compensation for the disruption that there is going to

be. That is nothing to do with the Government. It is an offer from the

industry. You are going to give them tax breaks? Let me be clear,

they won't be allowed to extract unless the method is judged safe by

the Environment Agency and the Health & Safety Executive. Andrew

Austin, is it safe, can you guarantee that? Yes, yes.There is

no danger whatsoever? There is rigorous background to how we

extract oil and gas in this country. We have been doing it for many

years on shore. Both on shore and off shore. The UK in boat

environments has a long history of safe and proper regulation of those

processes. The largest oil and gas field on shore in Europe is in the

UK and has been conducting operations for the last 25 years.

The Government has added to the level of regulation today and the

level of control and building on that gold standard of history of

how to regulate this industry. the Blackpool earth tremors? Were,

as the Durham Energy Institute said were extremely small and were of a

level that would be involved in most other extractive industries

like coal mining or gravel extraction. I think the phrase the

professor used "it is a bit like jumping off a step ladder in terms

of the impact". We still stopped it to check and make sure the system

was robust. It is only since Christmas we have allowed fracking

to resume. The consequence of this will be lower energy bills, that is

a good thing, isn't it? It would be a good thing, but actually if you

have a look at some of the studies, the serious analytical studies done

by Bloomberg New Energy Finance and others, that there will be no

impact or negligible impact on the cost of gas in the short-term, up

to 2025 or later. That is predicated on actually getting this

gas out of the ground. Will it have an impact on gas prices? Yes, I

think it will. Not to necessarily push them down dramatically in the

same way as the states. You more or less agree on that? Rather than to

put a cap on gas prices that will give more people confidence to

invest in industry et. Actually it will have an impact -- et cetera.

It actually will have an impact to home bills that they won't rise

than they would necessarily, if the country continues to rely on

imported energy. I thought you were suggesting they would drive down

prices? They clearly have in the United States both for household

and industry, that has been extreme low important for the revival of

the economy in the United States. That's why it would be pretty

irresponsible not to encourage the industry to go down and see if the

shale can be recovered in the same way. We don't know that yet. We

don't know whether it can be recovered in sufficient volume to

drive down prices. But it would be quite wrong not to check. It would

be wrong, it would be idiotic not to check wouldn't it? It depends

what your objectives are, what we are looking at, and what our

biggest concern about shale gas is, climate change. We are looking at

it from this context. An organisation called Carbon Tracker,

recently revealed we have listed on stock exchanges across the world

five-times more fossil fuels globally than we can burn if we are

no meet the target to keep temperature rises within two

degrows. That doesn't include resources like shale gas, if you

are then taking shale gas out of the ground that is increasing the

already too many fossil fuels that we have. So you object to this

really on principle, that it is a fossil, a further fossil fuel?

at some point if we are going to tackle. All the other, the danger

is icing on the cake? We are an environmental organisation we care

about climate change and local environmental impacts and their

effect on people. But our view is that really climate change is the

one thing that whatever you do about the local environmental

impacts and they absolutely need to be addressed and there is some of

the science is still really quite uncertain. What is the worst that

could happen from extracting this stuff? Well, there was a study

released recently from Duke's University in the US that suggested

that the well bores themselves are leaking methane, they found

consntraigss of methane between six and seven-times higher in shale gas

areas to non-shale gas areas. That is one of the potential concerns

there are a number of others. with that? One of the things that

the Government is actually insistent on, and one of the

reasons why the more tain yum was in place, was to ensure that the

right level of background monitoring was carried out prior to

any operations. Prior to any operations we carry out we have to

monitor both the ground water and background size movement, and

natural low occurring earth tremors, so one can detect any changes

happening. The university study had no background information prior to

that happening. You will be able to tell us after the event that there

has been a pollution event? there is a clear set of traffic

lights set out with the Environment Agency. After the event?No, on the

way through the event. Especially in terms of tracking. If it is

monitored week by week it can only report what has happened? It can

report any seismic activity. soon as something like Take That

happens you stop. -- as soon as something like that happens you

stop. We will have more discussion about

that again. Of it the day of rage after the

night before today, except it wasn't. The news that yet again the

burden of salvaging the economy is to fall first on those who most

depend upon its benefits system hasn't stirred up a hornet's nest.

Opposition to the plan is the dog that didn't bark. It seems to

represent a growing and changing consensus, in particular attitudes

seem to have changed among younger voters. Generation Y as the under-

34s are called, they have a different set of beliefs from those

of their parents and grandparents. We will speak to three from this

group in a few minutes. First here is Paul Mason.

For ten years Sarah Sullivan lived in a one bedroom council flat with

her partner and four children. Then she got moved by housing

association to a four bedroomed house in Orpington, Kent. It was

like Christmass all in one when we got this because my children had

their own bedroom, their faces, it was absolutely lovely to see their

faces. Now because one daughter has moved out they have been told to

move to a smaller house or pay �21 extra a week. I feel like a

criminal that I'm on benefits. I shouldn't though because we haven't

been on full benefits, my partner used to work, but he had had a

breakdown. It is a big difference to if we had the �21. We would move,

but the thing is my son is going to secondary school in September and

for us to uproot and go somewhere else, they can't say they can give

us another property where we are, it is, I don't want to do it to my

children, it is not fair. Sarah's partner is long-term sick, so they

live on ESA, child benefit, housing benefit. A general cap on welfare

spending would affect them. So what does she think of that. Why

shouldn't we have a cap on benefit spending? We should, there is

people out there that are scroungers, but then there is

people like myself and my partner who really need the help. It is

hard to get the help because of the other people how hard they have

made it for us. Yesterday the Government signalled a whole new

ball game when it comes to benefits. Two groups of people need to be

satisfied with our welfare system. Those who need it, who are old, who

are vulnerable, who are disabled, or lost their job, and who we as a

compassionate society want to support. There is a second group,

the people who pay for this welfare system, who go out to work, who pay

their taxes and expect it to be fair on them too. But public

attitudes have turned against welfare. On thes state where Sarah

lives official figures show unemployment levels double the

national average and half the families are single parent families.

But 20 minutes away by train and you are in streets awash with

finance and fashion, and among the wider population is seems that even

Labour people now have what we thought were Tory attitudes to the

poor. This graph shows the percentage of

people surveyed who said the Government should spend more on

been fits for the poor. Among Labour people, where it was once

close to 80%, it is now below half, among Conservative voters where it

started at about half it is now just 20%. And what's most striking

is the change in attitudes among the young. Among those under-35,

those wanting more spent on benefits has fallen from 50% to 20%.

There is a perception that all people on benefits have been in

receipt of extra money from the welfare system. In fact, if you

look at people who are out of work and on jobseeker's allowance, they

have had no real increase in the benefits available to them for 20

or 30 years. But they are the ones who are receiving the brunt of

people's anger against perceptions about fraud and dishonesty within

the well from state. Life in a place like this can be tough, above

all for the young, they know their lives are being scrutinised and

generalisations being made, most people are just as keen as the

Government to see the welfare system working fairly. Attitudes

towards people receiving benefits have been hardening now for about

two decades, since the financial crisis something has changed. The

survival strategy of the young seems to be work at all costs for

low wages or even no wages. And that has changed what they think

the state and taxation should be used for.

I think it is very difficult for the bulk of the population to fully

understand what it is like to be reliant upon the state for

everything. And then be subject to the changes that happen in the

amount of income that comes in through the door. There are

families right now struggling to make decisions between whether to

heat their home or feed their children. That is a reality. That

is something we see within our bureau. I think that is a million

miles away from a lot of the population. And Sarah, who has to

live on welfare, but is all too well aware of the fall in public

support for it has a challenge. in my shoes for a week or a month

and see how it is. It is easy for people to say oh you are doing this

and that, but then they don't know the full circumstances. Unless they

have been in my shoes, then they can say OK. Do you think they want

to know? No. There is a lot of ignorance out there. A lot of

ignorance. With us now is a member of the tax-

payers' alliance, and an author of Jilted Generation, and the

columnist at the New Statesman, all a part of the called "generation Y".

You must have all observed this, it is quite apparent on certain

occasions, why do you think it is that younger people seem to be

turning against the welfare system? It is actually quite a complex

issue, I think the first thing to say is that young people actually

tend not to be in receipt of some of those universal benefits and

advantages that a lot of people expected them to be. But they are,

actually, bearing the brunt of the recession in the sense that they

are the ones most likely to be unemployed. About 40% of those

unemployed in Britain are under 30. It is really centered in this

cohort. And yet actually they want themselves to be able to stand on

their own two feet. They are finding they can't. As a result

they are actually becoming dependant, not just on the state,

however mealy-mouthed it is to their problems, but also on their

parents. And yet they feel they have in some respects a worse life

than their parents, what they are entitled to expect? Actually living

standards are worse for somebody working on average in their 20s

than a grandparent in their 80s now. The standard of living is lower.

They are right to feel that way. Why do you think there has been

this apparent change? I think it is very funny isn't it that we are

suddenly so interested in what young people think and what young

people have to say. Young people have been squeezed hardest and poor

people have been squeezed hardest over the past three years of this

coalition Government and in the five years since the crash. And

young people have had a lot of opinions about he hadcation, about

the tripling of university fees and the move We are talking about

benefit now? When people came out on to the streets and answered the

opinion polls in their thousands saying they were against those

changes, people didn't pay attention. On this occasion they

are supporting George Osborne? necessarily. They are. Let's look

at this. I'm going to show you a graph now, it will show you what

opinion has done on the question of, the question was put "if welfare

benefits weren't so generous people would learn to stand on their own

two feet" the number of people agreeing is the blue line, soaring

in recent years, and previous recessions it hasn't? I can see the

graph, Jeremy. What has happened over the past three years there has

been a sustained campaign of lies and disinformation being spread

about what benefits mean, about who get them. There has been a campaign

of shame and alienation against young people and working people in

this country. It is no surprise that people. Are they too stupid to

see through it? I'm not saying that, this Government is much better at

PR than it is at fixing the economy. What do you think the reason is?

According to Laurie it is all the media's fault. No, she's not

blaming the media, she's blaming the Government? Generation Y have

seen they have become less reliant on welfare. They have become more

typical liberal, they believe in lower taxes, limited welfare.

no. That is the British, that is what the British Association

attitude survey shows, it shows it is developing over a -- British

Association attitude survey shows. You are more liberal on social

attitudes? They haven't embraced the teachings of Milton Friedman

these people are massively insecure, they have been failed by society

and are bearing the brunt of unemployment. If people feel they

have no stake in society why should they feel the welfare state has

anything to give them. People our age and younger have grown up

believing that society has no stake in them, has nothing to offer them.

It is no surprise that people are feeling that welfare is not what

people should be relying on. Welfare has been madly insufficient

for years. I'm not sure...Why they asking for more of it? People

are asking for more of it. graph shows precisely the reverse

of that. The fact is younger people are incredibly realistic about the

fact that their retirements aren't going to be paid for. They are more

individualistic and liberal in their outlook, they get used to the

state not providing anything. Whether we like it or not, we are

all children of Thatcher because she has changed the political

debate and what we are looking at. Are they more self-sufficient?

is not the state who gave them the iPhone. More people young men are

living with their parents. Is that what Thatcher wanted, 30% of young

people living with their parents. Our younger generation is being

priced out of the housing ladder, and finding it more difficult to

get on the job market. What is the solution to that. They are not

standing on their own two feet, they are living with their parents

and unemployed on a mass scale. We have the third-highest youth

unemployment in the OECD. That is a massive question that both

political parties have to answer. It touch on benefits because young

people actually are massively in receipt of them. If they are

against benefits what it says is they are desperately self-reliant

because they have been taught that nobody else is going to help them.

We have a responsibility to, surely. Isn't it admirable to have a sense

of self-sufficiency? It isn't that, because it is not self-sufficiency,

but they are reloint on their parents and what their parents --

reliant on their parents and what they can do. They are reliant on

JSA because they can't get job. They can't be self-sufficient

because they haven't been given the tool to build stable adult lives.

That is the crisis. What the Government calls standing on your

two feet others call abandonment, which has happened to young people

in this country. That doesn't explain why there is the support

for cutting benefits? Shame explains it, there is a campaign

against all people who are poor and in receipt of benefits, most of

whom work and are tax-payers too. And you should represent their

interests. Maybe it is young people want to get on. I'm sure they want

to get on. They don't see well fare as an alternative in work. Creating

jobs helps them. I actually see it as making sure work pays, so not

taxing the lower paid to provide elsewhere. Young people don't see

benefits as the answer but work as the answer. Why has the

Conservative Government cut 140,000 jobs, they are destroying jobs not

creating jobs and taking away welfare leaving people to starve.

Foodbanks are on the rise, young people are living in crowded houses

in London. There has been a desmakes of welfare of education

and people are starving. This, I think, is the essential point,

there was a plan, a strategy that Labour pursued in Government, which

was to try to embed benefits throughout all of society for the

greatest possible degree. The idea was when the crash came, when the

Tories got in those been fits wouldn't be cut. Because they were

embedded in the rest of the society. Actually it has been very easy to

cut those benefits, it turns out most people in Britain don't want

to be dependant on benefits. The people on the margin are indulging

in benefit fraud, most of them are living very miserable lives. That

is why it is not popular, because nobody wants to be on benefits,

they want to build sustainable, coherent adult lives. It is only

that people don't want to be on benefits, they realise it is not

sustainable to have a system where the welfare state has gone from

helping the most vulnerable and being a safety net to where it is

topping up incomes. What the Government needs to be looking at

doing is given that generation Y want to get on and work, it is

ensuring that work pays. What will happen as generation Y get older?

Generation Y is incredibly realistic about what their

prospects are for retirement. More people believe the moon landings

were faked than the state providing for their current retirement. That

was TPA polling. We know people are realistic about it, they want to

save and get on, but the Government need to get out of the way. How is

getting out of the way solve things for the mill yun young people out

of work now not knowing what their future will hold, living miserable

lives. How is making work pay going to help that. What you call it that,

most people call it cutting benefits more. It is not, it is

enabling the economy to grow. Rather than burdening family

budgets and businesses out there taking on young people, ensuring

that taxes aren't actually destroying economic growth, but

that's the policy that you keep arguing. Because the economy is

doing really well. Because we front-loaded the tax rises. You are

looking baffled? Making work pay, middle-class pay, and most pages

have been stagnant, it is not just about ensuring that the state can

get out of the way of people. It isen suring that businesses pay

decent wages and the he economy is growing. These are the big -- and

the economy is growing, and these are the big issues, I don't feel

any party is doing that. Are you losing the argument with your

contemporaries? If you look at the polling, what is most interesting

is 40% of young people do not feel connected to any political party or

any argument being made in Government at all. Young people

right now and poor people have been abandoned by mainstream political

discourse. Most of this has no impact on how ordinary people are

living their lives on the breadline right now. Food banks are on the

rise, people have no idea. In many cases how they are going to have

the next meal, never mind make the next rent cheque.

Thank you very much. We will have more from Paul Mason in a few

minutes. First television's affection for helmets and teargas

and noise in general means hardly anyone can be unaware of the fact

that there are riot going on in Brazil. Some of the pictures are

quite dramatic. But what are they about. They began in the middle-

class, although unlike other protestors who dream of bringing

down dictator or spreading freedom, the Brazilians seem to have more

blooding ambition, they didn't like prices -- plodding ambition, they

didn't like price going up on transport or the staging of the

football World Cup. What about the poor of Brazil who have reason

enough to complain, perhaps. We went to find out.

A journey through Rio is a journey through discontent. However fast

Brazil's progress, it is not fast enough.

See it through the ice of Pedro Vicenti, who drives the number 415

bus. His parents are illiterate, a maid and a street vendor, he has a

steady job and is saving to go to university. He and the diverse

crowd of citizens he carries are dissatisfied. One of the striking

things about the protests here is they haven't set one section of

society against another, as revolutions often do, as certainly

happened in the recent unrest in Turkey. On the contrary, they seem

to have united social classes, who usually have very different

interests. Now Brazilians from all walks of life feel betrayed by

leader, but it is the young, the educated and the middle-class who

have driven protests. Those at the bottom of the heap, in Rio's

shantytowns, the fafvel lows, have largely -- favelas, have largely

stayed at home. Daisy is one of the 11 million Brazilian mothers who

gets payments for keeping their children in school. The family

allowance scheme aims to lift families like Daisy's out of

poverty. Many economyists say it is succeeding. But it is not enough to

keep this family loyal to the President. TRANSLATION: People

voted for her because they thought she would do the same things the

last person would because they are from the same party. She's not

doing the same things he did. That was why he was able to run Brazil

for eight years. She doing bad things. He helped much more, prices

were not so expensive. The main reason they don't take to

the streets, they say, is fear of police violence. More likely to be

directed against slum dwellers than against the middle-class. But Daisy

and her 16-year-old daughter, Larissa, are with the protestors in

spirit. We come from England and in the outside world people are really

impressed by Brazil. They say that Brazil is getting better and better,

it is getting richer and richer. It is going to have the World Cup, it

is going to have the Olympics? But it doesn't feel like that to you?

How does it seem to you? TRANSLATION: It is not what it

seems to be. I think they are hiding the truth. They are showing

something fake. TRANSLATION: They are lying, it is terrible here,

everything is terrible. The only thing I see improving are

the stadium for the World Cup, just that and we don't need it. We don't

need stadiums we need hospitals. Larissa wants to be a doctor, but

show says she's not getting the education she needs. -- but she

says she's not getting the education she needs. Her school is

in the middle of the slum. She's back now after taking a short time

off to have a baby. In the past many children dropped out of school.

Working to support their families, some joining the drug gangs that

control the favela. Now the family allowance payments keep them in

class. There are more teachers, and more music, sport and other

activities to stimulate pupils. So does the headteacher think that

the protestors who complained so bitterly about Brazil's schools are

simply ungrateful for what the Government has done? TRANSLATION:

No, I don't think so they are ungrateful. I think they understand

their benefit. But we need to demand from the state even more

investment in education. One thing does not cancel the other. They

receive these been fits from the people they voted for. -- these

benefits from the people they voted for. That is why they have the

right to demand more jobs, investment, that is a natural part

of democracy. The 415 is emptying as Pedro heads into leafy parts of

town. The authorities hope the streets will empty as they offer

ever more concessions. Fair increases have been withdrawn, more

cash promised for transport, schools and healthcare.

The protesters' demands are growing, some Brazilians are getting a taste

for street politics. Among them the driver of the 415.

TRANSLATION: In 27 years this is the first time something like this

has happened. If there is a protest every day then I will be here every

day. Because it is beautiful to see all these people together. It gives

me goosebumps and I have never seen anything like this before. I

believe that this time something really is going to change. This

week the crowd won another victory, the defeat of a measure that would

have limited prosecutors' powers to investigate corruption. Why were

Brazil's politicians caught so off guard? I have come to meet the

Mayor of Rio. Brazil is a democracy, I mean, the democracy has to get

more mature and improve. I think there is a problem with democracy,

representive democracy all over the world. On that level, on that basic

services, what can you tell me today that you will offer the

people who are still coming out on to the street who say education

isn't good enough, the health isn't good enough, what will you give

them? You have been to one of the schools of tomorrow. We did lots of

good things in the past few years for the education system. People

want more. That is the good thing about Brazilian democracy. On

education I it tell you it is not a problem of money. How can it not be

a problem with with money, primary school teachers earn so little

money. You are responsible for that? If you comair to the wages,

to the sal -- If you compare to the wages and salaries of Brazil it is

not that bad. To the man on the bus that is pretty complacent. But some

are uneasy that what started as a campaign about public transport has

been diverted into too man other causes. Some of the left, some of

the right. Already the unity that marks the beginning of the protests

is beginning to breakdown. And perhaps that's inevitable in a

society where many think inequality is still increasing.

We have reached the end of the line, and Pedro is finished driving fored

today. He has discovered ordinary people like him can be drivers of

change. And he thinks Brazil needs a lot more of it. TRANSLATION:

my opinion Brazil is becoming more unequal. The era of slavery is not

over yet. The only difference is that now we are getting paid.

That's it. Do you think that Brazil will ever be more equal?

TRANSLATION: I do believe it, if we keep protesting on the streets, I

believe that things will change. Politicians though are practised in

promising change. Brazil's new protest movement will have

difficulty retaining enough energy and enough social cohesion to hold

them to account. Those marvellous people in our Government are going

to spend loads more of our money digging holes and building roads

and railways and generally doing for more the infrastructure of this

country than anyone has done in a century. Also the propaganda

machine we also pay for told us today. What a load of dishonest

drivel said their opponents as they whittled down and alleged �100

million of investment to something a lot less impressive and urgent.

What have they promised? To build infrastruck stuer. People like

infrastructure. People don't just like it because they can get on a

train or a motorway, but they feel good when they live in a country

where there is the best in the world. You only have to get on a

400km train in China to understand how good that feels. The Government

spent last the last three years slashing spending on infrastructure,

its plans are not to particularly raise spending on infrastructure

for the rest of the parliament. What it did was pull together the

money it had already pledged to spend on infrastructure on the next

parliament, and put projects to that money. About �100 billion of

it, they decided to name them and specify them or do feasiblilty

studies, this is what provoked the outbreak of high perbowl lay in the

Commons today. -- h yperbole. I can announce the biggest housing

programme in manyies, the largest rail plans since Victorian times.

The greatest investment in roads since the 1970s. Fast on-line

access for the whole country. this what we used to call "money"?

It is real money. The important thing is if you say we are

definitely going to do this and not this, what you then do and what

they are trying to do is create certainty for private investors so

they can look at the UK. A lot will be wrapped up and sold to

inspection markets and protesters. We can say we think it has a future

in roads and investment. Often in economics we are talking about

facts and figures and graphs and charts. Actually it is quite a nice

thing to be talking about roads and railways, and flood defences.

Because we can feel these a touch them. This is HS2, already �9

million more than we expected it to cost. It will allow people to

comout between the cities on the map, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham,

London, rather than long run one- day journeys. Dependant on the cost

of the tickets. Yes. There is CrossRail, we have already got one

going across London, east to west, we have this one, this has been

given the nod, there is a feasiblilty study for it, so all

the tourists who can't afford the hotel room who live in campsites on

the edge of London will be able in the future to get on a train into

central London and work out where to get on a pavement. We would have

had a map of the motorways but it was too complicated. But there is a

huge road upgrading thing. By 2040 if we don't do this the whole

network will grind to a halt. 2040. The A14, the M4 will be

upgraded. Most motorway junctions will be upgrade the. Get ready for

a lifetime of traffic cones. The A1 north to new cast. There a stort of

stay in the UK appeal to the Scots that we build -- a sort of stay in

the UK appeal to the Scots if we build a road to them. The good

thing is the economics of it, if you decide not to spend on

departmental or spending and welfare, you can make the case that

spending it in a clear demonstrable and predictable way on all this.

Plus the flood defences and housing. Actually creates jobs. That's why

they have done it. Thank you very much indeed. Some of tomorrow

morning's front pages now, the Times goes with that story we were

dealing with earlier about the That's it. George Osborne has spent

the day trying to justify a photograph showing him preparing

his cuts to welfare while eating a rather putocratic-lookingburger,

don't worry George, it is an easy Hello there, good evening, quite a

mixture of weather to come of the we will start on a warm and humid

note. Two areas of rain, the first one heading eastwards and

brightening up for a while. Another band of rain sinking southwards

across Scotland and Northern Ireland. If we do get sunshine in

Northern Ireland it will be late in the day. Some drizzley rain.

Developing more and more in Scotland. A fresher feel in the

afternoon after the rain. The rainband sweeps southwards into

northern England, depressing the temperatures here. For a while the

rain could be heavy. This is the rain affecting Wimbledon earlier on

in the day's play. That pushes away and brightens up eventually. We get

sunshine. Humid air coming across the south and Wales, if the

sunshine comes out temperatures could get as good as 22 or 23.