06/02/2014 Newsnight

It's the Love Actually moment for the union. The Prime Minister will

tomorrow make his most emotive appeal so far to keep Scotland in

the UK. Will evoking the Team GB Olympic spirit play better at

Westminster than in the Western Isles.

On the eve of the winter Olympic, new warnings from US security about

the terror threat. We have exclusive new information.

We have heard directly from the militant group threatening to take

the games in so muchy. They have told us Russia's unprecedented

security measures won't stop them. Also tonight, cancer envy. I wish I

had testicular cancer. I wish I had breast cancer. Noel Hunter, whose

daughter died of cancer, takes issue with the charity who dreamt up the

campaign. Good evening, David Cameron has

clearly decided that the time has come for him to try to take the

debate over Scotland's independence by the throat. Newsnight has learned

that tomorrow the Prime Minister will use the site of the London

Olympics to rally the whole of the UK to the cause of the union.

Envoking triumphs there and equating them with the success of the UK.

Joined from Glasgow. What do we know about the speech? First where it is

going to take place, as you say he will wrap himself, not only in the

colours of the Union Flag, the red, white and blue, but also try to wrap

himself in the gloryies of that very British summer of 2012, when

athletes from all four of the home nation competed together as Team GB,

he will evoke that spirit very positively, he will say for me the

best thing about the Olympics was not the winning but the red white

and blue, everybody cheering as one team for GB. It is that team he

wants to talk about the United Kingdom. He will also and clearly

try to outline an alternative patriotism for the Scots, an British

patriotism. He's addressing people outside Scotland, voters who don't

have a vote in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that although they

don't have a vote they can have a say. They can try to persuade

friends in Scotland of the vert its of staying in the union. He is

saying from us to the people of Scotland let the message be this, we

want them to stay. He's calling on the people of Northern Ireland and

England to intervene in the debate and showing they care. Why now?

There is a growing sense that Whitehall are pretty rattled by the

way they are going. The polls show the gap between yes and no to

independence is narrowing. One poll a couple of weeks ago showed that

the support for yes to independence had increased by five points since

September. Support for no had dropped five points since September.

That makes the gap, according to that poll only 7%. That gap is. In

the euro election, coming in May, it looks like UKIP will do well in

England, according to the same poll, the SNP are set to take 42% and UKIP

in Scotland 7%. That will enable the nationalists to argue who are the

real isolationists in this debate. Who are the real seperatists? Not

us. There is a accepts here that some people, some undecided voters

are on some kind of journey from no to yes. And there is emerge anything

Scotland a block of people who are not nationalists, who don't like

nationalism and never supported Alex Salmond, but nonetheless will vote

yes. That is very concerning in Whitehall. How do you think the

tenor of this speech will go down in Scotland and the rest of the UK? In

the rest of the UK it has been pretty hard to engage the rest of

the UK in the debate. Traditionally most people outside Scotland have

seen this as a matter traditionally for the Scots alone. Except where it

impacts on people outside of Scotland. But in Scotland the risks

are very clear. David Cameron has stayed out of it until now, because

he knows a certain kind of stridant, Epping illusion, Conservative voice

has a very negative effect in Scotland. Remember of the 59

Westminster MPs only one is a Conservative. And that the coalition

that governs the UK at the moment is consisting of two parties that came

third and fourth in Scotland. There is a legitimacy question. And David

Cameron has stayed out of it. He knows he risks playing into the

hands of nationalists and being called a coward for failing to

answer Alex Salmond's call to debate directly with the Scottish minister.

We will expect a robust response from the nationalists tomorrow

morning. What is this saying about the Better Together Scotland

campaign at the moment? Even the supporters of the Better Together

campaign say it sounds very negative and picking apart Alex Salmond's

plans for independence, they have sounded as if they have nothing

positive to offer. Whatever the merits of their case, the overall

impression is the telling of the Scottish people you are not up to

it, you can't do it, get back in your box. There is some polling

evidence that is backfiring. Many people say it is turned into a

battle between hope on the yes side and fear on the no side. There is

also a question mark over whether Darling is the right man now to lead

this campaign. He's highly respected, highly regarded across

the political spectrum, are his talents really geared towards

enthusing people in Scotland about the positive British patriotism. It

is that, I think, that gap that David Cameron is trying to close

with the speech tomorrow. The prison sentence handed to the policeman who

attempted to stitch ups former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has rocked the

police. It comes as at a time when the public trust in them has been

damaged. Emily Maitlis learns of radical plans to beef up the police

Complaints Comissioning and doubling the number of detectives that keep

an Ian the police over the next few years. Police constable Keith

Wallis, jailed today for 12 months for his part in bringing down the

former Conservative Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell. Wallis originally

claimed he witnessed the Mitchell incident at the Downing Street

gates. It turned out he was lying. The Wallis case may be a one-off, a

single officer gone rogue, yet it comes at a time when public trust in

the police has been badly damaged. By the inquiry into the police

shooting of Mark Duggan, the botched examination of the death of Ian

Tomlinson. The allegations that the police tried to smear the family of

Stephen Lawrence after his death, and by Hillsborough of course.

Although these incidents are few and far between, it is the drip feed,

case after case badly handled that has convinced the Home Office of the

need for change. Not just to the police themselves, but of the

watchdog that polices them. The Independent Police Complaints

Commisssion. Part of the problem is the IPCC has been seen as too close

to the very officers it is meant to be investigating, something that has

done little to reassure the public of its independence. The body is

perceived to be staffed by, as one observer put it, former officers who

have been put out to grass. Or perhaps not to grass, would be

rather more accurate. I am concerned that over a third of the officers

are police officers themselves. I don't know where the judicial

investigatory legal skills are in the body. And I think that's

probably why it is not taken seriously by the public when they

really are concerned that something has gone wrong. But also

increasingly it seems by the police themselves. Over the coming months,

the commission will begin a radical overhaul. Up to 300 new

investigators will be brought in over three years, more than doubling

their current number. And to pay for all of this the IPCC will have its

budget increased by almost 50%. The IPCC budget is ?33 million. Of that

?13 million spent on investigations and case work. I understand ?18

million additional money will be made available to the IPCC. Top

sliced from across the other forces. The Home Office also says it is open

to demands from the IPCC, for more powers. What in fect we have to have

with the IPCC is a separate police force that has all of the powers

over the police that the police have overthat has all of the powers over

the police that the police have over us, including the power to sup

peania witnesses and access to documents. We need a set of judicial

untouchables. This year the commission will take control of all

cases deemed serious and sensitive. Last year out of more than 2,000

cases that came to its door, only 120 were handled in-house. The rest

were thrown back to the police forces themselves. From now on the

IPCC will be expected to investigate three-times as many as it currently

does. The difficulty is, there has to be a trade-off. If you have

former police officers who are experienced and skilled

investigators, they are more likely to be able to carry out complex

investigations. If you bring in totally new people, with no

experience, then they might not be able to get to the bottom of things.

The IPCC has said its seems are: When everyone is calling for the

need to reform, the Government has been happy to show its court the

public mood. Indeed, to put the money where its collective mouth is.

The bigger question, perhaps, is whether the public buy it.

Tomorrow's Opening Ceremony in Sochi will be designed to dazzle all nay

sayers. It won't be enough to hide the country's resurgent antigay

laws, today a letter was signed by many authors or the looming specter

of terrorism. Following a warning by the US Department of Homeland

Security of a credible threat that terrorists may try to smuggle

explosives into the country in toothpaste tube, various journalists

reported they cleared airport security with all sorts of lotions

and tubes in their hand luggage. Tonight we have heard from the group

that has threatened to attack the Sochi games. Sochi is primed and

ready, with brand spanking new state of the arts sports facilities. It is

the most expensive Olympics ever. It is all happening just a few hundred

miles away from Europe's bloodiest insurgency. Vladimir Putin isn't

spending upwards of ?30 billion just to show some athletes a good time.

This is about Russian pride. But meanwhile, scenes like these play

themselves out daily in Dagestan and elsewhere in southern Russia.

Security forces are battling Islamist militants. For Putin these

games are about projecting an image of a Russia on the rise. But it is

not only the Russian Government that wants to take advantage of the

international spotlight on Sochi of the In a video posted on the

Internet last month, a group calling itself Villia Dagestan threatened to

give a present to Mr Putin if Russia went ahead with the games. For the

tourists visiting Sochi they continued there would be a present

too. We contacted the group, they reiterated their threat, they made

it clear their intended targets would go beyond Sochi. In December

500 miles from Dagestan a suicide bomber blew himself up at the train

session in Volgegrad, well within Russia proper. The following day

another blast, on a trolley bus in the same city. Both attacks were

claimed by the name group. In response a security cordon has been

thrown up around Sochi. Around 40,000 police and soldiers have been

deployed, unprecedented levels of security, say the authorities. The

games are safe. TRANSLATION: All of our guests at the Olympics, all the

sportsmen can be absolutely reassured, the Olympic Games will go

ahead at the highest level, and with complete security. But some fear as

the Opening Ceremony approaches Russia is vulnerable. The biggest

problems is many troops are brought to Sochi from other regions. They

are not very familiar with the ground. That's why I don't think

they will be very useful to detect and identify possible suicide

bombers. That is the one thing, also we need to remember that not only

Sochi, but so other cities in central Russia are under threat. And

that it's quite clear that for militants the timing is much more

crucial than location. This man, top of Russia's list of most wanted

terrorists last year urged his followers to do whatever it took to

disrupt the games. Which he called "a Satanic dance on the bones of the

ancestors of the people of the north caucuses". He was tapping into a

deep seam of resentment that goes back more than 200 years, to the

Tsarrist conquest of the caucuses in the 18th and 19th century. These

winter Olympics are taking place 150 years after Russian forces expelled

the population from the area around Sochi, killing those who resisted,

burning villages to the ground. Russia's two post-Soviet wars in

Chechnya are still raw in the memories of the people there, and

the current conflict, centered around Dagestan, claimed more than

500 lives last year. If you break it down that is what has been driving

the fight for the last 200 years, is that the Russian response to any

sign of rebellion from the people of the caucuses has always been an

overwhelming force. They were destroying Chechen villages in the

1780s and into the early 21st sent treatment the tactics remain

identical and the response of individual people on a strictly

human level is the same. To fightback and in the best way they k

which is on a small scale level at small targets because the Russian

army is too strong and they don't have a choice. Certainly a strong

sense of historical grievance fuels this current conflict, but few in

the north caucuses support the aims of the militants with their dream of

an Islamic state on Russia's southern flank. We challenge the

militants on this point, and asked them how they could justify killing

innocent people in pursuit of their aims. They responded as

The militants accuse the Russian security forces of kidnapping,

beating, torturing and even killing innocent civilians in their on going

campaign to pacify the north caucuses. Jo they have a pint but

only telling half the story, they are doing exactly those things as

well, there are no good guys in this particular tale. The response to,

instead of inflicting your revenge on the people who have done this to

you, but to inflict your revenge on innocent people in a station or

theatre goers in Moscow or schoolchildren is obviously

unspeakable. It is a cycle of brutality that no-one appears to be

willing to stop. It is less than 24 hours to the Opening Ceremony, for

two weeks Sochi will be at the centre of global attention. But

Russia's forgotten war will continue just a few hundred miles distant

from and I way from the world's days. Cancer is no respecter of

colour, creed, age or income, but some cancers are more aggressive

than others, some harder to treat, so far so uncontroversialal. Now a

cancer charity, pancreatic action, has split cancer sufferers alike. It

has kicked off a campaign which ranks different forms of the disease

and employs pancreatic sufferers to say that other cancers, such as

breast cancer and testicular cancer will be preferable to their's. Ask I

wish I had testicular cancer. I wish I had breast cancer. Early diagnosis

saves lives. If you have any of these symptoms see your doctor. Or

go to the website. Joining me is a pancreatic survivor and Gloria

Hunniford, the presenter who has set up the Caron Keating foundation in

memory of her daughter who died of breast cancer in 2004. Gloria

Hunniford, when you saw this advert at first, what did you make of it?

Well, up front I would like to just establish that through our

foundation we give grants all year round to all forms of cancer

including pancreatic cancer. I'm not against raising funds or awareness

for any kind of cancer. I have to tell you feel almost sick when I

read the words "I wish I had breast cancer". I personally think this is

a very insensitive commercial and very insensitive and misguided way

of going about raising awareness and funds. I'm coming from a deeply

personal point of view. I watched my daughter battle breast cancer for

seven years and spreading to the bones, at no time would she have

preferred another form, she didn't want it at all. Did you set out to

be controversial? We set out to raise awareness for a disease that

gets very little attention, and we did want to make sure that we got

our messages heard. But do you, you would accept that you knew that

would shock a lot of people, people who have cancer and otherwise? Yes,

we thought it would spark debate. And I think if people look just at

the the headline, "I wish I had breast cancer", if you take that in

its entirety, then if you are only looking at that then that is

shocking. It would be fair to say, Gloria Hunniford, that some cancers

do attract more interest and funding. I'm thinking particularly

of breast cancer with pink ribbon, the moon walk? That is not really

the point, you see. Imagine you went into your doctor, heaven forbid it

happens to you, you go into a doctor and say Kirsty I have to tell you

I'm so glad you didn't get pancreatic cancer but you have

breast cancer. In my opinion you cannot play one against the other.

In fact I want to read out, I purposely took it out of the

statement today, o of the major breast cancer charities said "We

strongly dispute any message to suggest that one type of cancer is

preferable to another". Where did that phrase come from? This is the

thought of many patients with pancreatic cancer, they face a 3%,

five-year survival rate. When I was diagnosed in 2007 I wished I had a

cancer. I can't wish for cancer or wish it on anybody, but I wanted

something that would give me a better chance of survival. I didn't

know at that point I would get to be one of those 3%. I'm thrilled, it is

fantastic you are one of the great survivors, but in my humble opinion,

you have a new drug you advertised today. And I think that the purpose

of any ad to raise funds or awareness of any cancer is surely to

have a more positive message, instead of having, for me any way,

instead of a negative phrase. And people read papers, "I wish I had

breast cancer", it makes people's stomachs turn over. You would accept

the funding for pancreatic cancer has changed radically, it has gone

from ?1. 5 to ?5. 1 million. It is a huge step forward for you? It is

baby steps. But you have a share of the pot that is ?521 million? The

share of the pot that pancreatic gets in the site-specific area is

less than 1%. When there is research into, for example, ovarian cancer,

that informs breast Cancer Research and other cancers always inform

other cancers. Do you accept that. Or because you feel that because

pancreatic cancer is harder to detect, it can be very aggressive

and in the way it doesn't attract the same interest as other cancers?

It doesn't, it is the lack of awareness. A lot of people in the

public actually perceive that pancreatic cancer has had some of

the same advances as many other cancers, I even had it said to me

that they have made great strides and things have improved. And you

know, they can do so much these days. Well, they can't with

pancreatic cancer, the only way to have a curative option is to be

diagnosed in time for surgery, which was lucky to do so. The problem with

pancreatic cancer is most people don't understand enough about it. We

don't know enough about the disease. Is that fair to say? It is to a

point. Of course it is true, and many, many cancers want to raise

awareness and funds. I just feel, of course I come from a personal point

of view, I STRECHLTS I feel a shock -- stress, I feel a shock tactic

isn't the most correct and sensible way to go about it. Do you stand by

it? I do, because the messages come from patients. That is coming from

patients. Do you think that's said by patients as said as a time of

great anguish and not when there would be other circumstances and it

is a natural reaction, it was your a reaction when you were diagnosed,

but to move forward there has to be a more positive response. Agreed,

what we need to do is raise awareness of the symptoms. Can I

just ask, is there an issue about too many small individual different,

understandable, cancer charities? You would probably have a point,

could I just say when you talk about you know shock tactics and wanting

and standing by, raising money and awareness for this, it is at a cost,

for example a very good friend of mine is having a double mastectomy

tomorrow morning, try showing her this ad and try to let her have

sympathy for another cancer. Thank you very much. Can you love the art

but abhor the artist, David Aaronovitch stepped right into the

controversy over Woody Allen's alleged paedophilia and asked should

it colour our view of his movies. In short the answer was no, he still

loves Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters. He sets a myriad of

example, Eric Gill, the music of The Lost Prophets profit. . First we

have this. We turn to the arts to provoke and arouse us, to stir our

emotions. But are some artists beyond the pale because of what they

have been accused of doing, or the views they espouse? They rolled out

the welcome mat at the Golden Globes last month for Woody Allen's latest

film. Among the many stars at the event, no sign of the director

himself, who won a Lifetime Achievement Award. But his latest

film, Blue Jasmine was represented by Kate Blackpool Cate Blanchett,

who was named best actress. The prize-giving season has been

overshadowed by a letter of Woody Allen's adopted daughter. She has

accused him of attacks her at seven. Allen called her allegations

"disgraceful and untrue" he pointed out that he has never been charged

over her claims. But some say they could sway members of the academy.

Awards' panels are made up of human beings full of foibles, and all of

us on prize committees know how arbitary and idiosyncratic the

process is. I wouldn't be surprised if it swayed people. These are PR

enterprises and people wouldn't want the bad PR. But novelist Lionel

Schriver that the allegations have no bearing on her view of his film.

I won't lose sleep over what happened, because it is not

ultimately any of my business. It is not an artistic matter. It is not

going to stop me from going to see his films. The unreliable business

of reading across from an artist's life from his work is nothing new.

Some music lovers have agonised over the composer Wagner, how to

reconcile his genius with his avowed anti-semitism. I don't think there

is an algorithm which allows us to settle all these case, the cases are

different. The reason Wagner is different, he attempted an

intellectual articulation and defence of anti-semitism. There is,

of course, a hugely controversial question as to whether that

anti-semitism then as it were seeps into the music. Prospe rocks o and

Aerial by Eric Gill can be seen on the building where this programme is

transmitted, he committed paedophilia and enjoyed himself with

the family pet. What I find curious is that we nevertheless expect

artists to do so, accept these unimpeachable lies. There is this

acceptance of the creator, almost a quasi-supernatural being in some

ways. I enjoy watching films or reading books, as objects completely

apart from their creators. I'm probably unusual in this respect.

But I suffer from aposity of curiosity about the creators, I

don't really want to know about them. Let as discuss that now with

the novelist and broadcaster Kazeem Adeleke. Do you agree there is an

algorithm? Yes, I think sometimes, I think what tends to happen is that

for an artist if they are dealing, as most artists do, with looking at

the human condition with humanity, of what their humanity and points of

view and their foibles are, they will some how appear in the work,

just to give you a little example, you know, there is controversy over

Nye Paul and whether he should have got the Nobel Prize or not. It is

not that they are allegations that he may be a racist or he doesn't

like black cultures, it is not that he says in his work. It is not that

there is a problem of what he might say in his work with black cultures.

What tends to happen is the racism seeps into the area. For example he

says he does have great regard for black duals, then -- cultures, then

we learn in his buy could go fee he doesn't like music. -- biography, he

doesn't like music. The take on his biography is he has no musical

response. Can that be a personal read organise is it societial

depending on the circumstance? You could argue, it has been argued by

Wagner for instance, that you can, I mean he did this famous work abo

Judaism in music, which is a condemnation of the role of the Jew

in society, and so on. That is very, which in itself is kind of clearly a

precursor to what subsequently happens. What people then say about

the music is he see these character, evil characters, you see in them

proto-type calm Jewish character -- prototypical Jewish characters,

which it is hard to separate from the anti-semitism. Others find it

easy to separate. By and large you do find it difficult? I think by and

large we have to. The origin of this discussion in my mind was an article

by the New York Times columnist Nicholas Christophe, two or three

years ago where he actually gave space to Dylan Farrow to say her

accusation, he asked why are we honouring this man when he's not

unimpeachably honourable. In other words, if there was any doubt about

whether or not he personally was honourable, then we shouldn't honour

the art. That is innocent until proven guilty? No it is simply you

should read across the art. You should taken a attitude to the art

based on what you think he might have done or did do personally. I

don't think that is fair necessarily, I think that some how

an artist's sensibility and attitudes do often come across in

the work. But not often in straight forward ways. So it would be very

dangerous to go from an allegation to somebody's private life to

refusing them an artistic prize. Is there a cosy consensus around art,

there is allegations about Lucien Freud and so forth. People choosing

to separate things and for some people it is more different. I was

thinking of are yous -- Bertram Russell and he was not very nice.

Does that make him a philosopher. People don't remember it, if

Caravaggio did the things people say he did what would happen. This is a

calibration, we have had Ian Watkins, the lead singer of the The

Lost Prophets, who has done the most terrible things, as a consequence

the music won't be played on the radio and disappeared from HMV. But

you can find it on Apple I tunes, the artwork wasn't enough to overlay

the association. Was it so contemporary and shocking that it

would ever outweigh it? If it was a beatle? Interesting question? At the

moment in American music there is a story around R Kelly, massive star.

They have there have been on going issues around him and his alleged

allegations about him and his relationships with under-age or

borderline aged people. Particularly in the Chicago area he grew up in.

What is happening now is he's trying to relaunch his career and get back

in the spotlight. Some of these allegations have esurfaced. What is

notable it doesn't seem to affect his cells. It is also noticeable

that some of the people who are in his target age group. It doesn't

affect their wish to buy his songs. It is very difficult, I wonder if

one of the problems we have in the west is there is a quick separation

from artists and other people in the west. In other countries, in African

countries the artist is seen more as somebody who is part of the wider

community and his work, a lot of his work, there is a level of social

work, he leads the masquerades and the social celebrations. It is in

the west where we have the high distinction, maybe we get into

trouble because of it. The astrophysicist, Dame Jocelyn Bell

Burnett, who discovered pulsars, has been elected the first female

President of the Royal Society in Edinburgh. The first one was founded

in 1873. It is ironic her appointment coincides with a

parliamentary report that aments just how bad this country is doing

in attracting women into the sciences and engineering

professions. 17% of so called STEM professors are women. The report

says that at school there is a commendable emphasis on inspiring

young girls to do science. It is a waste of effort if women are

disadvantaged in scientific careers compared to men. Rosalind Franklin

is one of the most significant but overlooked female scientists,

playing a crucial role in discovering DNA, but never the

proper credit for her work. Today's report acknowledges things have

moved on since her day. Franklin is now a role model. American science

students created this rap song in her honour, to inspire more women to

get into science. # Recognise Rosalind Franklin Here

in the UK more girls are studying scien subjects in school and

university. But at higher levels in the field there are fewer women than

men. Especially in acedemia. Out of all the jobs in science, technology,

engineering and maths. Only 13% are held by women. According to today's

report, short-term contracts for those finishing their PhDs lead many

younger women to leave the field, as they lack the job stability they

need to start a family. That's the case with this scientist, who will

be hanging up her lab coat in a few weeks. As I'm 30, it is coming to

the fore, I would like to start a family and have a mortgage. And the

nature of the work is shored contracts and long hours. And I'm

not sure how compatible that is with what I want for my personal life.

Should we worry that there aren't equal number of male and female

scientists, today's report says yes, not only because they can bring

fresh perspectives but because the economy needs more. Anna runs a

network reporting women in science and engineering, she agrees? Aside

from the fact that it is enically a good thing to be giving everybody

equal opportunity, it is really about releasing potential. We know

that the UK economy depends on higher numbers of science and

engineering graduates, we are underusing half our population. But

funding for schemes promoting diversity in the sector have been

cut drastically. The authors of today's report are alling for

diversity training and recruitment and managers, and more long-term

contracts to try to attract more women into stem industries. Joining

me to discuss is the science minister and head of engineering at

Cambridge, and an academic and TV presenter. This is pretty

depressing? It is indefensible, we do need to do better. As the report

said, it is a waste of talent. Do you think you didn't fight your

corner well enough when it came to the funding. It is shocking isn't

it. Improving diversity in stem, this spending was halved in the 2010

Spending Review. UK resource centre for womens science and technology in

2012 had its funding cut. What we have We have put more effort in

achieving diversity through the mainstream provision. Through, for

example, for the first time, saying that ?200 million teaching capital

is going for the universities. When they bid for it they have to show

what they are doing to encourage diversity, particularly women. We

are putting more effort in than ever before. But there is more needs to

be done. As under s or factity? There is also an issue about the

post graduate career structure. There isn't really one? There are

men and women affected by these short-term contracts which, is why

again we have got an ask for better careers advice and support at the

start of people's very search careers than they have received. It

is partly the university's fault for not getting their act together and

attracting women properly? We have put a lot of effort into attracting

women. But still not enough. Undergraduate level in engineering,

that is one of the hardiest areas to actually get our message across. The

country needs engineerses are great jobs in engineering. At

undergraduate level in my department we have about 23% women. Nationally

it is only 14%. Why are you failing to attract women into engineering,

engineering is hugely exciting, you can travel the world with fantastic

contracts, you would think to build bridges it may take three years to

build, all that kind of stuff is fulfilling. I don't know, quite

often young girls in school don't know what exciting careers there are

in engineering. Or the breadth that engineering covers. I don't think we

do a good job of making that communication in this country. What

do you think? I think Anne is exactly right, some of it is about

good careers advice in school, some of it is breaking down gender

stereotypes, it is very clear, we know girls are capable of doing

these subjects but they are not doing them through to A-levels. Only

one in five at A-level physics is fee Tiel. Is there a bias in the

culture? It starts very early. One of the recommendations in the report

is we need to tackle the gender stereotypes extremely early, going

back to primary school. Absolutely, outreach, we start with the primary

school kids and get them in and do something exciting, build solar

cars. How can you change the culture? Would there have to be a

radical change of primary school, not only in the contracts but in the

general career prosession. I think there is one specific point, it is

the GCSE to A-level. Only water of the girls who get an A* in GCSE

physics go on to A-level physics. That is a tendency to switch to

medicine as an aspiration and drop the physics and go down the life

sciences. We need to have a wider range of disciplines. Why don't

they? One of the things that we find is that it is actually not enough to

get the seven and eight-year-olds enthused about engineering, it is

good to get parents in as well. When we have outreach activities, if we

have one or both of the parents and a couple of kids building something,

they all get to share the excitement and realise what the width of

engineering is about. This isn't simply about redressing all the

gender problems, it is about addressing the issue of having

enough physicists and chemists and the lot. It was very much retention

and we are seeing women dropping out of acedemia, and very few becoming

professors. Going back to the funding cuts, UK RC the resource

centre for women in Skypes was one of the few areas where there were

resources to look after women in their careerses and help them to

progress and retain women. That was identified in the report as being is

something that quite a few bodies didn't know. Alice is saying the

resource centre is hugely successful? When I see what we are

doing with our stem ambassadors and setting conditions for the receipt

of capital funding in way it never happened before. I think we are

across the main treatment of rescreamed and years advice, trying

to offer more encouragement. What about the portrayal of science in

the media, do you think there is enough done in popular science

programme, dramatic portrayals as women as scientists. The BBC does

very well. You would have to say that. We have many women who are

good and strong role models. Going back, the girls choosing to A-level

of physics will look in the skills whether or not there are girls. We

know in half of comprehensive schools there are no girls studying

A-level physics. Putting more on television? In other areas? Think it

is really important there are role models, that is another thing that

came out of the report as well. It is incredibly important for women to

be able to look ahead to what they are going to study and careers and

see there are women already. There it is very difficult because at the

moment only 17% of science professors are women. That is true,

when you go to a science festival, there is a big one next month, you

will see large numbers of school chirp, and it is probably more girls

than boys going on. They identified the role models and the STEM

ambassadors. All science fair ambassadors should be women? Half of

them are, given the environment we are operating in is a great

achievement and we will do more. The other problem is careers, we have

tried to shoe horn people. There was no recognition for maternity, we

have changed that. Thank you very much. The front pages now:

That's it for tonight, I'm back tomorrow. We will leave you with the

new smartphone video game keeping the world. Flappy Bird, incredibly

addictive and insanely difficult to play for more than five seconds

apparently. A wet night where the rain isn't

needed it should get out of the way fairly smartly I think tomorrow.

Pretty quiet across much of Scotland and Northern Ireland. With

temperatures dipping low enough perhaps for a touch of ice