:00:09. > :00:11.Tonight, mutiny in the air, as Liberal Democrat activists try to
:00:11. > :00:15.wreck the uneasy truce over changes to the National Health Service.
:00:15. > :00:17.Could a small number of those in the minority coalition party really
:00:17. > :00:24.be about to kill off the Government's flagship health
:00:24. > :00:29.reforms. Any hope David Cameron and the
:00:29. > :00:34.Government might have of putting to bed the NHS bill, might be derailed
:00:34. > :00:41.by the Liberal Democrats at their party conference. A year on from
:00:41. > :00:45.the tsunami in Japan, what future does nuclear power now have. After
:00:45. > :00:49.Fukushima, Governments around the world have been re-thinking their
:00:49. > :00:53.nuclear programmes, as the safety and financial risks of nuclear
:00:53. > :00:55.power have multiplied. We debate whether the real danger to
:00:55. > :00:59.Britain's nuclear programme is not safety, but money.
:00:59. > :01:04.And, more pressure on the Government's flagship welfare-to-
:01:04. > :01:14.work programme, as fresh claims of fraud emerge at the troubled
:01:14. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:18.private provider, A4e. Nick Clegg has asked his party to
:01:18. > :01:22.tear off the rear view mirror and look straight ahead, putting its
:01:22. > :01:26.concerns about the Government's health reforms behind them. But are
:01:26. > :01:30.his mutinous troops listening. There have been a series of
:01:30. > :01:33.concessions for Lib Dem activists, but many still fear the NHS may end
:01:33. > :01:36.up worse than it is now. They are preparing to vote against the
:01:36. > :01:39.leadership again this weekend at the spring conference in Gateshead,
:01:39. > :01:42.with what could be serious consequences for the future of the
:01:42. > :01:51.coalition. Our political editor has been hearing from the grass roots,
:01:51. > :01:54.and the party leader. Right now they are still scrabling
:01:54. > :01:58.around trying to figure out exactly what they will be voting on, it
:01:58. > :02:02.comes out tomorrow morning. What is interesting is the leadership and
:02:02. > :02:06.Clegg's aides are saying, if you think about the debates about
:02:06. > :02:09.tuition fees a year ago, they were teething pain in the whole maturity
:02:09. > :02:14.analogy, this is just growing up, this is the cold reality of
:02:14. > :02:17.Government. It is up to the activists to get with it. What
:02:17. > :02:22.about this one is particularly interesting, is normally when we go
:02:22. > :02:24.to things like spring conference, it is just political journalists or
:02:24. > :02:28.Lib Dems themselves interested. With this particular one you have
:02:28. > :02:38.the Prime Minister in the number of those who want regular updates. The
:02:38. > :02:42.
:02:42. > :02:46.guy he's depending on is Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.
:02:46. > :02:50.Nick Clegg arrives, one hand in his pocket, the trade mark pose that
:02:50. > :02:53.became famous in the TV debates of nearly two years ago. He's in
:02:53. > :02:58.Newcastle, where his party might vote to kill the Government's NHS
:02:58. > :03:03.bill. Signs are they will be ignored, and Lib Dem democracy will
:03:03. > :03:06.become a bankrupt institution. The inauspiciously named hall doesn't
:03:06. > :03:10.help. Here in the queue they are still
:03:10. > :03:13.stocking up on party merchandise, though they are not exactly cock-a-
:03:13. > :03:17.hoop. Fast forward to Sunday evening, imagine you lot have voted
:03:17. > :03:22.it down, what does the leadership have to do at that point? They have
:03:22. > :03:26.to kill the bill. If Clegg doesn't reflect what you feel, how does
:03:26. > :03:31.that make you feel about him? we have a problem in the party,
:03:31. > :03:35.haven't we. What is conference about this spring for you? I think
:03:35. > :03:39.about the way the party is building back from the problems it had a
:03:39. > :03:43.year ago. It is all coming back together and bubbling, people are
:03:43. > :03:47.enjoying it. You are right, it is a jolly atmosphere, but you are at 11
:03:47. > :03:51.points in the polls? That is a lot better than last year isn't it.
:03:51. > :03:54.What was it last year? Probably six or seven. The Business Secretary,
:03:54. > :03:58.Vince Cable, clearly thinks these people should be listened to.
:03:58. > :04:02.think we have come here, have a good old debate, listen to what the
:04:02. > :04:06.members say and act accordingly. You think it is possible you will
:04:06. > :04:10.reflect a no vote? I'm not counting numbers. In any event the NHS is
:04:10. > :04:15.not the area of Government I focus on. Clearly it concerns all of us.
:04:15. > :04:18.The Lib Dems are famously the most democratic of the three parties.
:04:18. > :04:23.Last spring it was at this conference that an uprising by the
:04:23. > :04:25.membership put a temporary halt to the NHS bill, an uprising so
:04:25. > :04:29.effective it surprised mean themselves. Now they are coming
:04:29. > :04:32.back for more. One of their key rebels, Baroness Williams is
:04:32. > :04:35.expected to back the leadership, enough is enough, she's expected to
:04:36. > :04:39.say. I have only been here half an hour,
:04:39. > :04:42.it is clear there is one question, where is Shirley? The Government
:04:42. > :04:45.and Lib Dem leadership need Baroness Williams to come out and
:04:45. > :04:50.defend the very unpopular bill. Right now, behind the scenes, it is
:04:50. > :04:53.far from certain she's prepared to do that. Most prime ministers,
:04:53. > :04:58.during Lib Dem Spring Conferences of years gone by, could afford a
:04:58. > :05:01.bit of downtime, but David Cameron will be getting updates. I'm told
:05:01. > :05:04.the Deputy Prime Minister has promised there will be no more
:05:04. > :05:09.changes, whatever his party decides. Stories are still not certain he
:05:09. > :05:13.means it. They think a vote here could yet influence the legislation.
:05:13. > :05:17.Actually, even some of the leading members are downbeat about what the
:05:17. > :05:21.effect of a no vote would have. David we get to Sunday lunchtime,
:05:21. > :05:25.you guys have voted the bill down what do you expect Nick Clegg to
:05:25. > :05:29.do? I expect him to make a speech saying, in the coalition we have
:05:29. > :05:33.two parties, with different views, and the Liberal Democrats have said
:05:33. > :05:36.they don't like the bill, so if it gets passed after that it is a
:05:36. > :05:40.Conservative bill not a Liberal Democrat bill. That is a Council of
:05:40. > :05:44.Despair, you go into the next election with a piece of policy you
:05:44. > :05:48.don't support? In which case we can campaign saying we were always
:05:48. > :05:52.against it, and if you don't like it, vote for us in good conscience.
:05:52. > :05:56.That is a good point. We asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he's so
:05:56. > :05:58.pleased by this next bill he will fight the next election on it?
:05:58. > :06:01.were given clear marching instructions by our party
:06:01. > :06:05.conference in Sheffield some time ago, 13 points where we needed to
:06:05. > :06:08.change the bill. We changed the bill almost exactly to the letter
:06:08. > :06:12.and spirit of those 13 point, that's why I think it is important,
:06:12. > :06:16.as a democratic party, that when we say we want to change it that way,
:06:16. > :06:20.we then succeed in changing it that way, in a progressive direction, we
:06:20. > :06:23.don't then change the goal posts again. Do you want all of your
:06:24. > :06:28.members to be campaigning on it in May, at the elections and the next
:06:28. > :06:31.election in 2015? I don't think there is any such thing as a
:06:31. > :06:36.campaign for a bill. You have to embrace it and say we are proud of
:06:36. > :06:40.what we do? What we have to be proud of is an NHS that delivers
:06:40. > :06:44.better healthcare. It is not at all-clear that Nick Clegg will let
:06:44. > :06:48.his people brag about the bill in the next general election. In the
:06:48. > :06:53.hall he barely mentioned it. This is what the Tories really fear, in
:06:53. > :06:58.2015 you have an NHS playing big and bad, waiting lists up and
:06:58. > :07:05.treatment down, and the Tories the only ones defending it. You get the
:07:05. > :07:10.feel those Lib Dem members spending their weekend in Gateshead will see
:07:10. > :07:14.fear and anger, but it is anger about being in Government, rather
:07:14. > :07:17.than fear of opposition, for now they think that is a good thing.
:07:17. > :07:22.Joining me from inside the conference centre is the vice chair
:07:22. > :07:30.of the party's federal committee. Shiriley Williams is now apparently
:07:30. > :07:35.reconciled to the bill, Mo Farah says you should take it as -- Tim
:07:35. > :07:40.Faran says you should take it as inevitable. This bill will go
:07:40. > :07:43.through, won't it? I hope not, I was one of the people who sponsored
:07:44. > :07:48.the amendment exactly a year ago. Who said this bill in its then form
:07:48. > :07:52.would be bad for the NHS. Looking inside the politics, let's think
:07:52. > :07:55.about the NHS for a number of reasons. Although the bill has been
:07:55. > :08:00.improved, about half of the things called for have been delivered, it
:08:00. > :08:04.hasn't won over the key people, not the politicians, not even the
:08:04. > :08:07.unions, I'm talking about here, but the royal colleges. They are not
:08:07. > :08:13.interested in the raw politics of this, they are interested in what
:08:13. > :08:17.it means for the NHS. If you can't persuade professional bodies about
:08:17. > :08:21.this bill. We can express our view, and that will empower Nick Clegg to
:08:21. > :08:24.say he did his best, he tried to sell it to the party, it is simply
:08:25. > :08:30.not possible. And I think, Dave, we will have to stick to the coalition
:08:30. > :08:34.agreement. This bill is not, unlike the tuition fee issue, part of the
:08:34. > :08:37.coalition agreement. It is not part of the deficit reduction package,
:08:37. > :08:41.it is an extra coming from Andrew Lansley, and it is not wanted. It
:08:41. > :08:49.is not wanted by the health service, and it is not popular among Liberal
:08:49. > :08:55.Democrats, and even many Conservatives. If your leader does
:08:56. > :09:00.that, despite assurances, he will look weak and untrustworthy as
:09:00. > :09:02.Deputy Prime Minister? It is not a question of trust. It is if you are
:09:03. > :09:06.David Cameron? David Cameron may be frustrated that he can't get the
:09:06. > :09:09.Government to deliver something that goes well beyond the coalition
:09:09. > :09:14.agreement, but I think it is important that the Government, both
:09:14. > :09:18.parties in the Government, are reminded that each party has agreed
:09:18. > :09:25.the coalition agreement, and no further, unless it is by mutual
:09:25. > :09:29.agreement. They have tried this bill, and it has been a failure. It
:09:29. > :09:32.is bad for the health service, they haven't been able to persuade any
:09:32. > :09:36.significant independent group of its virtues, I think even the
:09:36. > :09:41.Conservatives know this is not just bad for the health service, but it
:09:41. > :09:46.is bad for the Conservatives. want it scrapped? Why create this
:09:46. > :09:51.milt kal millstone. There is no question of -- Political millstone.
:09:51. > :09:55.There is no question of it being scrapped, but you thu it is bad for
:09:55. > :09:59.the country, bad for the health and bad for the Conservatives and your
:09:59. > :10:01.party? Yes, the motion potentially put on the order paper of this
:10:01. > :10:05.conference says despite what Shiriley Williams and others have
:10:05. > :10:09.done in the Lords, to get a number of changes, they are simply not
:10:09. > :10:12.sufficient, and even if they were sufficient, you cannot impose this
:10:12. > :10:16.sort of change on the health service without a mandate. If you
:10:16. > :10:20.don't have the support of the staff and the professionals, and the
:10:20. > :10:26.professionals have said this is a bad bill, I agree with them,
:10:26. > :10:31.despite the changes, it is still a bad bill, I think it is political
:10:31. > :10:33.foolhardyness, as well as NHS vandalism, to continue with even an
:10:33. > :10:41.improved bill, which is what we have before the houses of
:10:41. > :10:45.parliament at the moment. This weekend the people of Japan will
:10:45. > :10:49.remember the earthquake and tsunami which devastated coastal reason
:10:49. > :10:54.regions of their country exactly a year ago. All around the world
:10:54. > :10:56.others are rembering too, for different reasons, the damage to
:10:56. > :11:00.the Fukushima nuclear plant helped convince Germany's Government,
:11:00. > :11:03.among others, that a new generation of nuclear power isn't right for
:11:03. > :11:07.them. Britain paused for a moment and decided to press ahead, in co-
:11:07. > :11:10.operation with France. In a moment we will hear about the scientific
:11:10. > :11:20.fears over nuclear power, here we have Paul Mason with a different
:11:20. > :11:26.
:11:26. > :11:31.Earthquake, tsunami, generator failure, and meltdown. The nuclear
:11:31. > :11:37.disaster at Fukushima, has left us with indelible image, and in Japan
:11:37. > :11:42.itself, a massive psychological and political change. One year on it
:11:42. > :11:52.has become clear that Fukushima may also change the course of energy
:11:52. > :11:52.
:11:52. > :11:57.policy around the world, including here. The cost has been huge, TEPCO,
:11:57. > :12:01.the company had a runs it, posted a �5 billion loss this year. It
:12:01. > :12:07.expects the Japanese Government to provide a �7 billion bailout to
:12:07. > :12:14.stay afloat. The company is being sued for �42 billion in damages.
:12:14. > :12:19.Meanwhile, 52 out of Japan's 54 reactors remain shut down. The cost
:12:19. > :12:23.of importing energy has created a record trade deficit. As Japan's
:12:23. > :12:27.economy minister last night said, the company is preparing for a zero
:12:27. > :12:30.nuclear energy summer. TRANSLATION: As for how many
:12:30. > :12:34.reactors will be operational this summer, we are currently he can
:12:34. > :12:38.ching their safety now. The first of those -- checking their safety
:12:38. > :12:42.now. The first of those will be ready at the end of March, it is
:12:42. > :12:47.impossible to say if it will be zero reactors, one or two, or
:12:47. > :12:51.perhaps even more. Fukushima set off a chain reaction
:12:51. > :12:55.in energy policy across the world. Germany decided to quit nuclear
:12:55. > :12:59.within ten years, in other countries the construction of new
:12:59. > :13:06.nuclear power stations has slowed. That's now impacting on Britain's
:13:06. > :13:10.decision to build a whole new wave of nuclear power stations here.
:13:10. > :13:14.The UK is committed to build a whole new wave of nuclear power
:13:14. > :13:18.stations. EDF, the French Government-owned company, stands
:13:18. > :13:23.ready to build four reactors. But the project is reliant on how the
:13:23. > :13:28.Government sets the future price of nuclear generated electricity. EDF
:13:28. > :13:34.is laifg trouble building the new- style -- having trouble building
:13:34. > :13:38.the new-style reactors in France. Some say Fukushima has changed the
:13:38. > :13:43.economics. What it really does is it gets everybody to focus on who
:13:43. > :13:48.will carry the risks involved in a new nuclear power station, and
:13:48. > :13:50.basically what is now intended would transfer all of the risk from
:13:50. > :13:58.essentially the French Government to the British home owners and
:13:58. > :14:00.British businesses. Only something with the backing of Government
:14:00. > :14:04.would be able to finance new nuclear power stations. In order
:14:04. > :14:09.for the British Government to get the French Government to do it, it
:14:09. > :14:14.will basic clo have to place an unacceptable -- basically have to
:14:14. > :14:19.place an unacceptable burden on British home owners and users, that
:14:19. > :14:24.what the reform is intended to do. At Greenpeace HQ they have had a
:14:24. > :14:30.hard time holding the anti-nuclear line. Some have come to accept
:14:30. > :14:38.nuclear as a stop gas to avoid more gas power on-line.
:14:38. > :14:42.But Fukushima has strengthened the anti-nuclear argument.
:14:42. > :14:47.North to deliver new nuclear the taxpayer has to subsidise nuclear
:14:47. > :14:55.to massive extent. The current liability if there were an accident
:14:55. > :14:59.like Fukushima is �1 billion. Consider EDF has a turnover of �63
:14:59. > :15:03.euros after year, and compensating with one billion could walk away
:15:03. > :15:08.and the taxpayer picks up the bill in the event of an accident like
:15:09. > :15:13.that. That is a massive bulk to allow the nuclear stations to
:15:13. > :15:16.operate, if commercial people were ensuring it, it couldn't happen.
:15:16. > :15:21.John Hutton, as Business Secretary, set the new nuclear deal in motion.
:15:21. > :15:23.Now, as Lord Hutton, he's the chairman of the nuclear industry
:15:23. > :15:27.association. I'm absolutely confident that in the right
:15:27. > :15:30.conditions, with the right reforms to our electricity market, that are
:15:30. > :15:33.being discussed at the moment, we can make a very dig and cost
:15:33. > :15:37.effective contribution to decarbonising the electricity
:15:37. > :15:41.generating system here in the UK. We really have to do this. At the
:15:41. > :15:45.end of the day, if it is not going to be nuclear, what will it be? It
:15:45. > :15:48.will be fossil fuels and carbon being burnt. We have a real problem
:15:48. > :15:51.down that path. I believe nuclear has to be part of the mix. In the
:15:51. > :15:57.UK at the moment there is still very strong support for nuke clear
:15:57. > :16:02.playing that role. Here is the basic problem n the
:16:02. > :16:06.countries heavily committed to nuclear, France, China or Russia,
:16:06. > :16:10.the engeep industry tends to be state-owned or state-directed.
:16:10. > :16:16.Britain's new nuclear programme is relying on the market. As we are
:16:16. > :16:22.finding the market is global and unpregibgtable. While politicians
:16:22. > :16:30.are committed -- unpredictable. While politicians are committed to
:16:30. > :16:34.low carbon, the Fukushima effect may not be over yet.
:16:34. > :16:39.How do you think the accident at Fukushima has really changed
:16:39. > :16:42.nuclear? And the way nuclear is seen around the world? I think
:16:42. > :16:45.those dramatic TV pictures of the explosions at Fukushima really
:16:45. > :16:51.changed the whole of the risk landscape for nuclear power. Not
:16:51. > :16:54.skwhrus the safety risks, but the - - just the safety risks but the
:16:54. > :17:00.financial risks. The industry would say we are in a better place now
:17:00. > :17:04.before Fukushima. We have had these on going stress tests on reactors,
:17:04. > :17:08.new nuclear power stations are safer, inherent low. They will have
:17:08. > :17:17.to pay greater attention to things like back-up power supplies, and
:17:17. > :17:21.flood risks, the key lessons for Fukushima. It is a complex picture,
:17:22. > :17:26.risk assessment, interestingly, we are now saying even the most
:17:26. > :17:30.experiences experts, the wiser heads, saying what Fukushima showed
:17:30. > :17:35.is low probability, high-risk events can happen. Where those
:17:35. > :17:38.before would have been put outside the design base, power stations
:17:38. > :17:43.wouldn't have been built to cope with those, now they will have to
:17:43. > :17:47.be built to cope with those. That, of course, adds to the bill for
:17:47. > :17:50.people like EDF who want to build the nuclear power stations. That is
:17:50. > :17:56.the scientific risks, what about the political risks, no Government
:17:56. > :18:01.wants the lights to go off? chief executive officer of EDF is
:18:01. > :18:03.fond of saying he's an investor in waiting. He has had to be patient
:18:04. > :18:07.over this. There are still political risks, I know the
:18:08. > :18:12.Government is being warned about the risk, for example, of handing a
:18:12. > :18:17.part of our energy mix, the control over that to the French Government.
:18:17. > :18:21.EDF is a largely French Government- owned company. And at the same time
:18:21. > :18:30.is saying we need to be energy independent, we need to be
:18:30. > :18:34.independent of foreign Governments. I'm joined by the writer who
:18:34. > :18:40.reluctantly came on side with nuclear, and Camilla Berens and
:18:40. > :18:45.Malcolm Grimston. George Monbiot, isn't it a big
:18:45. > :18:49.gamble for you to claim that the benefits on climate change outweigh
:18:49. > :18:52.the risks of another Fukushima, that could be absolutely
:18:52. > :18:58.catastrophic? Let's look how catastrophic Fukushima was. As far
:18:58. > :19:01.as we know no-one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation from
:19:01. > :19:07.Fukushima. The worst nuclear accident which has ever taken place,
:19:07. > :19:11.Chernobyl, according to the UN scientific committee, which
:19:11. > :19:16.examines an overview of the evidence, killed 28 people and will
:19:17. > :19:20.probably kill some tens, or possibly hundreds more. Every week
:19:20. > :19:24.the Chinese coal industry alone kills 42 people in underground
:19:25. > :19:29.accidents. Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result
:19:29. > :19:35.of coal pollution and inhalation. Fukushima, according to the
:19:35. > :19:41.Japanese Government, will cost $257 billion to clean up, one accident
:19:41. > :19:47.in one place. While you are right on the fatality figures, the cost
:19:47. > :19:52.is mind boggling. It is nothing to the cost of climate change, climate
:19:52. > :19:57.change, the real problem we face, outweighs that many times over.
:19:57. > :20:02.Orders of magnitude difference. Therapy tensionly extension costs
:20:02. > :20:06.for human -- existential costs for humanty. They threaten whole
:20:06. > :20:09.populations and areas of the planet, in a way which nuke clear power
:20:10. > :20:15.doesn't do in anything like the same scale.
:20:15. > :20:21.Camilla Berens, I take it you agree broadly what with he has to say
:20:21. > :20:25.about climate change, why not on nuclear? Essentially I think George
:20:25. > :20:29.as hand wringing is getting tiresome. The elephant in the room
:20:29. > :20:34.is do we have an alternative to nuclear, the honest answer is yes,
:20:34. > :20:38.we do. The premise is we have the UK and Germany. Two countries that
:20:38. > :20:47.have Governments with very similar political outlooks, but are polls
:20:47. > :20:50.apart, when it comes to their outlook on energy. We have in the
:20:50. > :20:56.UK...You Say alternatives what is that? The Government is telling us
:20:56. > :21:03.in the UK we need to combat climate change, and we need an energy mix
:21:04. > :21:09.with nuclear involved in it. Nuclear is an industry that has a
:21:09. > :21:12.toxic by-product, it has never been economically viable without massive
:21:12. > :21:16.subsidies. What is the alternative? Germany is not only committing to
:21:16. > :21:21.phasing out nuclear power in the next ten years, but it is just
:21:21. > :21:25.producing what they are calling as a blueprint for a sustainable
:21:25. > :21:28.future, which pours massive investment into renewables. It
:21:28. > :21:33.really focuses on a framework for energy reduction, which our
:21:33. > :21:37.Government is paying lip service to but isn't actually acting on. They
:21:37. > :21:45.are using a technology called combined heat and power. Those
:21:45. > :21:48.things together will create a situation where They will be on
:21:49. > :21:52.target with the carbon reduction commitments, and they won't have
:21:52. > :21:55.the legacy of toxic waste which nobody knows what to do with, and
:21:55. > :21:58.the shadow of another Fukushima hanging over our heads. The German
:21:58. > :22:02.Government is one of many Governments re-thinking this. They
:22:02. > :22:05.are in a very similar position to us, why are they wrong and we are
:22:06. > :22:11.right? Germany has plans on the stable for 25 new coal-fired power
:22:11. > :22:18.stations, most of those plants will not be using black coal, which is
:22:18. > :22:23.bad enough, but using brown coal which is worse in greenhouse
:22:23. > :22:26.emissions. There is no evidence to suggest about the coal-fired
:22:26. > :22:32.stations, combined heat and technology, they are subsidising it
:22:32. > :22:38.and putting in tax breaks to drive the technology that is a lot
:22:38. > :22:42.cleaner. Plants of that nature, the difficulty is just because an
:22:42. > :22:48.enthusiast produces a report doesn't mean it is true. The only
:22:48. > :22:52.way Germany can do these things is repealing the law of dynamics.
:22:52. > :22:56.are saying fantasy wind farms and calculation, one of the problems
:22:56. > :23:01.with the nuclear industry from the very start is you lived in fantasy
:23:01. > :23:06.land from the start in the 1950s, telling us we have electricity too
:23:06. > :23:09.cheap to metre? I don't work for the nuclear industry. You did.
:23:10. > :23:14.There was one very foolish comment from the states, you are right with
:23:14. > :23:19.that. The first paper in the UK, published in 1954, said nuclear
:23:19. > :23:23.energy would be 30% more expensive than coal-fired electricity at the
:23:23. > :23:28.time. It is possible to get carried away. The nuclear industry does not
:23:28. > :23:33.have a good record of delivering plants on time or cost. That is the
:23:33. > :23:36.biggest challenge. The public will be subsidising it
:23:36. > :23:40.massively. George Monbiot you used to go along with the economics of
:23:40. > :23:48.that argument, you may have been clear on climate change, but the
:23:48. > :23:53.economics are still very, very dodgy? That is the same thing with
:23:53. > :23:57.most of the alternatives we want to develop. They all take their time
:23:57. > :24:01.and if they are rolled out at scale they are expensive. The problem is
:24:01. > :24:07.if we shut down our nuke clear programme, and other countries
:24:07. > :24:10.should down their nuclear programmes, renewables have to fill
:24:10. > :24:14.two gaps, replacing fossil fuels, which everyone wants to see
:24:14. > :24:18.happening, they also have to replace nuclear power. It is hard
:24:18. > :24:24.enough to get enough renewables on the table, quickly enough, to
:24:24. > :24:34.replace fossil fuels, in order to prevent runwayway climate change
:24:34. > :24:34.
:24:34. > :24:39.taking place. With half the carbon foot frint.
:24:39. > :24:46.Half the carbon footprint of fossil fuels is still twice or three-times
:24:46. > :24:50.as much as we, sorry, just let me finish. It is still twice or three-
:24:50. > :24:57.times or more as much carbon dioxide as we should be producing
:24:57. > :25:02.coming in under two degrees of Warming. Let's look at the time
:25:02. > :25:07.scale, you can't build a nuclear power station overnight. Nothing
:25:07. > :25:11.can be done overnight. The two EDF reactors are way over schedule and
:25:11. > :25:15.budget. It will be ten years before we have anything up and running.
:25:15. > :25:19.They are not a proven technology, they are not tried and tested, we
:25:19. > :25:23.don't know if they will work efficiently once they are running.
:25:23. > :25:30.Once you start it you can bring nuclear plant on very quickly. Just
:25:30. > :25:34.for one moment if I could. In the mid-1980s we were bringing
:25:34. > :25:38.on 40 plants a year, that was with a technology much more resource
:25:38. > :25:42.intensive than today's stations. To take wind, we have had a string of
:25:42. > :25:46.reports from places like Denmark, Scotland, Ireland and Colorado,
:25:47. > :25:54.because of the inefficiency you introduce into the coal plants
:25:54. > :25:57.cranking them up and down, it means the amount of carbon dioxide
:25:57. > :26:02.improves that, the wind decreasing it rather than increasing it.
:26:02. > :26:08.you no worries about it being French technology. We have the
:26:09. > :26:14.choices between Russian gas, Saudi oil or French technology on this?
:26:14. > :26:20.The last problem we had with the nuclear design, you say French
:26:20. > :26:24.technology, but they are built in skhien that at the moment.
:26:24. > :26:28.-- China at the moment. Not under free market conditions? At the
:26:28. > :26:34.moment, with the exception of insurance for a big accident,
:26:34. > :26:38.nuclear energy is the only one not subsidised. The fossil fuels are
:26:38. > :26:44.massively subsidised. I will have to counter that. That is an
:26:44. > :26:50.outrageous statement. It is so self-evident it is being subsidised.
:26:50. > :26:56.Scottish Power threatened their subsidy would be cut from 200% to
:26:56. > :26:59.195% they said they wouldn't build them. It is absurd to say we can
:26:59. > :27:07.deal with climate change by technologies like combined heat and
:27:07. > :27:11.power, still burning fossil fuels, still urbing us. -- still pushing
:27:11. > :27:17.us beyond two degrees, which is this crucial point, two degrees.
:27:17. > :27:20.Check our facts. If Germany can do it, why can't we. They will push us
:27:20. > :27:23.beyond two degrees by getting out of nuke clear and into combined
:27:23. > :27:27.heat and power. There have been more developments
:27:27. > :27:31.tonight on the Government's controversial welfare-to-work
:27:31. > :27:37.programme partner, A4e, currently under investigation. Our economics
:27:37. > :27:41.editor, Paul Mason is here. What is happening? A4e is a company that
:27:41. > :27:47.get by the Government to put -- gets paid by the Government to take
:27:47. > :27:51.people off benefits and on to work. Two weeks ago four employees at A4e
:27:51. > :27:56.were arrested on suspicion of fraud. Now the company launched an
:27:56. > :28:00.internal inquiry, Mrs Harrisson stepped down as families' champion
:28:00. > :28:05.and the company boss. Today the department for Work and Pensions
:28:05. > :28:08.says there is a new allegation of attempted fraud at A4e. It is
:28:08. > :28:13.launching an audit of all the commercial relationships with A4e,
:28:13. > :28:20.saying if we find evidence of systemic fraud in the contracts,
:28:20. > :28:23.with A4e, we will not hesitate to immediately terminate a commercial
:28:23. > :28:28.relationship. When you read carefully what civil servants write,
:28:28. > :28:31.it is always interesting, an audit of all our commercial relationships
:28:31. > :28:37.with A4e is not just an investigation into A4e. It must
:28:37. > :28:42.answer the question why so many DWP contracts have been given to this
:28:42. > :28:48.company, accused of fraud, support addically, and with no outcome,
:28:48. > :28:51.before. Tonight the company has appointed Sir Robin Young, a high-
:28:51. > :28:55.profile civil servant, he is threatening a new broom to it all.
:28:55. > :28:59.He has been a non-executive director of that company for five
:28:59. > :29:03.years. This is bad news for the Government, simplest terms? There
:29:03. > :29:08.is the problem of the serial appointment of people who then get
:29:08. > :29:12.into reputational trouble by David Cameron. Tonight two McDonalds
:29:12. > :29:16.branches were closed down by a small number of protesters. At the
:29:16. > :29:20.other end of the welfare-to-work, the programme of getting people off
:29:20. > :29:25.benefits, on the issue of people, the enforcement, the coercive
:29:25. > :29:29.aspect of it. From both ends, this reputational and functionality end,
:29:29. > :29:34.and the protest end, the thing is under attack.
:29:34. > :29:40.Before we go, here is Kirsty with details of tonight's Review Show.
:29:40. > :29:50.We will be romping through Bel Ami as Robert Pattinson sinks his teeth
:29:50. > :29:50.