30/08/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, an immigration crackdown on British universities over

possibly bogus students. London Metropolitan's mishandling of the

rules, means more than 2,000 non-EU students could be thrown out of the

country in two months. Is this measure a proportionate Government

response, or an attack on one of Britain's biggest export industries.

There is danger by choosing a single target of overall net

migration, the Government has chosen a target they will never hit,

and in trying to hit it they will do a lot of damage to the economy

and the university sector. We will discuss with educationalists, and

business alum nigh. The Mark of Caisn massacre, after South African

security forces shot dead 34 striking miners, the authorities

have brought charges, but against the miners themselves. Coming to

the skies and studios near you, drones of all shapes and sizes,

like this little monster, what are they looking at and why? With a

huge increase in the amount of private companies, and institutions,

able to use drones over our heads, who is going to stop people from

watching us on our own property, and even in our own homes. There is

no doubt that getting tough on illegal immigrants, including bogus

students, is a very popular move for any British Government in

recent years. But is revoking the license of the Metropolitan

University to have foreign students the right way to proceed.

Universities should check all classes and make sure all students

have the right to be here in the first place, but with 2,000

students facing a ticket home, is this the right response. And how do

we encourage foreign students to come here and pay university fees.

The English language is imbecile. Why do you say that? Because, all

the people who say they speak English, they speak with accents so

different. There was a time, many decades ago, when we thought

teaching foreigners the vagaries of English, could only be a good thing.

But in multiethnic London, 80 years on, we are not always so sure.

London Metropolitan University, which attract as high number of

students from abroad, has been told it can no longer accept them. The

2,500 already here will be deported, unless another college will take

them on. It is very difficult, because I'm to submit my thesis

tomorrow. Only to be told that the license has been revoked, and that

I have to leave the country within 60 days. That is very unfortunate.

Today, students were protesting in Downing Street at the Government's

decision to punish their university. After the UK Border Agency found

many foreign students there weren't turning up to lectures, couldn't

speak enough English, or didn't have permission to stay in Britain.

But legitimate students will be affected too. After spending

thousands of pounds with this university and he they came all the

way from their home countries, their family had dreams, they had

dreams, their friends there had dreams for these students, so

everything is going in vain now. London Metropolitan, may be the

first university to be tarted in this way, but the Government is

sending out a clear warning to others. Rooting out bogus students

helps reduce the number of foreigners studying in the UK. And

that, for the Government, is one of the best ways of bringing down

overall immigration, one of its key commitments. Of the 566,000 people

estimated to have migrated to the UK in the year to December 2011,

about 2323,000, or 41% came to -- 2 32,000, or 41%, came to study. The

number of non-EU visas has increased dramatically. Now, in the

last year, there has been a big drop of 21% in the number of

student visas granted. But will that really help the Government

achieve its aims? Overseas students are the biggest single category of

immigration. But they are also very different from other types, they

are much less likely to stay here. If you ask people what they really

understand by immigration, a student who comes here for a year

or two and then goes home isn't what they are worried about. There

is a real danger by choosing a single target of overall net

migration, which includes students as well as people who come here to

work and family and everything else, the Government has ended up

choosing a tart they will never hit, and in trying to hit it they will

do a lot of damage to the economy and the university sector.

official figures show that 20% of students do stay on illegally,

changing their status by marrying, or finding work. Students form by

far the largest proportion of those who stay on here for long-term

migration in one form or another. There is something like half a

million, including student visitors, who come here each year. If 20% of

those stay on beyond five years, that makes a lot of people. We also

know that there are those who stay on illegally. So it's, without

question, the number of students who become long-term immigrants is

significant, and absolutely right that the Government does something

about it. The Government's now removed the automatic right for

students to stay on and seek work after their courses. But

immigration is falling only very slowly. Net migration in the year

to December 2010, was 25 2,000. Today we learned that figure

dropped to 216,000 the following year. A fall of 36,000. But the

Government still is a long way from achieving its target of a maximum

of 100,000 by 2015. But even if it can succeed, isn't it odd to reduce

overseas student numbers when Britain is also trying to sell the

benefits of our education system. Overseas students contribute

billions of pounds of fees to the university sector at a time when

universities are under pressure, because of the public spending cuts,

which we all know are inevitable. They also spend money in the

communities where they stay. The total estimates of the economic

benefit, not just the fees, but the money they spend, the Government's

own estimates, in 2011, were they contribute well over �10 billion.

Surely that won't be affected by removing bogus students? They admit

the decision they have made today will affect genuine students and

those who aren't genuine, they don't know which. They think it

will be useful to have a symbol of how tough they are being. That is

understandable from a domestic political point of view, that

signal is interpreted differently in the countries where people are

thinking about coming to the UK or another country to study. Here in

North London, certainly, the welcome students once experienced

has run cold. We have our guests here. A former student of

university in London, and creator of Cobra beer.

And my other guests. Were you aware of problems when you were teaching

there? There are always student who is didn't show at all, or who came

infrequently. I was pretty much told by the programme director to

assume that students that didn't show up at all hadn't entered the

country, or there was nothing you could do about students not

attending very much. Often for issues of work. Did you think that

maybe they had entered the country, but weren't attending lessons

because they were bogus students? There didn't seem to be any way of

checking it or any will to check it. The UK Border Agency has increased

the requirements since then. But obviously, London Metropolitan,

hasn't met those requirements. That is why the current situation is as

it is. But I don't think it is just London Metropolitan University, my

experience elsewhere in other London universities was similar.

that note, we will move on, was it your sense that these students,

whether they turned up or not, had paid. In other words, the

university got the money, and was therefore reasonably happy whether

they turned up or not? You only had to pay the first part of it. To be

on the books. In other words, I suppose, what we're hearing there

is, that it is possible to abuse the system, it is possible to come

in. I wonder whether you feel it is kind of unfair for 2,000 students,

many of whom are here, presumably, perfectly legally, and in the

middle of degree courses, to have their whole future wrecked on this?

We have gone beyond the state of it might be possible, we have a

serious problem here. We have two issues, firstly, how the rules

operate against those who are genuine students is unsatisfactory,

and unacceptable. Clearly the Government needs to change that.

The idea that there are people who are participating in courses, who

are progressing their degrees, or tickets already bought to come here

for next year, and going to be refused, is not acceptable. But,

likewise, this university, and maybe, other universities, have got

some answering to. Do the spotlight shouldn't just be what the

Government is up to, it should be up to what the universities are

doing. This university must have done more damage to the position of

British universities seeking overseas students than any other

action you could imagine. We z I should make clear, we did ask the

Government if they would like to attend. Rather like some of your

students, they decided not to bother. Do you think London Met is

toxic and it is a real problem for the whole system. Why would anyone

want to go there from abroad? don't recognise the account that

was given by Linda, and she was decribing a situation which pre-

dated some quite significant changes to the Border Agency rules.

Now the standards are extremely high. Not at London Met, because

they didn't enforce it? I can't comment on the circumstances, we

simply do not know what was going on there. Are you saying there is

no other university in this country, where there may be quite a lot of

bogus students who don't turn up for lectures, and just come here as

immigrants? There is no suggestion of universities taking on bogus

students. At Universities UK, we have made it clear we want to work

with the Government to eliminate any problems in the system. If

there are bogus students, they have to leave. What is the problem

today? We simply don't know the facts as to what was happening in

London Metropolitan Police university, and the circumstances

that -- London Metropolitan, and the circumstances that Linda

outlined pre-dates this issues today. What happened yesterday and

today, is Government's decision has impacted on large numbers of

completely legitimate, genuine international students, that is

what is so distressing. Do you agree with a bit of that, it is

clearly unfair to some of these students? I think Nicola is

wriggling here, I think the universities have a case to answer.

The actions of this university were probably born, out when more

detailed work is done from the sample taken. If something like a

quarter of the students are actually illegals, then there is a

real case to answer, and if I was a student living abroad, thinking

where I would want my children to come, I certainly wouldn't want

them to come to university that is staffed by large nufpls of students

breaking the law to -- numbers of students breaking the law to be

here. I total low agree, if there are students -- totally agree, if

there illegitimate students then that is something we need to do

something about it. What are the universities going to do to put

their house in order? You could have been one of these guys,

couldn't you? You were at London Met? I was legally here. Some of

these are legally here? I was here, I spent a year at what is now

London Metropolitan University, I then graduated in law at Cambridge

University, three generations of my family have been educated in

Britain, my grandmother, my mother, and now me. This is something that

goes along the reputation of this country having the finest higher

education in the world, alongside the United States. We spend a

fraction of what the United States spends on higher education. This

Government is decimating higher education in this country. First

they pulled the funding to the universities. Then they triple the

fees for the domestic student, and now they are hitting the

international students as well. Who make up 10% of your students.

Academics at Oxford and Cambridge, 30% are foreign. Immigration cap

that is are cruel, immigration figure that is includes students.

We all know that students, on the whole, the vast majority, return to

their countries. We don't know that. We know that as an absolute fact.

Well over 80% of the students return to their countries. The

challenge here is the UK Border Agency are the people who don't

know how many illegal immigrants are in this country. That figure

comes from the Home Office survey, what that Home Office survey showed,

we know that 20% do go home. They couldn't account for. 20%? 20%,

they have proof, they do not know, that survey shows, they do not know

what happens to the other 80%. They may all go. They don't know the

number of illegal immigrants. have argued about immigration

figures for years, without getting to the point. The point tonight,

presumably, is somebody like this, an entrepeneur, good for this

country, is being quick kicked out with all the others. It is a waste

the opportunity and for future generations? What a way to do it in

a way, where you have been sending out a signal. I have been the

founding chairman of the UK Business Council, in India they are

saying, Britain doesn't want us. The number of Indians applying to

British universities is plummeting. The perception is becoming a

reality. That is terrible for universities isn't it?

concerned with the very interrelated crossover with labour

market issues. This is students coming only to work, working while

they are here, and post graduate work. These have big effects on the

labour market. This should be considered in the whole thing.

you think the message, mentioned there, is actually going to get

through, that people in India will say, no matter what my father,

grandfather or mother did, I won't go there, I won't risk it? We are

observing that. There are drops in Indian post graduate students

wanting to study science and engineering, those numbers are

going down. We are very concerned about this. If I can pick up on the

point that international students are taking away jobs. There is no

evidence that is actually happening. All the evidence suggests that

international students bring far more to this country, and there has

been a recent study, for example, by Oxford Economics, looking at the

contribution international students have made at the University of

Exeter. They bring far more and create more jobs than they take

away. That is the evidence. Nicola, what we surely want is a

policy where we welcome people who legitimately come to this country

to pursue their studies, and abide by the rules. What we do not want,

surely, is to find ourselves in a position, where we are defending a

university like this, that already has a track record. Under the

labour Government they had to pay back �37 million, because they

claimed for students they didn't actually have. So this is tax-

payers' money, this is part of the family of universities, that is

actually taking our image abroad and behaving like this. That is the

past, over the last three years, under the new Vice Chancellor, they

have made huge steps, and they will now be short of �30 million. I was

Chancellor, I was Chancellor of what is now West London University,

I was board of the governors for five years, and Vice Chancellor for

five years, I know how much our foreign students help with the

funding of the university. There is so many benefits. �8 billion.

not disputing any of that. We have had a university that took tax-

payers' money to the tune of �37 million, by claiming to have

students they didn't have. That is the past history. That is nothing

to do with this debate. We are now into today's evidence, about the

same university has real problems over bogus students This is the

problem about this debate. There is so many confusing arguments brought

into the mix. It is confusing, it is confusing the public, it is

confusing everyone. That is historical, and although I don't

disagree with anything you have just said about the history, it is

completely irrelevant to our discussion today. We want to hear

everybody. Nicola is absolutely right. We are competing in the

world, we are competing with the United States, we are competing

with Canada, we are competing with Australia in specific terms, they

do not, they categorise students under a separate immigration,

temporary immigration. Do you agree with that? Absolutely, if you ask

David Willetts if we should put them in a separate category. Some

nay be staying on the whole or not, but the Government would solve the

problem. Is this a problem caused by setting these targets, do you

think? No, the targets have been set, and they were overwhelmingably

supported by voters of all parties. What we have here -- overwhelmingly

supported by voters of all parties. We have a problem of taking our

image abroad, and parents signing up for that university and children

to come here, and look at how the university behaves. The image now

is Britain doesn't want foreign students, weed need them for the

economy. I think it is a hopeless argument, this. Why not have the EU

India-free trade agreement out in the open. We are trying. Why not

the labour issues out. That is another issue. The only thing India

is asking for labour entry. We will be looking at control of the skies

soon. The Newsnight drone is still keeping an eye out on proceedings.

There it is, in all its glory. Tonight we are finding out how

variations on the drones used to attack hideouts on the Taliban in

Pakistan and Afghanistan are coming to this country, indeed this very

studio. Now, as that demented midge dies a

death over there. Before all, that in the days of apartheid, before

South Africa became a democracy, the doctrine of common purpose,

gave people the means to lock up people it considered to be

troublemakers. Now that very same law is being used to charge the 270

miners part of a Marikana mine demonstration. At which police

killed 34 of their number. Charging the striking miners in connection

with the deaths of men shot by the police, is stirring up a political

storm in South Africa. Set the scene for us, what was all

this about initially? The miners have been on strike since 10 if of

August, looking for a tripping -- August 10th, looking for a tripling

of their wages. This dispute has become increasingly violent. There

was a series of incidents in which ten people were killed, including

two policemen, allegedly by striking miners. Two weeks ago

today, the incident you mentioned, in which 34 striking miners were

killed by the police. They gathered on top of a rock, they were

brandishing called traditional weapons, spheres and macheties,

they came charging down towards the police lines, the police opened

fire. It was very clear what happened. It was captured on film.

Today there are allegations of some of those killed were actually

hunted down by the police and killed in cold blood at very close

range. Given all that and the allegations against the police and

the film evidence, what happened today. It was extraordinary, one

might expect charges against the police. Not yet, because inquiries

are still going on. But today the strike miners, many of the striking

miners were actually charged with the murder of their colleagues.

Under the called "common purpose doctrine". This was an

extraordinary law, which means if you have a gathering, and some of

them are armed, and they are confronting the police, and there

are then fatalities, those within that gathering can actually be

charged with murder, regardless of who caused the killings. This is a

bizarre law that was used a lot during the apartheid era. Often

against the ANC. It is extraordinary it should be used

today. What are the implications of what is quite an extraordinary

moment for the new South Africa? is an extraordinary moment, the

implications are enormous. This is seen as much more than a killing

and mine dispute. The firebrand former leader of the ANC youth

league, has called it madness, I met him last week, he was at the

Police Station in the mine trying to bring charges against the police.

It goes beyond politics. There is increasing concern within the

country as what is seen as a divide between ordinary people, and the

ANC, seen by many as elite, and not delivering after 18 years in power.

The killings have become symptomatic of that dispute.

President Zuma is up for re- election at the ANC conference

later this year, and it's the dispute that is increasingly

bringing in other parties, such as the churches.

Joining us from Johannesburg is the Methodist minister, who has been at

the site and spoken to the families of the miners. What are the

families of the men saying to you today? I haven't met directly with

any of the families. I have, when we went to Marikana, we went to the

actual site of the massacre. Then we met with the community. I spoke

to the community. We then went to the hospital, where there are still

people recovering from their wounds. And then we went to the police

station. In all places we prayed with the people. But, yesterday we

had a memorial service in the church, and I think that, first of

all, there seems to be, in the community, deep anxiety about on

going threats, on going harassment, on going vulnerability after what

happened. And actual that predated the massacre. There is a deep,

profound sense of grief. I mean, I actually think that the whole

country should be mourning. Because this is not just a private matter

that has happened on a mine in some place. It actually affects the

entire reputation of every South African. Do you worry, and do the

people you talked today in the community worry, that one result of

this may be more violence? I have no doubt about that, I think the

imagination of some of the workers in this country has been spark.

Particularly by this incident. It has underscored the huge disparity

that there is between the haves and the have-nots in this country. And

all sorts of allegations around greed and corruption and

overspending, and non-delivery of services. A whole plethora of

issues that now face an emerging democracy. What do you make, and

what do you think other people make of the use of this common purpose

law, which, I know many people thought had been utterly

discredited in the past? I'm not surprised. For me it is a legal

trick. Particularly, in view of the fact, that for the actual killing

of the 34 people at Marikana, there certainly was motive, I have seen

an e-mail, which exposes the policeman that was burnt, and the

policeman hacked to death. I think anybody who sees that footage would

understand the vitriol in the police, around the violation of

their rights. But, and so there is very strong motive for what now is

being described as murder, by the police, of those who were shot.

Most of them in the back, as they were clearly running away from an

assault on them. We mustn't forget that what predated this shooting,

was the firing of teargas and rubber bullets at those who were on

the mountain outcrop. Actually forcing people through the only

aperture that was available, straight into the line of fire. So,

the profound violence we are seeing here, as a kind of show of force,

has left most South Africans stunned that this could happen 18

years into a free South Africa. Thank you.

Now, they might be most familiar to you from science fiction movies, or

perhaps as high-tech weapons in the skies over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Over the next decade expect to see drones coming to the skies near you.

Vast sums are being spent on civilian drone projects, from

police surveillance to amateur photography. In the United States

Congress has told the space regulator to open up America to

drones by 2015, we could follow suit by the end of the decade. Are

we ready for a world where thousands of drones are patrolling

our skies. They are the eyes and ears of the Armed Forces. A decade

ago, less than 5% of US military aircraft were unmanned, now 40%

have no pilot on board. Many think the Typhoon, and the 5-35, will be

the last conventional fighters ever flown by the RAF. But the role of

the drone is now changing. British skies are about to open up to

thousands of civilian drones. Who is watching the drone operators,

how safe is this new technology? Next to the army draining zone on

Salisbury Plain, is a glimpse -- training zone on the Salisbury

Plain, is a glimpse of how drones could be used in the future.

It might not look much like the spy planes in Afghanistan, or Yemen,

but this is one of the first commercial uses of an unmanned

aircraft, in the UK itself. As the cost of sensors and digital

cameras have come down, so new civilian applications are starting

to become possible. These lightweight drones fly by

themselves, using satellite tracking to glide from point to

point. It is going to be taking many thousands of pictures, and

those pictures, we will know the precise location of each one, it is

possible to pull those photographs together. The data is then

analysesed, to find -- analysed, to find out how well crops are going

and if more fertiliser is needed. It is high-tech stuff, and an

industry this country could do with leading. It is a very exportable

technology, in the agriculture domain, you can scaling up for some

of the planes in the big fields you might have in Canada, for example.

If you are looking at other areas of technology, it can be in

construction, filming, environmental monitoring. It is

almost endless the sorts of applications of real benefit, and

not intrusive and not invasive. Endless possibilities, maybe, but a

small, lightweight drones as they get cheaper and more powerful,

serious questions are being asked about surveillance and privacy.

Police forces and the emergency serves have been testing these

small helicopter-style drones for some time now. There was a setback

when police in Liverpool first flew their's illegally, without the

right permission, and then managed to crash the �13,000 device into

the river Mersey. We have seen this document from the Association of

Chief Police Officers, which sets out the precise technical

specifications for these vehicles, the type of camera used. In a

rather strange section of the document, which reads more like a

bad crime novel than a police briefing. It sets out how senior

officers think these devices could be used in the future.

The unmanned aerial vehicle arrives, the area is extremely quiet, and

the only thing move is the PC. Weather conditions are good, cloud

cover is high and light. The launch goes as planned, PC trains the

camera on the rear of the target property, and starts receiving

lividy. As the front door goes in, the suspect appears out of an

upstairs window, he jumps over a number of fences into a nearby

footpath. As the suspect is running, the PC shrbgts a flight mode that

maintain as constant distance behind the suspect. The suspect

emerges into an area of scrubland, and is challenged and arrested by

the dog handling unit. At the moment, anyone can fly a

lightweight drone in the UK. If they can prove to the airspace

regulator, the CAA, that they can do it safely. That has many privacy

campaigners worried. Who is protecting the public's civil

liberties and privacy, with their huge increase in the amount of

private companies and institutions able to use drones over our heads,

who is going to stop people from watching us on our own property,

and even our own homes. The Civil Aviation Authority have made it

very clear, it is not within their remit, they don't have the

authority, or the resources, to monitor what people are doing with

drones. Their remit is solely concerned with safety.

And, with drones costing a fraction of the price of helicopters, the

worry is, the authorities will greatly extend the use of aerial

surveillance. A small drone was used to film clashes last year at a

political rally in Poland. But this wasn't controlled by the police. It

was all filmed by a private company on the demonstrators' side of the

street. It raises new questions about who will be watching who in

the future. The real money, though, will not be in building small

helicopters, but in selling larger, more powerful drones. Government

agencies want them for border security and search and rescue. And

big freight firms, to ship cargo long distances. With this in mind,

Congress has told the US regulator to open up all domestic airspace to

large drones, by 2015. The UK won't be far behind. I don't think that

the public aware about how quickly this is going to be happening. We

are talking in the US that the skies will be open by 2015, in the

UK, in Europe, by 2020. That's going to happen very quickly I

don't think the public is really aware of the changes that will

happen. It is a real failure to have a proper discussion, and

proper debate about this. Very few parliamentarians, for instance, are

talking about this. Here in the UK, there may have been little public

discussion, but quietly, and behind the scenes, a serious amount of

public money is being spent. A consortium of large defence

companies has been given �31 million, to prove drones can safely

sure British skies with commercial jets. One of the largest grants of

its type ever handed out. Another �20 million of tax-payers' money

has been spent turning this old military base, and the airspace

around it, into the largest drone test site in Europe. This is on the

west coast of Wales, home to the British army's new watch keeper

drone programme. The only airport in the UK where companies are

allowed to test that koind of unmand technology. -- kind of

unmanned technology. The spy planes hidden away in the hangers here,

will eventually go to Afghanistan. But this was sold to the town as

more than a military site. It was meant to bring in hundreds of high-

tech jobs, testing the first generation of peaceful civilian

drones. What I object to is the military use of this base. And the

way it was sold to the public, as a civilian exercise. The project has

faced some fierce criticism from local residents. This man made his

feelings clear after a recent public consultation to open up more

airspace to drones. There are safety issues regarding drones,

there are noise issues, but if in exchange to that we have hundreds

of high-tech jobs, I'm sure the local people would support it. And

so would I. Despite all the public money spent,

most of the site here still lays empty, with few civilian customer.

Proof, maybe, that throwing cash they at the -- at the next big

thing, isn't always the way to go in a resomething he. This site is

being used, it is active, and it is delivering services for people who

need it. That will continue in the future. We have the capacity to

accommodate more business, and that will come. This is still an

industry in its infancy, with teething problems to overcome.

A drone crashed next to the runway here three years ago. There were no

juries, but it clearly spooked -- injuries, but it clearly spooked

people living near the site. Opera singer and music teacher, Arian

James lives a mile up the road. Because you can't get rid of the

noise, I can't get rid of the connection between the drone and

its purpose in life. It is a killing machine, it is spying, well

they say this one won't be carrying bombs. But, drones do carry bombs.

I know, I don't know, maybe this one can too. But it has cameras. I

don't know what happens to the film footage, who is watching, what they

do with it? It is a question. The questions raised in west Wales,

privacy, noise, safety, are hurdles the industry itself will need to

overcome. There are clearly some economic benefits to using unmanned

aircraft. But first we will have to accept the idea of drones flying

high above our heads in British skies. Noel Sharkey is Professor of

Robotics, and former presenter of Robot Wars. And Kevin Warwick is

Professor of Cybernetics at Reading University.

Where do you think this will go in a few years? It is an exciting

commercial opportunity now the drones we see at the moment have

big advantages when you look at human-piloted vehicles. They can

stay in the air for 30 hours at a time for example. But more

importantly, perhaps going places that humans can't go. So, I think

we are going to see things, such as at the moment in New Orleans, the

possiblities there for drones to go and inspect and see where there are

problems. Because of the terrible weather, you wouldn't put a plane

up there? It could be dangerous to humans. If a drone crashs in that

scenario, it is not such a political problem. There are no

deaths. I think they are going to get smaller. How small? That is a

good question, how small could they get. How small the technology can

go. It could be the size of a bee or a wasp. Very appropriate, drones

as bees! Presumably they will get cheaper and cheaper to run. Every

home should have one? You can already buy them on Amazon for $220,

you can buy the parrot drone and fly it around your neighbour's

window. It will become very available. Lots of people are using

them now. Real estate agents are using them, there is the drone

journalism lab now. They are really getting everywhere. There is no

regulation for it either. obvious problem people think about

is the privacy problem. You are in your back garden, you are doing

whatever you do in the back garden, and then somebody is filming you or

recording you, or having a look through your bedroom window? That

is the thing I'm most concerned about. You have the trade off

tweent security. There is good uses for drones -- between security.

There is good uses for drones, but you have individuality and autonomy

and finding the line. I have suggested to the police, in a

debate, that we should really look at signing drones out, wait you

sign out a weapon. Or the way you have a phone tap, so you go to see

a magistrate and judge, and get it out, in particular, because what we

find up until now, there is a lot of noise with this. I hope it won't

fly over myed head. I don't trust it. It is heading for you. There

goes the paper review. We tried to do the paper review later?

badly controlled. That strikes me as another problem, if these things

are flying around, that looks great fun, I would love to play around

with it, but it will crash. They do crash and the expensive ones?

13 a year are crashing since 2004. When something is this size it

doesn't matter, but the military weapons systems crash it is a

totally different ball game. This is half way between a serious

object and a toy. Kids could potentially build it and learn

about the technology. That doesn't look like a very sophisticated one.

The police ones are �40,000, they have really extremely light-weight

cameras, very high resolution, and very, very easy to fly. You have

device and you twist your finger on it. There is a privacy question and

civil liberties question. We have already got cameras on every street

corner, just about. Lots of advantages for using them. It is

not just people, you can monitor livestock, for farmers it is very

useful. You can inspect pipelines. That is all sorts of opportunities,

that are problematic, when humans are a problem, they do a short

space of time. That is why we need to sort out the issues of civil

liberties, there is nothing wrong with drones as such, you can use

them for rescue situations, and everything else, we mustn't let the

PR of that distract us from the issues of civil liberties. For the

UK the commercial opportunities are enormous. We have a fantastic

technological base in this area. We have a good industry in this area,

one the world's best. For us in the UK, it is a fantastic commercial

opportunity. Then, what are you both saying about this, you have

laid out the opportunities, but in terms, it should be regulated by

someone. And you were saying sign it out like a police firearm?

is one way of doing it. If I go out for a picnic, the drones aren't

invited. I don't want strangers watching me. I'm not doing anything

wrong. I'm a private person, I don't want to be watched by people

when I don't need to. When this first came up, and five police

departments, Kent and a number of others, were working with BAe

systems and the Home Office, and the Guardian used freedom of

information to get transactions of the meetings. They had been talking

about using it for looking at smuggling across the channel. When

you saw the transactions of the meetings, they were saying things

in the transactions like this will be a good news story, rather than

the Big Brother-type story, then you look at what the Guardian found,

they had a whole list of things, fly posting, anti-social behaviour.

There was a huge list of crimes, so it would be a fishing expedition.

You could put drugs in them, no mules, all kinds of things? It will

be very difficult to regulate them. Because anybody can buy one and fly

one. To regulate the police is the point. I will regulate the

newspapers, droned off the table! Let's have a look at the front

pages. The Guardian and a lot of For an apology, on the 2 3rdma May,

during an item on welfare reform, we broadcast an interview with

Shanene Thorpe, that unfairly created the impression that she was

unemployed and wholly dependant on benefits and living off the state

as a lifestyle choice. She asks us to make sure that she has been in

work-related education since leaving school. Shortly after the

programme we published an apology on the website for the unmerited

embarrassment and distress it may have caused her, we are happy to

make this broadcast apology as well. That's all from Newsnight, we will

watch over you one way or another tomorrow. Good night.

Hello, after a chilly night t will feel like autumn in the morning.

Despite the early sunshine. Already another weather system coming into

Northern Ireland and Scotland, with outbreaks of rain and a freshening

breeze, once again. Let's take a look at things in the afternoon.

Drizzle late in the day in Cumbria. On the other side of the Pennine,

hazy sunshine continuing, it is a dry, bright day in East Anglia and

the south-east, a better day for the Paralympics events, no showers

around too. The sun will be turning hazy. Increasing cloud in south-

west England, maybe a bit of light drizzle here and there to end the

day. A few spots of rain heading into western and northern counties

of Wales late on, for Northern Ireland the rain clears and there

may be late day brightness, the further west you are. For Scotland,

a damp afternoon to the west and north, but the rain taking much of

the day before reaching eastern A bright day across the south, and