29/10/2012 Newsnight


With Jeremy Paxman. Hurricane Sandy hits America in election week. The political damage of child benefit reform. Is 3D printing a new industrial revolution?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's an ill wind, a week to the US election, and a Hurricane strikes


the east coast. Both candidates start talking about the weather.


Could the weather speak back. A force more powerful than the most


powerful man on earth, could reshape the outcome. A race that


has become closer and closer, is suddenly in the hands of something


beyond the control of any man or woman.


The epicentre of the Hurricane dubbed the Frankenstorm, will hit


America, while we're on air. But already, it's causing havoc. We


have a Democrat Democrat and a Republican to second guess the


outcome. A million middle-class families will receive a letter this


month, telling them how much child benefit they will lose. This is a


benefit many MPs think should be preserved. It is a lot of pain and


very little gain. The Treasury thinks they will raise �2.5 billion


ay, but I suspect a lot will be written off. Is the fiscal pain


worth the political gain, we will ask this lot. Is this dull-looking


machine on our set the future of the Industrial Revolution. It will


not just print on paper, but a real 3D pen.


A week tomorrow, a America chooses who is to be the next President.


Safe to say that million of Americans on the east coast,


including the two main candidates, have other things on their mind, in


the form of the benignly named monster, Hurricane Sandy. It is


expected to hit land in the next hour. On this side of the Atlantic,


where the Met Office hyperventilates at mild drizzle,


extreme weather is a form of pornography. In the US it is all


too real. We're in Washington tonight.


Where is this Hurricane tonight, Mark? It is hitting the eastern sea


board of the United States. It is a natural disaster, on an epic scale.


60 million people affected, two million, it is estimated, have


already lost power. Now this lashing I'm getting from the rain


is in Washington DC, winds here are about 40-50 miles per hour at the


moment. They will peak at around 80 later this evening. The real centre


of this, though, the area people are really worried about, is a


couple of hundred miles to the north, New Jersey, New York itself,


reports tonight that power is being cut off in lower Manhatten, the


centre of the financial industry. What is the expected or anticipated


effect of this on the election? wouldn't think that this could


really tip the contest one way or the other, but the two candidates


are so close together, the pollsters are refusing to say who


they think at this stage would win. It is well within the margin of


error, that any small incremental political factor could tip it for


one side or the other. Quite a lot of people tonight are speculating


that this could play very much into President Obama's hands. Allowing


him to take the reins of power, to manage the response to the disaster,


stalling the called Romney surge in its tracks. There are those who


think there are dangers too for the President, even the slightest slip


on his part could give the Romney camp that necessary margin for


victory. It is the kind of speculation that has been building,


along with the storm, all day. This morning the Hallowe'en


Superstorm. An historic force of nature, three storm systems


colliding at once. 50 million people in its path, bracing for


storm surges up to 11-feet high. this country there are plenty of


people make a living finding a drama in a crisis. In the tsunami


of superlatives, Hurricane Sandy will be the worst storm for 100


years, a vortex of winds and water. Even if it doesn't quite live up to


that, lives will almost certainly be lost, and state governors have


been using that grim probability to concentrate minds. There will be


people who die and are killed in this storm, we are ordering, and


urging, all Marylanders to stay off the road for the next 36 hours.


They are very dangerous conditions out there, we ask you not to put


yourselves or your family in jeopardy, and not to put our first


responders in jeopardy by irresponsibly going out on the


roads. Thousands of flights cancelled. Along with the dire


warnings have come panic-buying, and a lock-down of much of the


eastern sea board. The federal Government has shut down, as have


railways, airports and subways. In New Jersey in New York, where sea


level rises of up to 10 feet are being forecast, there could be


widespread flooding. Even next week's elections could be hit. How


does the storm complicate the elections? If the storm had hit a


few days later, it might have affected election day. In America


we are vote ago lot more before election day than we used to,


voting at voting site. In key states there is voting going on


today and tomorrow, some of those days will be disrupted. Election


early voting allows you the flexibility of voting another day.


I'm not sure those people will ultimately stay home. Certainly the


election is being directly affected by the storm over the next few days.


Are these wise precautions or a case of national hysteria, we will


know the answer by this time tomorrow. One thing is clear,


though, from the politics of this situation, both of the men running


for President know that it's far more dangerous for them to


underplay the gravity of this situation, than it is to overstate


So both candidates have cancelled their campaign events. The


President, mindful of the damage that Hurricane Katrina did his


predecessor, seven years ago, is very publicly taking charge of the


relief efforts. Please listen to what your state and local officials


are saying. When they tell you to evacuate, you need to evacuate. Do


not delay, don't pause, don't question the instructions that are


being given, because this is a serious storm, and it could


potentially have fatal consequences if people haven't acted quickly.


it relevant in the election, does it possibly provide a Catriona at


the moment for the President, or is it just not on that sort of level?


As we sit here, we will see. Presidential campaigns are about


enhancing your positives and minimising your negatives.


Campaigns are about driving home your message, and leaving as little


as possible to chance. Now you have a potentially historic storm


dropped into the final stages of an American political campaign.


Katrina is, perhaps, potentially the great risk for the Obama


administration. If you drop a Katrina-like performance into the


latter stages of a political campaign, it is going to have an


effect. It will feed existing perceptions and enhance your


opposition's narrative. Special coverage starts right now.


From ABC News, live in times square. For the Republican challengers, on


the stump today in Ohio, the storm risks checking the momentum built


up recently by their campaign. Today when we get home, put in our


prayers the people in the east coast in the wake of this big storm


that's coming. Let's not forget those fellow Americans of our's.


This evening, the force of the storm is intensifying, and across


the east of this country people await the outcome of the struggle


against the elements and of which of the candidate might turn the


storm to his political advantage. To discuss the political stakes of


this perfect storm we have Robert Reich, the former labour secretary


under Bill Clinton, in the positively Bambi conditions of 28


degrees in California sun. And we have Zosia Mamet former adviser to


George Bush. Start -- Pippa Malmgren, former adviser to gub.


Will this have bir bipartisan results or favour one candidate


over the other? I don't think the storm will have significant


consequences in this election one way or another, to the extent that


it has any consequences at all. It strikes me it is most likely to


improve Obama's chances. Within the nation is in peril, or when a


significant part of the nation is under some sort of danger, the


country, at least in the United States, tends to remember why they


want Government, why they want a strong Government, why leadership


is important, why they respect and need a strong leader in the form of


the President. Whoever is President, therefore, has a natural, almost


inevitable chance to show that kind of leadership. George Bush didn't


obviously win Katrina-hit New Orleans, but many politicians and


Government generally have learned from Katrina, that Barack Obama is


going to, he already has, taken charge. Right, Pippa Malmgren?


respectfully disagree. We are used to storms all the time in the


United States. This is a big one, no question about it. People


wouldn't even remember Katrina had it not been for the levys being


breached in New Orleans and a city coming to so much damage. It is all


the magnitude. People also remember George Bush was said to have been


extremely slow to react there? remember in the United States, it


is not the role of the President of the United States to respond to


this kind of event. The state authorities are the ones who define


the response. We're in the middle of a presidential election? That is


why the danger for President Obama is that he responds in a way that


the public perceives to be strictly for electioneering purposes. He


must be careful not to overplay his hand. The key thing is voter


turnout, that is what mass most for the Democrats, anything that


damages voter turnout is a problem for him. I think the storm will


have passed by the time we get to polling. On one point it is


important to know that the federal Government does have an important


role to play. That is with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


That is the federal agency that co- ordinates, not only the defence


department, Homeland Security, but other branches and agencies of


Government, when it comes to a natural disaster. That is where


Government -- George W Bush let America down. This is where


President Obama can help with his public image, and in practical ways,


to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does


its work. Mitt Romney rgd a few week ago that under -- argued a few


weeks ago that the agency ought to be disbanded and the responsibility


left up to the state. That is an interesting perspective. Most


natural disasters are not limited to one state. This particular


Hurricane, Hurricane Sandy, is affecting six or seven states.


Pippa Malmgren, at the very least, OK, the storm may be over by next


Tuesday, it probably will be, but the most recent memory people will


have of the President is of a man who appeared to be seized of the


importance of the situation and ready to act? I think the bottom


line is that this is not a race against George W Bush, nor is it a


race about this Hurricane. I think this is an easy excuse to move away


from the fundamental facts, which is Romney is pulling ahead in Ohio,


which is state that isn't going to be very affected by this. Possibly,


but in the meantime, Mitt Romney can't get out there and campaign


about unemployment and foreign policy mistakes as he sees them and


the rest? The Midwest isn't as affected by this as the east coast.


The east coast is shut down, they are shutting down highways in


connet kit. The middle of the country is where the vote will be


decided. That is the key to the race. The bottom line is this is


the closest presidential race in modern history, tighter than the


Carter-Regan race. It will be a photo finish, and the risks is if


Obama is lucky enough to win, he may win the Electoral College and


lose the popular vote, which means he won't have a mandate. At best,


for Romney, he can win the popular vote, and the Electoral College. I


think that understanding the true state of play in the race is the


most important thing to your viewers. Robert Reich? We have come


a long way from the storm now? most recent case of elections where


we had a close race was Bush against Gore, I think that pippa is


right, most -- Pippa is right, most Americans don't feel imperiled by


the storm, but they are still reminded by the storm of the


importance of Government. I think it is also important to say, that


we all, here in the United States, and I assume you in Britain, hope


that this storm does not have a devastatingly negative impact on


life, and limb. The politics come secondary, nobody, I don't think


anybody in washing, either Mitt Romney or -- Washington, either


Mitt Romney or Barack Obama are thinking about the election at this


point in time? I have to disagree, think everybody is thinking first


and foremost about the election. The storm just destroys the bunting


up and about in towns and places. The key here is, this is the kind


of race where we could see the vote being so close that observers call


for counts. And I do think you are right to say the Bush-Gore race,


the risk that we have that kind of altercation over a small number of


votes in a specific location, is very high, given how tight this


race is. Thank you very much. Now, if you are lucky enough to


earn more than �50,000, or you live with someone who earns more than


�50,000 a year, and have children, look out for a letter this week. It


will contain glad tidings that the amount of money you can expect the


state to pay you is going to be cut. Your child benefit might even be


cut to nothing. The letter is part of the attempt to cut public


spending, and based on the idea that the better off should


contribute more than the less well off. The official inquiries and


reports detail any number of Government cock-ups. But could


there be a new one looming. One that we could tentatively call


"baby shambles". It is going to be a lot of pain and very little gain.


The Treasury thinks they will raise �2.5 billion a year from this, I


suspect a lot of money will be written off, and it will be a


massive administrative burden in years to come. The first couple of


years it will be very, very difficult to administer. Hopefully


after that it will settle down and people will understand what they


need to do and not do. The changes are in child benefit,


and will affect around 1.2 million families. It could mean that 70% of


them lose all of their child benefit, another 30% will lose part,


the average loss will be something like �1300 a year. It will mean


that roughly half a million people will now have to fill in a self-


assessment tax form when previously they didn't. To be fair, we don't


yet know whether this will turn out to be a babyshamble, but, from


January 7th nexty, George Osborne is trying to deliver on his promise


to withdraw child benefit from the better off. Instead of simply not


paying them the money, he wants them not to claim it. Or rather, in


the official advice from HMRC, but to claim the benefit, but elect not


to take the money. If they do take it, it will be clawed back from the


highest paid member of the household, via the tax system. You


can see why some think this might get rather complicated.


difficulty is, that the mother, typically, claims the child benefit,


and then, the clawback is through the self-assessment tax system. If


you have, for example, a mother staying at home, not working,


claiming child benefit, it is the husband who is working, if he's


earning more than �50,000, he's going to have to do a self-


assessment tax return, because he will have the clawback of that


child been fit. And many have identified other potential problems


with this. Not least many Conservative MPs think that their


party should be in the business of simplifying the tax system, not


adding another layer of complexity. And, they think, it also sends the


wrong message as regards aspiration. David Cameron, quite rightly, made


the case that we have to be on the side of aspiration, and of the


strivers, at his most recent party conference. One of the biggest


problems I have with what is being propose the at the moment, it is


precisely those strivers, people who are aspirational, will get


worst hit from this. I accept this as a central London MP, someone in


my seat earning �50,000 a year isn't in the ranks of the


superwealthy, which isn't like that in other parts of the UK. There is


this big worry that we will end up clobbering a lot of people who are


some of the most hard working people, and most likely Tory voting


aspirational people. That doesn't make too much sense. This is only


the Government's second attempt to get the policy right to be pair.


They started off saying that higher rate taxpayers would be the ones to


lose child benefit, but there were cries about cliff edge issues. Now


the claimants are the better off, it shows how fiendishly difficult


it is to withdraw benefits from anybody, even in the teeth of a


definite reduction programme. I don't expect them to welcome this.


I perfectly understand why people who don't feel wealthy, of course,


may not feel wealthy at all, given all the other costs they face today,


don't like this change. But I would ask them to reflect for a minute


that there are many other people. The vast majority of people in this


country, who are on much lower incomes than them, and who are also


having to make sacrifices. When George Osborne announced this


policy change, way back in 2010, he had had no intention of ever


implementing it. That is why the details were so sketchy. Together,


in the national interest, thank you very much. He wanted to get the


political credit from being prepared to hit the better off, but


would, it is argued, some time around now, say, you know what, the


deficit he reduction is going so well, we don't actually have to


follow through. Cue another round of applause for Mr O. In 2010 we


needed to make statement about universal benefits, a statement


made about being all in this together. There was hope at that


juncture, by the time we were in the second half of the parliament,


many of the most acute financial problems would be behind us. That's


why, as I say, I'm very much supportive of the Government in


trying to get the deficit down, therefore I wouldn't want to be


seen that I'm just standing on behalf of a small minority. It


seems to me this child benefit reform has all the makings of


something that could be politically very difficult for the Government,


but also it is going to raise far less money than we think. It would


be a sense of injustice. Remember that the overwhelming


majority of child benefit climbants won't be affected at all, --


claimants won't be affected at all. Today the Government released


polling data which suggested the vast majority of voters, including


the better off, think this is a good idea. Whether that still holds


true when it starts costing them money, that is another matter.


Let's discuss a bit of this with David Grossman. There is a piece in


tomorrow morning's Telegraph that is quite complicated on the legal


aspect of this. Yes, the headline that child benefit cuts might be


illegal. It shows how complex this issue is, and how little time the


Government has to nail down all the angles on this before January 7th.


The Institute of Chartered accountants of England and Wales, a


trade body, have suggested in their briefing to MPs on the subject,


that this move might be illegal because it is discriminatory. If


you imagine two workers both on �06,000, side by side, one of them


gets benefits from another European country, as they are entitled to do,


because they are a national of that country, but they both pay tax in


the UK. So a British person and a European national paying tax in the


UK, the same rate of tax, they earn exactly the same, one of them will


have their child benefit clawed back and the other won't. The


chartered institute reckon that is discriminatory. Under European law.


What do the Treasury say about that? The Treasury, I have been in


touch, they say this is not a new objection or oh, they say they have


got very -- observation, they say they have strong legal advice to


say they are fully entitled to tax people in this country,


irrespective of whatever benefits they get elsewhere. They are


confident, but we have seen in the past that doesn't mean if it came


to a legal challenge they would necessarily win.


The Treasury didn't want to talk about this with us here tonight.


But instead we have the Conservative MP, Nadhim Zawahi, the


Shadow Treasury Minister, Chris Leslie, and Cole Porter from the


Institute of Economic Affairs. Why do you want to penalise people who


are working hard, and doing reasonably well? We don't. But we


are, because of Chris's party, still, today, borrowing �426


million a day. When we go to bed tonight, and wake up tomorrow, we


will have notched up another �426 million. We have to balance the


books. And we have said those with the broadest shoulders should bear


the greatest pain. But you don't want to do this? Hold on a second,


let me finish on this point, it is an important point. It is only the


15% of the top earners in the country, who are, at the moment,


the beneficiaries of the child benefit, that will be affect. 80%,


your piece earlier shows will not be affected by this. I have just


had a baby in the Zawahi family. Congratulations? Why should the


strivers of the country, people working really hard, trying to pay


their bills, when we are cutting welfare, why should they pay for


child benefit for my daughter. don't know, I don't understand why


you don't want to cut it. You said you don't want to cut it. You don't


want to do this? We don't want to do it, because it is taking away


something from people who themselves are having to cope with


bills. Do you support the measure?


chaotic shambles, clawing back universal child benefit. You have


to be kidding, this is, by all standards, one of the most


unthought through changes in the tax system. Not only are you going


to get, what is it, a million people receiving letters,


explaining them that, well you have to talk to your partners about your


income, if you can't find out about that, you can ring up HMRC, they


will tell you if partner has higher or lower earnings, but not the


whole thing. The whole thing is a bureaucratic expense. Let me ask


about that very question. I would love nothing more than reverse this


particular policy. Heaven knows what the state of the public


finances by 2015, if you think borrowing is bad now, it is going


up under your Government. You are not making a commitment you would


reverse it if you regain power? need a defence of some of these


universal benefits. The next stop will be universal NHS. You will not


defend them by restoring them? key thing to mention is they are


talking about taxing the highest earners. You can't give a straight


forward answer to a straight forward question? Why give a tax


cut to people on �150,000 above, it is a completely inconsistent policy


from the Government. You shouldn't separate out universal benefits


from the wider tax system, the wealthiest people should pay more.


What should you make of this decision? Picking up the point


about universal benefits, when Labour left office a third of


households in the UK were dependant on the state for more than half of


their income. I think the principle, that you say, actually, the point


of the welfare state is that it should be there to help those


people who really cannot survive on their own is the right one. And in


some senses I think this policy decision is a nod in this direction.


The issue with it, if we're going to say that someone like Adele, or


it is nonsense that someone like Adele is eligible for child benefit,


equally we have to say that Paul McCartney is eligible for Winter


Fuel Allowance. Do you say the same about the NHS, that is a form of


welfare, if you means test child benefit, do you means test the NHS?


You are in favour of Adele being eligible for child benefit, the


answer to that question, is yes, you are in favour of Adele getting


child benefit? I think it is important to defend the universal


benefit. They should be paying more in tax. That is why the 50p rate


should not be cut to give away �40,000 to people like Adele


earning over �1 million a year. have to look at it in the context


of the nation's finances, the reality is we are borrowing so much


money to fund this, in one sense you could say the people who are


going to be paying for this child benefit, because it is borrowed


money, it will be the children themselves. It will be their tax


when they grow up. We are passing the bill for this massive welfare


state on to our children and the next generation. We have to deal


with those things. Have you seen how much it will cost to administer


the complex system. �1.7 billion every year, you kiep saying, your


party keeps saying that -- keep saying, your party keeps saying


that you want to cut the spending of the state, and make sure you act


responsibly, this time round, please believe in us. Every time we


introduce something that delivers some of that, you go against it. I


would like you to explain to your voters, the polling evidence,


including those people adversely affected. Your opinion poll.


wasn't mine. The Conservative Party opinion poll. It wasn't my opinion


poll. It was done by Populus, which is an independent pollster.


Commissioned by the Conservative Party. It doesn't matter if it was


commissioned, you commission polls do. It does. The majority of people


adversely affected by the policy support it. Explain that to the


voters at the next election, and explain to them that you will


reverse this? The cost for childcare for getting by, for


people on middle incomes, who are striving to do their best, are just


going to get worse because of this policy S the cost of administering


it are phenomenal. The Treasury are saying over �100 million. What is


worse, if you really believed in taking money from those highest


earners, you wouldn't be giving away such a task to those earning


over �150,000. Commit live on Newsnight you will reverse it.


has already refused to do that. There you go, that is your answer.


It is a difference between the parties, I think we should tax the


highest earners, that 1%, much more. Where is public opinion, their


trading opinions about opinion polls. Do you think we have reached


a stage in this country now, where people consider that the state has


an obligation towards a new born child, regardless of the level of


wealth of the parents? I think what is interesting is when you look at


different polls around at the moment, you find that actually the


public is in favour of things like getting rid of lots of these, like


Winter Fuel Allowance. They are in favour of that. Do you think the


state has a role, doesn't it? does believe the state has a role.


But I think people are very concerned about the level of


borrowing, they understand we need some reform. When you look at what


Government has become, in some sense it has almost become this


arbiter between different interest groups lobbying Government to try


to get as much money redistribute today their demographic. I think


people don't like that, they are waking up to that. Part of the


reason we are seeing people, saying this situation is absurd, that


these very wealthy people are geting these universal benefits.


Juef the tax system to do it. We can't afford, that it is stifling


the economy. It is why we have a million unemployed people in this


country. Do you think someone on �50,000 a year is rich? It depends


on things like where people live in the country. I know loads of people


on �50,000, who are doing a sum about the affects for their family.


Why not let people keep more of their money. The context of the


discussion, at the same time the Government is bringing more people


into the 40p rate. There needs to be a principle and discussion, to


say what kind of country do we want to be. Do we want to be a country


where we go back to next month's the 70-year anniversary of Bevanage,


do we want to be a welfare state supporting those who need support,


or do we want to be a country where we actually spend so much we have


to borrow to fund that? By the end of this parliament, the people


earning up to �10,000 are taken out of the tax system, they don't pay


any tax. I'm proud to say I'm part of the Government that delivered.


That that's the direction of flow from this Government, we would like


to hear what the policy-free zone from the Labour Party says about


that. We disagree on this, it is the thin end of the wedge, all of


the arguments apply to the universal NHS, which is also part


of those core welfare principles. It is about what sort of society


you believe in. If you think that people on higher incomes need to be


paying more, well you do it through the progressive tax system. What


you don't do is give it a �3 billion tax cut to millionaire, it


is very simple. We have ring-fenced it, you will cut it. It is the


slippery slope. We are told we are in the throws of


a second Industrial Revolution in which -- thros of a second


Industrial Revolution, where science transforms the way we do


everything. One of the most transformative technologies is 3D


printing t sounds absurd and impossible. It promises to


refashion whole areas of design. We will see what the 3D printer in the


studio is doing. Beautifully created objects made with care and


decision. -- precision. They weren't been sculpted, cast or


machine pressed, a different process has been deployed. This is


3D printing. At a design studio in London's Shoreditch, they cannot


only conceive product, they can make them. Thanks to a technology


that is falling in price and so becoming more accessible. It allows


you to make, just about anything. I'm being scanned, with software,


then building a precise template of my face. That will then be used to


print out a 3D me. So I have been scanned, what's next in the process.


We take that data and prepare it into a 3D print-ready file. We take


it over here to this machine. don't send it off to a factory


somewhere. Right here, it is an office-friendly machine, sitting in


the corner, humming away. This will print your file layer by layer.


This machine prints in a powder- based material. It is a whole new


way of producing particular customised and individual objects,


individual to the user, I think that is one of the fantastic things


about 3D printing, and the ability to have it in your hand within


hours rather than waiting for it to be shipped around the world. Let's


have a look. There I am, complete with chain! It would have been


possible to make a mini-me like this many years ago, but it would


have been much more expensive and time-consuming. What 3D printing


has begun to do is take manufacturing out of the factory


and into a small design studio like this. But there are some who


believe it can go much further. Heralding a whole new Industrial


Revolution. So, what is 3D printing? It starts with a digital


design or scan, that's then fed into the printer. The process is


also called additive manufacturing, because it involves building up


objects, layer by layer, rather than pressing them out. Right now a


limited range of material can be used. Mainly plastics and resin.


But the first metal printers are emerging. It is a big fall in


primes that is driving take up. In 2002, even a budget 3D printer


might have cost �20,000, today you can get a desktop device for under


�1,000. The range of objects the technology can deliver keeps


expanding. In the medical world it is being used in dental work. And


this is a replacement jawbone, built out of titanium powder. The


fashion industry is experimenting, here is a 3D bikini. This flute


came out, but needs fine tuning. At lock burrow university they are


even printing concrete and wondering how the construction


industry can be transformed. For some this is a revolution that


starts at home. The great drive for me is to improve the quality of


home 3D printing. In his loafing room in South-East London, Paul


devotes -- living room in South- East London, Paul devotes his time


to improve 3D printing. He has developed printing of a 50th of a


millimeter thick. It wasn't long ago people thought you wouldn't


have a computer in every single home. You certainly wouldn't have a


nice colour printer in every home. Now every home has at least one


printer. When you get to the stage where you have to load a file,


press a button. That will be the stage where they will become


mainstream. Paul is part of an on- line movement, which uploads and


shares designs for other 3D printer hobbyists to download. There in


lies a looming problem. Any revolutionary new technology


provides both opportunities and threats, just ask the music


industry. As 3D printing becomes more common place, the value of the


digital designs fed into the printers should rise. But so will


the threat of piracy. Once your designs have escaped on to the


Internet, there is nothing to stop anyone anywhere from printing out


your products without your permission. So, one industry should


benefit from the rise of 3D printing, that is the patent


lawyers. This is a 3D print. These, for


instance, are rare art facts from Cambridge's Fitzwilliam Museum, or


rather replicas. 3D printed for the museum shop. Ownership of the scans


that produces these objects could be very valuable. But one leading


designer thinks the new technology could help outwit the copiers.


time to market place will be quicker, that is crucial in the


world of intellectual property, where you need to get out there


quickly and take advantage of your intention before someone copies it.


At the Royal College of Art's new dies on Building, some graduates


are being helped to turn student ideas into real product. 3D


printing is already an essential part of making proto-type, soon it


could transform how products are manufactured. You can be


independent, you don't need tool makers, moulder, caster, foundries,


you can do it all your self, with a relatively simple, I hope, machine,


you can make things all over the place. You could make them very


locally, to each country you are selling in. You could get rid of


freight costs and import duties and all sorts of things. I think,


eventually, it will completely transform the way products are made.


From the hobbyist experimenting at home, to industrial designers, with


ever more sophisticated technique, 3D printing is advancing on all


fronts. Just like virtual reality in the 1990, it is the subject of


huge, perhaps inflated expectation. But its exponents believe this is a


revolution that will deliver on its promise.


We come behind the set, where one of the these printers has been


whirring away, throughout the programme, and with us is Paul


Webber from the 3D printing can be, object. It has clunked? It is


paused. What is it making? It is printing, let me open the lid and


you can have a lock. It has been printing 12 pens at the moment. It


has been printing them in multiple material. So there is some begins


on the cabinet behind you, I have also got one here you can have a


look at it. It is a complicated lattice work over a spiral struck


tue, that you could never normally -- structure, that you couldn't


norm r never normally produce it t only these technologies can only


produce it. With the particular parts, printing with rubber and


rigid material at the same time. has done this from a drawing, has


it? That's right. It is digital forming developed the software to


create the pens. Someone has put a drawing in, and what comes out at


the end is the complete 3D object? It is the complete pen without the


ink stick. There is no ink in it? That is a bit of a problem with a


pen. You do need that. Can I pick unup. Will I burn my hand. You have


some there -- Can I pick the pen up. Will I burn my head. These are some


you made earlier. They are all stuck to the tray. If you do this,


it takes it off. It -- It has a substance around it, it can't print


the cast in midair. It is printing a jelly-like structure to keep it


in place, it gets washed away at the end of the process and you have


what you have in the hand. Does this have a domestic application or


is it really industrial? Printers are not used commonly for


manufacture at this point in time. There is certain places where it is


used for manufacture, most are medical-related. They are adept at


printing one-off piece, with the likes of a hearing aid, we have


that over there. There is over 300,000. I have one here. OK, right.


Let's see. Hearing aid, stick some wax in your ear and take an


impression and mould a bit of plastic around it, that is done,


how? The doctor will actually put an algenate substance in your ear


to get an impression. Your inner ear is as bespoke as your finger


print. It gets taken out of your ear, three dimensionly scanned, and


adapted in software, so it is an appropriate fit, and has an


appropriate channel to have the electronics fitted. These are all


the other things you have made from drawings? Presumably you could go


on-line, presumably and pick up a design, and then download it to one


of these printers and get the actual product?? Absolutely. The


way things are going with the future, there is already sites


established where you can download a file and print T because not so


many people have home printer systems at the moment, the sites


are few and far between. How much do these cost? These start at �15


though, but go all the way up to well in secs of �-- in excess of �


50,000. You won't put these in people's homes? They have them in


houses now to facilitate clientele and bring business their way.


is bad news if you make machine tools? It can be, this can print


the impossible. You can literally print a ship in a bottle. You can


make a ship in a bottle? Yes, it is additive manufacturing, it is


basically putting one layer on top of the other, you are not held by


the constraints of CNC, where you are whittling away at a block to


try to create the finished item. With this type of technology, the


world is your oyster. Thank you very much, that's all for tonight.


We will no doubt see what damage Sandy doss bit morning. Hopefully


everyone stays safe. I will be back Hello there, we have had some


relatively quiet weather so far this week across the UK. Actually


through Tuesday we will have sunny spells across England and Wales.


More cloud and rain gathers up into the North West, it turns


increasingly breezy. A rather cool feel here. The North West of


England will have showers first thing in the morning. To the east


sunny spells, perhaps highs of around eight or nine. The south-


east corner, highs of ten or 11. Disappointingly cool for this time


of year. Fine and dry along the south coast, an increase of cloud


for Cornwall and western Wales. For the south-east, Cardiff should see


highs of ten degrees isolated showers into Anglesey, into the


North West of eing lan. Most of the showers should confine themselves


to the far north coast. Increasingly strong winds, and


persistent rain, after a cool start. A disappointing feel in Scotland.


It stays cool, wet and windy Tuesday into Wednesday, for much of


northern England, Northern Ireland, and for Scotland. A little quieter


further south. We keep the sunny spells. But the cloud will thicken


for England and Wales during Wednesday. With rain arriving late