:01:42. > :01:45.We ask a photographer who spent six weeks with British women on the
:01:45. > :01:55.front line in Afghanistan, whether women want to be in combat and
:01:55. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:03.Good evening. In the world in which many of us live, as we'll see in a
:02:03. > :02:07.moment, families are seeing their household income cut by almost a
:02:07. > :02:11.five ndge real terms, since the economic crisis began. The
:02:11. > :02:15.Government's task has been not merely to manage the economy now,
:02:15. > :02:19.but in their words, to rebalance it for the future, to compete in what
:02:19. > :02:24.David Cameron frequently calls "the global race against fast growing
:02:24. > :02:28.economies in the developing world". The Science Minister today
:02:29. > :02:32.announced �600 million targeted to what he called eight great
:02:32. > :02:36.technologies from big data and robotics to regenerative medicine
:02:36. > :02:41.to help turn the clever ideas of British scientists into stunning
:02:41. > :02:45.new industries, jobs and growth. Ahead of what are expected to be
:02:45. > :02:55.dismal growth figures tomorrow, we wanted to see what Mr Will its had
:02:55. > :02:59.
:02:59. > :03:04.in mind. Our political editor has Texture - two or more substances
:03:04. > :03:08.not chemically united... economy, overdependent on runaway
:03:08. > :03:11.financial centre ond under- dependent on hard industry.
:03:11. > :03:17.Coalition - two parties that are not chemically similar but gel
:03:17. > :03:22.around the same long-term solution, an industrial policy.
:03:22. > :03:26.The state injects funds into inventions helping them flourish
:03:26. > :03:30.and eventually hoping they add to the sum of human progress, but also
:03:30. > :03:34.create some cash. A belief in an industrial policy is not in the
:03:34. > :03:38.Conservative Party DNA, a belief in the free market is coded for, but
:03:38. > :03:43.not the idea that the state could intervene in the British economy.
:03:43. > :03:50.That is until now, and a new breed of Tory politician. They believe if
:03:50. > :03:54.you can't pick winners, you can pick sector, like the invisible
:03:54. > :03:58.cloak sector. Harry Potter thought he was special, but soon he will
:03:58. > :04:03.lose his advantage, when an academic at Imperial College makes
:04:03. > :04:06.a breakthrough. The Government will give him money to help him make
:04:06. > :04:10.invisibility more visible. Invisibility for me is a grand
:04:10. > :04:15.challenge. My work involves controlling light and here at
:04:15. > :04:19.Imperial College we've developed some new tech jol any -- technology
:04:19. > :04:23.for controlling light in a powerful way. We wanted to show the world
:04:23. > :04:28.how powerful this technology was. We thought invisibility, which is
:04:28. > :04:35.very popular with all manner of people, would be a very good way, a
:04:35. > :04:38.grand challenge for us to show off our technology. Today, at the
:04:38. > :04:45.think-tank Policy Exchange, the minister for science, David Willey,
:04:45. > :04:48.he of the two brains, set out how he wanted to channel money to
:04:48. > :04:51.others with two brains. The Government will back eight great
:04:51. > :04:56.technologies of the future. He said there's a direct role for
:04:56. > :05:00.Government in deciding broad areas of technology to support before
:05:00. > :05:06.they reach full commercialisation. Who got to be the last poster girl
:05:06. > :05:09.for the British brains trust? Manchester. Home to the two
:05:09. > :05:15.brilliant scientists I met this morning, who have just been awarded
:05:15. > :05:23.the Nobel Prize for physics. Their prize was for the discovery of a
:05:23. > :05:27.substance called graphene. With graphene it seems we were too late.
:05:27. > :05:35.One academic think it's should have been picked earlier. If you
:05:35. > :05:40.consider something like graphene. We won the Nobel Prize. We have a
:05:40. > :05:43.problem of commercialisation seeking to address here. Whether it
:05:43. > :05:49.signals a broader change in Government economic thinking is the
:05:49. > :05:52.interesting and key question. This could be just Willits on his own
:05:52. > :05:56.pointing to what might be done time prove the commercialisation of
:05:56. > :06:01.leading science and engineering in the UK. But it could be part of a
:06:01. > :06:05.broader change in policy. If the commercialisation can be successful,
:06:05. > :06:09.what could be the gains? The European Commission has estimated
:06:09. > :06:12.that the money put into research could be multiplied by six-and-a-
:06:12. > :06:16.half times, with the emphasis on the "could". There will be failure
:06:16. > :06:21.as much as success. The problem is we've heard so many speeches from
:06:21. > :06:26.ministers now, I lose count. This must be the 20th from Vince Cable
:06:26. > :06:29.or David will its. They've been in Government for over two-and-a-half
:06:29. > :06:33.years and still no proper industrial strategy is implemented.
:06:33. > :06:39.We know the Government has cut total departmental science spending
:06:39. > :06:43.in the first year of this Parliament. It's not just what you
:06:43. > :06:48.spent, it's actually ensuring that what you fund in terms of research
:06:48. > :06:51.goes on to be developed. Even if they make an industrial strategy
:06:51. > :06:55.work, it's a long-term strategy. What hasn't material aisles sd
:06:55. > :06:59.short-term economic growth. This morning the IMF chief
:06:59. > :07:03.economists said, in his words, that now was perhaps a good time to take
:07:03. > :07:08.stock of the UK Government's deficit-reduction programme,
:07:08. > :07:12.perhaps slow down was his message. The EOCD, IMF and EC have all
:07:12. > :07:15.predicted that the last quarter of 2012 will see a contraction of the
:07:16. > :07:22.British economy. But the real thing is published tomorrow. Government
:07:22. > :07:24.sources are braced for, in the words of one, hideous figures.
:07:24. > :07:28.Today the Deputy Prime Minister admitted mistakes had been made in
:07:28. > :07:33.the Government's economic stratd ji, that there could have been more
:07:33. > :07:40.capital spending in the early days, instead of the cuts to that budget.
:07:40. > :07:43.Hydrogen - H plus one... Invisibility clobgz, chocolate
:07:43. > :07:46.biscuits that don't melt, but if necessity is the mother of
:07:46. > :07:52.invention, what this Government needs is a damage tote speed up
:07:52. > :07:58.economic recovery. David Willits joins me now. You say
:07:58. > :08:00.that the 1980s made us very wary of governments trying to pick winners.
:08:00. > :08:03.You are picking winners in the sense that you're talking about
:08:03. > :08:07.eight great technologies that you think will work, that would be
:08:07. > :08:11.winners. Yes. We can't be sure they'll be winners, but Governments
:08:11. > :08:15.do have to decide and set priorities. We're trying to tackle
:08:16. > :08:19.one of the fundamental problems in the economy. We have excellent
:08:19. > :08:23.science, but we stop funding it when it's too far short of the
:08:23. > :08:28.market. Then we beat up ourselves and say we don't take risk. The
:08:28. > :08:31.fact is when I go to America, I see there, federal agencies that
:08:31. > :08:35.support science much closer through the development of the technology,
:08:35. > :08:41.closer to market, when of course, individual companies take over and
:08:41. > :08:47.there's no role for Government in backing those individual companies.
:08:47. > :08:51.Recognising market failure in this country is the key to it -- to it.
:08:51. > :08:55.I'm recognising the Valley of Death between the great theoretical ideas
:08:55. > :09:00.in the universities and research labs and the commercial application.
:09:00. > :09:05.The Government is saying there's absolutely a role for Government in
:09:05. > :09:08.helping ideas closer to market and as you can't be indiscriminate, you
:09:08. > :09:12.have to identify the technologies that you think have the best
:09:12. > :09:18.chances of success. This isn't my personal whim. This stkraus on the
:09:18. > :09:23.expert advice that scientists whose advice we published. But it is a
:09:23. > :09:27.big bet. There may be eight other great technologies out there that
:09:27. > :09:30.others have not come up with. It may be unlikely that however big
:09:30. > :09:40.the brains, any Government committee is going to come up with
:09:40. > :09:41.
:09:41. > :09:46.If you look at what happens in America, you will see that in
:09:46. > :09:49.Stanford, there was federal funding that initially got funding, not
:09:49. > :09:54.because the federal Government backed a particular company, but it
:09:54. > :09:59.was far more adventurous in the way it supported IT, and the way the
:09:59. > :10:03.defence department backed start-up company using IT in innovative ways.
:10:03. > :10:07.We in Britain should not be so paralysed by the fear that
:10:07. > :10:12.sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we will get it wrong. And
:10:12. > :10:15.not do anything. It is worth a go, it is worth identifying these great
:10:15. > :10:20.technologies, emerging from our science labs and bringing them
:10:20. > :10:25.closer to market. It is tax-payers' money you are having a go with, at
:10:25. > :10:29.the same time as just has been said, you are cutting science budgets?
:10:29. > :10:33.That is not true, we have offered cash protection to the current
:10:33. > :10:37.science spend. We did inherit from the previous Labour Government big
:10:37. > :10:42.planned reductions in capital spending, what we have been doing,
:10:42. > :10:45.in the past two years, is reversing those cuts. We have put in an extra
:10:45. > :10:48.�1.5 billion. There is a reduction in science spending, and David
:10:48. > :10:55.Cameron talks a lot about this global race, he may very well be
:10:55. > :11:00.right in that, aren't we losing the global race, China overlook us in R
:11:00. > :11:04.& D spending in 2005 and France, and now America, you have made the
:11:04. > :11:07.case for. We are pretty slow? of the things I set out today is I
:11:07. > :11:11.think we have competitive advantages, we have great science,
:11:11. > :11:14.we have an extraordinary history of great science, we still have
:11:14. > :11:17.brilliant technologies. What I'm saying is if Government,
:11:17. > :11:20.researchers and business come together, we can back them. I think
:11:20. > :11:23.that includes going to the challenge of the Sheffield
:11:23. > :11:26.programme discussion you are going to have, it includes the challenge
:11:26. > :11:31.of manufacturing coming back to Britain. Remember, we are now, for
:11:31. > :11:34.the first time since the mid-70s, we are a net exporter of motorcars,
:11:34. > :11:38.we are second in the world in Aerospace, we can do these things.
:11:38. > :11:42.We are waiting for the growth figures tomorrow, it might be
:11:42. > :11:46.George Osborne that needs the invisibility cloak. When you have
:11:46. > :11:50.the IMF chief economists saying slower fiscal consolidation may be
:11:50. > :11:55.appropriate. He's suggesting that actually it is political
:11:55. > :12:03.stubbornness that is stopping Mr Osbourne from thinking again?
:12:03. > :12:06.you inherit one of the biggest budget deficits from any modern
:12:06. > :12:08.European country, you have to take small steps, it is happening over a
:12:08. > :12:12.period of several years. Nobody is saying you could avoid bringing
:12:12. > :12:16.down the budget deficit. We have to use our limited resources smartly
:12:16. > :12:20.one of the smart ways, where George Osborne, myself, Vince Cable, want
:12:20. > :12:23.to spend that money, is backing the technologies. They are not all
:12:23. > :12:27.going to work, but some of them, in ten years time, will be proviegd
:12:27. > :12:32.the jobs and prosperity we need -- providing the jobs and prosperity
:12:32. > :12:35.we need. You have made that point clearly. Nick Clegg is saying in
:12:35. > :12:39.House Magazine, that the Government cut capital spending too much and
:12:39. > :12:42.too early, he might be smart on. That do you think you got it wrong
:12:42. > :12:49.at the start of the term, you cut too hard? I remember our
:12:49. > :12:53.discussions of this in cabinet, the Chancellor was clear in the very
:12:53. > :12:59.first spending decisions, he wasn't going to add any further
:12:59. > :13:03.reductioned to the plant -- reductions to the plant capital
:13:03. > :13:08.reductions from the last Government. He has actually added back capital.
:13:08. > :13:11.The reason I have �600 million to invest today in science capital is
:13:11. > :13:16.in this Autumn Statement, the Chancellor reduced current spending
:13:16. > :13:19.in order to put �5 billion more into capital, including science
:13:19. > :13:22.capital, that is the correct judgment. The point may be, that
:13:22. > :13:27.one definition of economic madness is to keep doing the same thing and
:13:27. > :13:31.expect a different result. It is clear they are signalling that you
:13:31. > :13:35.should think again? The overall budget judgment is absolutely clear
:13:35. > :13:39.that we have to carry on, on the steady programme of bringing the
:13:39. > :13:43.budget deficit down. Of course that's painful, but it is necessary,
:13:43. > :13:51.and it is one of the reasons why we have historically low interest
:13:51. > :13:55.rates. Then, within the almost half of entire national spending, it is
:13:55. > :13:58.right to use it as productively as we can, that involves getting a
:13:58. > :14:02.grip on welfare bills, instead investing in education and science.
:14:02. > :14:06.That is what we are doing. We will leave it there.
:14:06. > :14:10.Whatever the plans for the future and the new ideas for a new
:14:10. > :14:13.industrial strategy for the 21st century, many people have a
:14:13. > :14:18.different priority, survival. Many of us are struggling with falling
:14:18. > :14:22.real wages and rising prices, plus the uncertainty of an economy where
:14:22. > :14:27.there are jobs beg created, where, as we hear from Sheffield and Paul
:14:27. > :14:31.Mason, they might not last long. Welcome to the age of uncertainty.
:14:31. > :14:34.At the moment what we have is an economy, we will probably find out
:14:34. > :14:37.tomorrow morning, that is not growing T will be lucky if we are
:14:37. > :14:42.flatlining, it maying that the last three months of last year were
:14:43. > :14:46.again a dip, and we are in the middle of what could be a technical
:14:46. > :14:51.triple-dip recession, and yet this economy is capable of creating jobs
:14:51. > :14:56.hand over fist. Half a million in the past 12 months, 90,000 in the
:14:56. > :15:03.past quarter. Now, this is a conundrum. There is a debate that
:15:03. > :15:10.goes on about why it exists. I want to put a kind of shape to it, with
:15:10. > :15:14.the ninth great technology of the country which is the Newsnight
:15:14. > :15:19.graphics. This is the level of GDP through the crisis, you see the big
:15:19. > :15:22.dip in 2009, and the failure to recover to where we were. This is
:15:22. > :15:28.five years of pain, technically longer than what happened in the
:15:28. > :15:34.1930s. Let me now superimpose that the percentage of employed people,
:15:34. > :15:38.this is a different left-hand scale, this is percentages, it starts at
:15:38. > :15:41.72. The shape is important, you see like-for-like fall in the scale,
:15:41. > :15:46.but the recovery is only just happening. That is what is really
:15:46. > :15:50.going on. Look at the steepness of that pink curve at the end. That is
:15:50. > :15:55.a real recovery. There was a time when some of the Government's
:15:55. > :16:01.critics said this is an illusion, this is real. What does it create
:16:01. > :16:07.economically? When you go down to the gran later level, and you ask
:16:07. > :16:11.people -- granular level, when you ask people on part-time, part-time
:16:11. > :16:17.contracts, giving back a lot of their work place benefits, as we
:16:17. > :16:20.are about to see, giving back some of their wages, and what interests
:16:20. > :16:23.me at the microeconomic level is the way this is beginning after
:16:23. > :16:27.five years of pain to change people's perception of what the
:16:27. > :16:31.possible future for them s and wait they are starting to consume and
:16:31. > :16:39.even think about work. We went to Sheffield for a couple of days, the
:16:39. > :16:43.capital of electropop, and still manufacturing, as you can see.
:16:43. > :16:52.They call it flatlining, growth, like the temperature, struggling to
:16:52. > :16:56.stay above zero. For many families it is worse than flatlining. People
:16:56. > :17:03.in Sheffield have lost 19% of their household income in the past five
:17:03. > :17:07.years. It seems to be hitting everyone quite hard, you notice it
:17:07. > :17:09.in all sorts of sectors ts on the news all the time. Lots of chains
:17:09. > :17:12.and businesses going bust and having problems. It is all around
:17:12. > :17:17.you. Sheffield is a city where they
:17:17. > :17:24.still work with metal, big chunks of it, though now it is precision
:17:24. > :17:28.cut. People here know this is where the
:17:28. > :17:33.economic recovery is supposed to be. Driving exports, jobs, higher
:17:33. > :17:37.skills. But the firm had to make 70 people
:17:37. > :17:41.redundant before Christmas, and the rest were forced to take a week's
:17:41. > :17:45.unpaid leave. So everybody is worried about the future.
:17:45. > :17:50.You have given up a week's wages, how did that feel? We are not happy
:17:50. > :17:53.about it, but we have had to do it just to cement our jobs. I went on
:17:53. > :17:58.holiday and I came back, and I found out the day I got back that
:17:58. > :18:01.lucky I hadn't lost my job. How old are you? 28. So probably the last
:18:01. > :18:07.five years of your working life things have been tough, when will
:18:07. > :18:11.we see an end to this fairly flat, stagnant conditions? I'm hoping, if
:18:11. > :18:16.I'm realistic I can't see it any time soon, a few years. At the
:18:16. > :18:19.moment a lot of our business in the offshore wind energy business is
:18:19. > :18:24.export business. Henry Sherman has built this company rapidly, even in
:18:24. > :18:28.the face of financial crisis. They make armoured cars, wind farms, big
:18:28. > :18:32.stuff, in general, he knows places like this are supposed to be
:18:32. > :18:37.driving the recovery, but it is tough. We had a very strong first
:18:37. > :18:40.half, in the second half it fell away dramatically. Unfortunately we
:18:40. > :18:44.had to lay people off, we don't like doing that, it is very
:18:44. > :18:49.difficult. We had to cut costs, reduce all our expenditures in
:18:49. > :18:52.order to keep the business as tight and surviving as it is. That's
:18:52. > :18:58.supposedly in a period where we thought we were coming out of
:18:58. > :19:08.recession? It was, there were a few little glimmer of light on the
:19:08. > :19:13.horizon. But 2013 is looking quite challenging.
:19:13. > :19:17.The fact is, the hard figures for GDP and exports don't begin to
:19:17. > :19:22.capture the full story. Wherever you go, people tell you about
:19:22. > :19:28.struggling, surviving, adapting, holding on. After five years of
:19:28. > :19:31.crisis, all this gets harder. What is shipping like as an economy --
:19:31. > :19:36.what's Sheffield like as an economy? I personally think there
:19:36. > :19:40.are no jobs, the jobs there is are not flexible, when you are offered
:19:40. > :19:46.the job the hours are very long, you either accept it or you don't.
:19:46. > :19:52.It is not like before where you could actually negotiate a job. Now
:19:52. > :19:57.you can't. It is hard to measure insecurity,
:19:57. > :20:02.but whether it is the factory or a Surestart centre, that is what
:20:02. > :20:07.people talk about. Without this centre, neither of these mothers
:20:07. > :20:13.would be able to hold down jobs. Though they are both white collar,
:20:13. > :20:17.both are juggling childcare and work, and it is getting harder.
:20:17. > :20:21.People are grateful for the jobs they have got, and have to shuffle
:20:21. > :20:25.their lives around it, because you can't turn work down. Of course the
:20:25. > :20:33.shuffling doesn't show up in any economic figures? No. I think
:20:33. > :20:36.people have managed very well, in terms of shuffling their lives
:20:36. > :20:40.round. I have got friends that work opposite shifts to their partners
:20:40. > :20:46.so they have not had to pay for childcare, because that is not
:20:46. > :20:49.something that they can afford to do. But, I think there is a lot of
:20:50. > :20:55.people are really hoping that there is an end in sight, because they
:20:55. > :20:58.have really struggled. What this tells us, is that
:20:59. > :21:08.relentless flatlining, year upon year, is changing the way people
:21:09. > :21:09.
:21:09. > :21:13.think, and act, and spend. There are jobs, but no security, wages,
:21:14. > :21:22.but no wage rises. Everybody's worried about redundancy, and the
:21:22. > :21:27.old drivers of growth are gone. It is hard, I mean the house is
:21:27. > :21:31.rented, we would like to buy it. As first time buyers at the moment we
:21:31. > :21:34.stand absolutely no chance of getting a mortgage. Spencer got
:21:34. > :21:38.made redundant four times in five years before getting his current
:21:39. > :21:43.job, running a lighting company. Laura is in the training business.
:21:43. > :21:48.Do either of you see an end to this period where jobs are at risk,
:21:48. > :21:53.where the company might not be there, or is that the new normal?
:21:53. > :21:59.think it is the new normal. You see it every day on the news. You just
:21:59. > :22:04.don't know, it is like if your job gets put as risk, you are never
:22:04. > :22:07.secure in finding, even if you go to a big-named company, there is no
:22:07. > :22:11.big-named company any more. I would like to think we are going to come
:22:11. > :22:16.out of it, and things will get easier. I don't think they will
:22:16. > :22:23.ever go back to what they were. In Sheffield, they know all about
:22:23. > :22:26.recessions, they lived through steep downturns in the 1980s and
:22:27. > :22:31.1990s. This one is different, the gloom may not be deep, but it is
:22:31. > :22:35.relentless, what they want to know here is when it will end.
:22:35. > :22:40.Well there are a number of puzzling things about a stagnant economy
:22:40. > :22:46.creating jobs, and watching Paul Mason's report with me were the
:22:47. > :22:50.labour market economist, John Philpott, John Wastnage from the
:22:50. > :22:54.British chambers of summers, and my other guest.
:22:54. > :22:58.You see some of this up close, what sacrifices are people making in
:22:58. > :23:02.order to keep things together in this kind of economy? They are huge,
:23:02. > :23:07.I know a mum called Nina who has five hours a week, one hour a day
:23:07. > :23:11.in the school playground, she has four children, does a fantastic job
:23:11. > :23:14.bringing them, she's chuffed to have a job, but it is five hours a
:23:14. > :23:18.week. Obviously she's putting that in with her benefits and juggling
:23:18. > :23:21.to make ends meet at the end of every week. My question is, what
:23:21. > :23:25.happens when she wants to buy two pairs of school shoes for the
:23:25. > :23:29.children, or pay for a school trip they have to go on, where is the
:23:29. > :23:33.extra money. She's being paid very little above the minimum wage.
:23:33. > :23:38.do you make of the argument that a job is a job, she obviously wants
:23:38. > :23:43.to do it and be active in the work market. She wants, presumably a
:23:43. > :23:48.better job, but it is better than not working? That is debatable,
:23:48. > :23:51.because her pay isn't enough to be able to ride her through the
:23:51. > :23:54.circumstances she's finding herself in. Part of her income comes from
:23:54. > :23:57.benefit as well, that has to be balanced. The question is, what
:23:57. > :24:01.happens when there is extra expenditure, what about a hole day,
:24:01. > :24:06.what about the extra things. How do you -- a holiday, what about the
:24:06. > :24:13.extra things, how do you pay for doors for Christmas, you go to the
:24:13. > :24:18.payday lender. I can't tell you how many people are afraid of what the
:24:18. > :24:23.knock on the door will bring, and pay the doorstep lender rather than
:24:23. > :24:28.their rent, because they are afraid. We saw whole communities in the
:24:28. > :24:31.1980s blighted by various things. It is almost like a low heamorrhage
:24:31. > :24:34.now? It is much more dispersed, lots of people are feeling it,
:24:34. > :24:38.rather than it being concentrated in particular areas. I think the
:24:38. > :24:43.key is that because we haven't had the rise in unemployment, that a
:24:43. > :24:46.lot of people, myself included, were expecting, it is almost a
:24:46. > :24:51.sense as though things are slightly better this time. But I think as
:24:51. > :24:56.Paul's film showed, there is an underlying crisis of insecurity,
:24:56. > :25:01.and that's a symptom of an on going economic malaise that doesn't seem
:25:01. > :25:04.to be getting better very quickly. We have had essentially five years
:25:04. > :25:07.now of the age of insecurity, and we have on top of it the age of
:25:07. > :25:11.austerity, and how long it will take to get out of that I think is
:25:11. > :25:15.something that is taxing a lot of economists. Insecurity is difficult
:25:15. > :25:19.to measure, but you know when you see it. I wonder what about the
:25:19. > :25:22.different kinds of employment, we have heard of people just making do
:25:22. > :25:26.with short-term working, zero hours working, what about self-employed,
:25:26. > :25:29.a lot of self-employment? Self- employment is one of the big
:25:29. > :25:33.stories of the recession. Until recently the number of employees
:25:33. > :25:36.have been falling, but we have seen on going rising in self-employment.
:25:36. > :25:40.A lot of this new self-employment is very different from the sort
:25:40. > :25:44.that we saw in the past. A lot of it is unskilled, in particular a
:25:44. > :25:49.lot of the new self-employed are working relatively short hours.
:25:49. > :25:53.These are people who would, ideally, prefer to be employee. They can't
:25:53. > :25:59.get jobs, and essentially declaring themselves a self-employed person
:25:59. > :26:04.so they are not unemployed. Because that could 0 make them look
:26:04. > :26:11.unattractive to future employers. Of course, it means that they have
:26:11. > :26:16.very limited incomes. It flatters the labour market statistics,
:26:16. > :26:20.because it makes things look better than the underlying reality it is.
:26:20. > :26:24.How bad is it for businesses to survive, we saw the sacrifices
:26:24. > :26:27.people were making to keep a job, working for nothing a bit to help
:26:27. > :26:32.out the employer who wants to keep people on? Employers are finding it
:26:32. > :26:35.very tough as well. Uncertainty is the new normal, not only for
:26:35. > :26:40.employees but employers, they are desperate for that confidence that
:26:40. > :26:44.is going to allow them to grow. As you heard from the MD, it is never
:26:44. > :26:48.nice to make people redundant, but sometimes it is necessary. What we
:26:48. > :26:52.have seen in this crisis that has been different from previous crises,
:26:52. > :26:55.is a really flexible labour market, that has allowed the pain to be
:26:55. > :27:00.spread a bit more evenly, and has kept more people in work, which has
:27:00. > :27:03.to be a good thing. Obvious criticism is, it means low-pay,
:27:03. > :27:06.people doing skilled jobs, and really not getting the rate for the
:27:06. > :27:10.job. What would happen if an employer like that had to pay what
:27:10. > :27:15.people are asking, and what they would need to keep pace with
:27:15. > :27:20.inflation? If an employer had to pay for more their labour, you
:27:20. > :27:22.would find they would employ fewer people, or they would look to
:27:22. > :27:25.automation in more cases to replace labour.
:27:25. > :27:30.I know you want to come in on that, one of the things that struck me
:27:30. > :27:34.about the film is people thinking when is it all going to end? Where
:27:34. > :27:38.is the hope? What is the next thing? That is hugely important. If
:27:38. > :27:41.you are struggling to put the food on the table each week, and you are
:27:41. > :27:46.wondering, the stress of getting your children to school and to hold
:27:46. > :27:50.down a job, a shift job, that constant stress, week after week
:27:50. > :27:54.after week, has an effect long-term on your health, and your well being.
:27:54. > :27:57.It is great news that there are extra jobs, and employers and small
:27:57. > :28:01.businesses are flourishing and finding ways to employ people, what
:28:01. > :28:07.has been better news is some of the big institutions, Government
:28:07. > :28:12.departments, the Department of Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith has
:28:12. > :28:14.announced they will pay the living wage, that is �7.35 nationwide,
:28:15. > :28:20.much higher than the minimum wage. That makes a significant difference
:28:20. > :28:24.to working families. What do you think might bring this to an end
:28:24. > :28:27.finally. People want to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and
:28:27. > :28:34.it keeps getting longer? I agree with some of the things that John
:28:34. > :28:39.was saying. I'm worried about this terminology of the "New Norman", it
:28:39. > :28:44.implies there is an inevitability about this we have to accept. If we
:28:44. > :28:50.had -- The "new normal, it implies there is an inevitability about it
:28:50. > :28:54.and we have to accept. If we had this retraction there would be a
:28:54. > :28:57.sense of national crisis, without the jobs, but because the labour
:28:57. > :29:00.market has come out OK people are thinking that it is OK and we can
:29:00. > :29:06.adapt to it. But the economy is flatlining, and something ought to
:29:06. > :29:10.be done about it, what that is has to do in part with a much more
:29:10. > :29:16.aggressive fiscal policy. As the IMF were saying, we should be
:29:16. > :29:21.slowing down the austerity. We agree with the Government's
:29:22. > :29:26.deficit strategy, we would like them to repriorise the spending,
:29:26. > :29:32.rely on more house building, and leveraging into infrastructure
:29:32. > :29:37.projects, making it easier and less risky for businesss to take people
:29:37. > :29:40.on. And finances for small and medium-sized businesses. Can I say
:29:40. > :29:45.in the poor communities, what I have come across, going into
:29:45. > :29:50.Christmas, pawning your children's toys to put food on the table. The
:29:50. > :29:55.new normal, if the wages are so low, is this the sort of economy we want
:29:55. > :29:59.our children to be brought up in? Where they hardly see their parents
:29:59. > :30:03.because they have to double shift and the aspiration is to low wages
:30:03. > :30:10.and a low standard of living. Is that a good enough new normal for
:30:10. > :30:14.Britain? The children's charity, Barnardo's estimates that 7,000
:30:14. > :30:17.children in this country are awaiting adoings, the highest
:30:17. > :30:21.figure since 2007, the one thing they are looking for is a loving,
:30:21. > :30:25.caring family environment. Many would-be parents are looking for
:30:25. > :30:29.children to adopt, why, do you ask, can it take up to four years to put
:30:29. > :30:33.the child and adoptive parents together. When the Government asked
:30:33. > :30:36.that question, one answer they came up with was too much bureaucracy in
:30:36. > :30:39.local councils in England, today the Government announce those
:30:39. > :30:44.councils may be striped of responsibility for adoption if they
:30:45. > :30:49.don't improve. The first years of our life are a
:30:49. > :30:54.time of exploration, learning and development. But for thousands of
:30:54. > :30:59.children they are a period of trauma and waiting.
:30:59. > :31:04.Last year 3,450 children were adopted. But their wait is a long
:31:04. > :31:08.one, spending on average two years and seven months between leaving
:31:08. > :31:12.their birth family and arriving with their new one. That includes
:31:12. > :31:16.11 months in care before it is decided they should be adopted, and
:31:16. > :31:19.another 11 months to match and place the child with adoptive
:31:19. > :31:23.parents. And then another nine months before the actual adoption
:31:23. > :31:28.takes place. Today the Government repeated its
:31:28. > :31:32.desire that more children should be adopted more quickly. In their
:31:32. > :31:35.sights, 150 local councils, and the threat that if they don't improve,
:31:35. > :31:41.they will be striped of their involvement in the adoption process.
:31:41. > :31:44.For the Government, it's a political agenda tinged by the
:31:44. > :31:49.personal. Education Secretary, Michael Gove, was himself adopted,
:31:49. > :31:55.and has told how his birth name was Graham, while his junior minister
:31:55. > :31:59.Johhn Timpson, has two adopted brothers. The older a child gets
:31:59. > :32:03.the longer they wait to get placed. Six-year-olds wait almost four
:32:03. > :32:07.years before adoption, and it can be a long road for adoptive parents
:32:07. > :32:11.too. Of those that come through months of screening, almost half
:32:11. > :32:15.still don't have a child seven months after being approved.
:32:15. > :32:19.This man, whose identity we have kept anonymous, has adopted two
:32:19. > :32:22.children. He told us that the adoption process is a labourious
:32:22. > :32:26.one. From day one, to the day the court
:32:26. > :32:29.signed off our daughter, I think it was three years. It was probably
:32:29. > :32:34.two-and-a-half years before we knew a child was matched to us, then it
:32:34. > :32:37.was another six months before there was formallised by the courts. They
:32:37. > :32:40.would come every Wednesday evening, inbetween you had homework to write
:32:40. > :32:44.about, how was your family, do you have any problems with your family,
:32:44. > :32:47.do you get on with your brothers and sisters. They went through the
:32:47. > :32:52.whole family-type things and close things. They ask you some pretty
:32:52. > :32:57.personal questions. Do you still have sex, how many times do you
:32:57. > :33:02.have sex. My friends are asked do you still use sex toys, completely
:33:02. > :33:04.inappropriate questions, I think. It started going into your opinion
:33:04. > :33:07.on multiculturalism, and homosexuality, your view on a range
:33:07. > :33:12.of topical issues, I don't know how important those really were,
:33:12. > :33:15.without a doubt it is worth the grief, however ridiculous and time-
:33:15. > :33:19.consuming the system is. It is worth it, because you get so much
:33:19. > :33:22.more out at the end of it than you could wish for. There could be
:33:22. > :33:26.happier parents and safer children around if more people were adopting,
:33:26. > :33:29.so yes it is worth the hassle, there shouldn't be that hassle.
:33:29. > :33:33.Local authorities are responsible for 90% of all adoptions, but the
:33:33. > :33:38.Government believes they are only doing what they have to do by law,
:33:38. > :33:42.meeting demand in their local area. They say some potential adoptive
:33:42. > :33:47.parents are being turned away, because they are not needed locally,
:33:47. > :33:52.irrespective of the national demand. The Government wants training to be
:33:52. > :33:55.outsourced for adoptive parents, saying it will make the system far
:33:55. > :34:00.more efficient. But councils point to an increase in the number of
:34:00. > :34:02.children adopted in the last 12 months. This is a shared issue, it
:34:02. > :34:07.is not just something about Government, but councils are
:34:07. > :34:10.getting on with their part of the problem, by improving the number of
:34:10. > :34:14.children approved for adoption. We have to make sure the bits in the
:34:14. > :34:20.Government's hands, around the national adoption gateway, and the
:34:20. > :34:26.bureaucracy which they Prom my today address are done quickly. --
:34:26. > :34:34.promised are addressed quickly. We are still waiting. Today the answer
:34:34. > :34:37.today for the Government could be the 30 organisations who adopt
:34:37. > :34:42.parents. We are encouraged to have working relationships with the
:34:42. > :34:45.local authorities to work together, to maximise the chances of placing
:34:45. > :34:48.these children, to encourage more people to come forward to adopt. As
:34:48. > :34:52.a result, together, if we have more people coming forward to adopt, we
:34:52. > :34:55.hope that more children will be placed. The monies that we get,
:34:55. > :34:59.either as a local authority, or as a voluntary sector, will help us
:34:59. > :35:04.achieve that. Today's announcement is not an
:35:04. > :35:11.isolated measure, as well as trying to reduce the time it takes, they
:35:11. > :35:15.want to less importance attached to matching a child with adoptive
:35:16. > :35:22.parents of the same ethnicity. According to Barnardo's, a white
:35:22. > :35:30.child is three-times more likely to be adopted than a black child. The
:35:30. > :35:37.report makes no hiding of the -- The question is, whether for the
:35:37. > :35:40.thousands of children waiting to be adopted, it is a necessary risk.
:35:40. > :35:44.Debbie Jones is President of the Association of Directors of
:35:44. > :35:48.Children's Services and head of Children's Services in Lambeth. Do
:35:48. > :35:51.you accept there is a problem, that there is something wrong when there
:35:51. > :35:55.are 7,000 children who would like to be adopted, but can't be, and
:35:55. > :35:58.some of them are waiting two to four years to find the right
:35:58. > :36:03.parent? Within the sector we absolutely accept that there is a
:36:03. > :36:08.problem. It can never be right for children to wait longer than they
:36:08. > :36:11.need to, to get placed with the right family. Where is the
:36:11. > :36:15.bottleneck, the implications that Government is suggesting is some
:36:15. > :36:20.local council, some local areas are aslope, and they are not getting on
:36:20. > :36:23.with it? The process of adoption is a long and a complex one, adoption
:36:23. > :36:29.is probably one of the most difficult but most important
:36:29. > :36:34.decisions that you are ever going to make for a child. So making sure
:36:34. > :36:39.that it is a once-only decision is the most important thing. That
:36:39. > :36:46.means it needs to be done carefully. In the right amount of time. Not
:36:46. > :36:51.too much time. With some councils, it is absolutely true, it is a
:36:51. > :36:54.statement of fact, that it takes too long. We recognise that, we
:36:54. > :36:57.would never...People Understand that social workers get it in the
:36:58. > :37:02.neck, if you act quickly or slowly and so on, but there are some
:37:02. > :37:05.parents who are found to be, potential parents and adopters,
:37:05. > :37:08.found absolutely fit and it takes another seven months to put a child
:37:08. > :37:13.with them. That seems odd, if the parents are OK, obviously you have
:37:13. > :37:19.to match a child to parent, where is the problem? The process of
:37:19. > :37:23.matching the right child to the right family, has to take the
:37:23. > :37:28.length of time it needs to take. If it takes two years, that is too
:37:28. > :37:31.long. If it takes three months and you get it wrong, that is even more
:37:31. > :37:36.wrong. But, you work with some of these Voluntary Organisations any
:37:36. > :37:40.way, they are good organisations, you accept that. If there are these
:37:40. > :37:44.problems, why not rely on them to help speed things up? I understand
:37:44. > :37:48.you think of it as a bit of a threat, but maybe that is what's
:37:48. > :37:53.necessary? We're actually working very closely both with Government
:37:53. > :37:58.and the voluntary sector. In order to introduce the radical reforms
:37:58. > :38:06.that Mr Timpson was talking about today. That is the minister for the
:38:06. > :38:10.Department of Education. Yes, we have been working with them, as
:38:10. > :38:15.councillor Simmons was saying for the last 12 month. A number of new
:38:15. > :38:20.initiatives are being introduced, which includes the Adoption Gateway,
:38:20. > :38:25.reducing that dreadful bureaucracy that colleagues have complained
:38:25. > :38:28.about. Do you see this as some kind of big stick, I noticed the
:38:28. > :38:33.councillor quoted elsewhere as saying this could adversary impact
:38:33. > :38:37.on parents and children, a disjointed and confusing system. It
:38:37. > :38:43.may be a spur to get on with it? The threat of taking away the power
:38:43. > :38:46.to recruit adopters, we see as an incredibly blunt instrument, that
:38:46. > :38:51.could destablise the current system. As you have heard, we currently
:38:51. > :38:57.have something in the region of between 4,000 and 7,000 children,
:38:57. > :39:00.waiting for adoptive families. What we don't need is the system in
:39:00. > :39:05.chaos while we change and reorganise. Surely what we need to
:39:05. > :39:10.do is build on the best, build on the best practice in local
:39:10. > :39:15.authorities that are doing it well, build on the best partnerships with
:39:15. > :39:20.other local authorities, with the voluntary agencies, in order to
:39:20. > :39:25.ensure that we build economies of scale, and make it work. What we
:39:25. > :39:30.don't need is a ministerial Sword of Damocles, hanging over our heads.
:39:30. > :39:34.That is how we see it. What it will do is create uncertainty in the
:39:34. > :39:39.sector, it will be demoralising for staff doing it well, and actually,
:39:39. > :39:42.at the end of the day, what we are all concerned about is finding the
:39:43. > :39:48.right homes for children, because at the end of the day, Gavin, those
:39:48. > :39:53.children that wait the longest are often those children with the most
:39:53. > :39:56.complex need. You cannot afford to get it wrong for any child.
:39:57. > :40:00.The United States military is, for the first time, to allow women to
:40:00. > :40:04.serve in combat roles. This will strengthen the US military's
:40:04. > :40:09.ability to win wars, according to the Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta,
:40:09. > :40:13.it will remove what President Obama calls, unnecessary gender-based
:40:13. > :40:17.barriers to service. More than 150 women in support roles in the US
:40:17. > :40:20.military have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Already critics
:40:20. > :40:25.have questioned whether women have enough strength or stamina, and
:40:25. > :40:29.also whether mixed united in combat might prove difficult to manage.
:40:29. > :40:34.For women American soldiers, fighting on the frontline of one of
:40:34. > :40:39.the last barriers to equality. next greatest generation will be
:40:39. > :40:49.one of men and women who will fight and die together to protect this
:40:49. > :40:50.
:40:50. > :40:52.nation. That is what freedom is all about. In Australia, Israel,
:40:52. > :40:57.Germany and Canada, women can already take on combat roles, that
:40:57. > :41:03.is not the case in Britain. Here, they make up about 10% of our Armed
:41:03. > :41:06.Forces, that is around 17,000, but soldiers like these ones
:41:06. > :41:10.photographed in Helmand Province last year, are still restricted
:41:10. > :41:16.from joining the infantry or face- to-face combat. The last time the
:41:16. > :41:19.policy was looked at was 2010 then the MoD decided women were
:41:19. > :41:23.physically and psychologically capable of doing combat jobs, but
:41:24. > :41:26.there wasn't evidence that changing the policy was worthwhile. With the
:41:26. > :41:34.frontline becoming more blurred, even without those changes, more
:41:34. > :41:38.and more women are ending up in harm's way.
:41:38. > :41:42.The photographer who took the photographs there is with us, she
:41:42. > :41:46.spent six months with troops in Afghanistan and she spent 12 years
:41:46. > :41:50.with the RAF. We will run more of those photographs as we talk. In
:41:50. > :41:54.terms of the roles women do now, what sorts of things do they do now,
:41:54. > :41:58.and do they do things only women could do in Afghanistan? One of the
:41:59. > :42:03.things I noticed in Helmand, and why I did the project, is the
:42:03. > :42:06.female soldiers I worked with were female engagment officers, they
:42:06. > :42:09.could only be women, because they were working with other Afghan
:42:09. > :42:13.women, and going out and meeting them. The interesting thing about
:42:13. > :42:16.that, to achieve that they had to go out on patrol with infantry
:42:16. > :42:21.soldiers, so there was the two dynamics there. They are doing it
:42:21. > :42:26.any way. And facing all the same dangers in many cases as the men?
:42:26. > :42:29.Yes, of course. It was your sense that many of them would be prepared
:42:29. > :42:33.to fight, that was why they joined up and would like to be in a combat
:42:33. > :42:36.war? I don't think it is why they joined up. The reasons why people
:42:36. > :42:41.join the military is not to kill people. That is very important to
:42:41. > :42:44.say that. But also the girls themselves are very, very capable
:42:44. > :42:48.individuals, and quite physically fit as well. I think they would
:42:48. > :42:52.have been relied on in any situation out on the ground to do
:42:52. > :42:56.what they needed to do. Let me tell you some of the things being said
:42:56. > :43:00.in the United States about the plans. That women don't have enough
:43:01. > :43:07.upper body strength, and the stamina and physical stuff. What do
:43:07. > :43:12.you think about that? There is a element of truth in the upper body
:43:12. > :43:15.strength, that is a physical thing you can't deny. I saw examples of
:43:15. > :43:20.physically strong women in Afghanistan, I met one girl who
:43:20. > :43:23.could do more pull-ups than most of the enm. It is down to individual
:43:23. > :43:26.attributes, if a girl is strong enough, maybe she should have been
:43:26. > :43:30.given the opportunity. What about the more cultural things, that
:43:30. > :43:33.mixed units are difficult to manage, perhaps, and particularly in combat.
:43:33. > :43:36.We don't permit mixed football teams, women play football and it
:43:36. > :43:40.is great, and men play football and it is fantastic and all that, you
:43:40. > :43:43.don't let them play together, it just doesn't work? In Afghanistan I
:43:43. > :43:47.witnessed men and women working together in very high-pressured
:43:47. > :43:51.environments, on the frontline, and I didn't ever see a problem with
:43:51. > :43:55.that. I didn't see any outward displays of discrimination between
:43:55. > :43:58.the guys and the girls. I think it was all down to team spirit,
:43:58. > :44:01.cohesion and working together to get the job done. That is really
:44:01. > :44:06.what I saw. What surprised me the most, actually, I almost assumed
:44:06. > :44:10.that a girl on her own in a patrol base would maybe be subjected to
:44:10. > :44:18.that, but I didn't actually see any of that myself. I think they
:44:18. > :44:23.adapted really well. Were the men a problem? Men are always a problem!
:44:23. > :44:27.Do they have problems with this idea, it is a man's problem?
:44:27. > :44:31.can't speak from a man's point of view, but I do speak to men in the
:44:31. > :44:36.military. I think there would be a split on whether men would agree
:44:36. > :44:41.whether or not women should be on the frontline. I have asked men
:44:41. > :44:45.working alongside a girl, like as a medic twice a day, they see her as
:44:45. > :44:49.part of the team and the patrol. They don't have an issue with
:44:49. > :44:52.gender, as long as you can do the job there is no problem. I wonder
:44:52. > :44:57.if Britain is a bit slow on this, maybe we are stuck on the mud,
:44:57. > :45:00.there is quite a lot of militaries who do it, it used to be famously
:45:01. > :45:04.the Australians, but a lot of military organisations are trying?
:45:04. > :45:07.I can't speak on behalf of the MoD, I don't know what their policy is
:45:07. > :45:11.on all of this. I do think that women are involved in the military
:45:11. > :45:14.since the Second World War, it is not a new thing, really. I think it
:45:14. > :45:18.is very interesting that the US are now making it legitimate for women
:45:18. > :45:22.to be on the frontline. It would be interesting to see how that plays
:45:22. > :45:25.out. I definitely will be following that very closely. Another lot of
:45:25. > :45:35.photographs. Thank you very much for sharing your photographs as
:45:35. > :45:35.
:45:35. > :46:21.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds
:46:21. > :46:24.well. That's all for tonight. If you are
:46:24. > :46:31.feeling a bit chilly this winter, spare a thought for the people of
:46:31. > :46:39.Chicago, where last night it was so cold that when firefighters put out
:46:39. > :46:49.a blaze in an abandoned building, the water froze and turned it into
:46:49. > :46:55.
:46:55. > :46:59.# Fire and ice # I want to give you my love
:47:00. > :47:09.# You just take a little piece of my heart
:47:10. > :47:20.
:47:21. > :47:24.Still cold weather to come through Friday, milder but wetter there
:47:24. > :47:28.after. You could see the first signs of rain coming into the
:47:28. > :47:32.western part of UK by the end of tonight. As it moves into the
:47:32. > :47:36.colder air, turning readily into snow, ahead of it a cold day across
:47:36. > :47:39.much of England. The wind freshening up, that will make it
:47:39. > :47:42.feel pretty bitter. Grey skies not helping with the feel of the day.
:47:42. > :47:46.Further west, look at the difference, rain across Cornwall,
:47:46. > :47:51.temperatures of seven degrees. Rain rather than snow pushing into the
:47:51. > :47:55.western parts of Wales. There might be sleet on the lead edge and wet
:47:55. > :47:58.snow over the hill. North Wales more likely to see a spell of snow.
:47:58. > :48:02.It will turn back to rain. Definitely into the milder air,
:48:02. > :48:06.during Friday across Northern Ireland, six or seven degrees, a
:48:06. > :48:10.wet-looking day. The rain moves across the colder weather across
:48:10. > :48:13.Scotland, turning readily to snow, disruptive know potentially, that
:48:13. > :48:17.could be a problem through Friday afternoon and evening, across part
:48:17. > :48:25.of England as well. By Saturday, look at the way the temperatures
:48:25. > :48:28.jump up. Six degrees in Edinburgh, we haven't seen that for a while.
:48:28. > :48:31.Birmingham beginning to creep up. The mild air coming from the