27/06/2013 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The chances of the lights in Britain going out in Britain are


many times higher than we thought a year ago, came the warning today.


Yet beneath these fields lie huge untapped reserves of gas. There is


just the problem of extracting it. This boss of a fracking company


swears it is safe to do so. This activist thinks it isn't. And this


minister will have to decide as well as reassuring the rest of us


the Government knows what it is doing.


Also tonight: I feel like a criminal that I'm on


benefits. I shouldn't do because we haven't been on full benefits. My


partner used to work but he had had a breakdown.


We test the claim that generation Y thinks benefits are too generous


and we all have to stand on our own two feet.


The riots in Brazil may have been relatively middle-class in origin,


but how much do the people of the shantytowns support them.


TRANSLATION: In my opinion Brazil is becoming more unequal, the era


of slavery is not over yet. The only difference is that now we are


getting paid. That's it. Funny old dayk we discovered that successive


British Governments have been so incompetent about energy supplies


that in less than a year the risk of power cuts has trebled. But we


also learned that Britain has probably twice as much shale gas


under the earth than had been thought. "few" you might think,


what is the talk of the odd earthquake and such. With the


economy in its current etherised state, surely everyone is


celebrating. No they are not. We explain why.


Official warnings that we face a future when the lights will go out


stepped up a notch today, as old oil plants and coal plants are shut


and cleaner replacements are yet to be replaced. The blackout will be


in 47 years, a new estimate put that at one in 12 years in 2015,


and possibly one in four years if demand doesn't drop, as is expected.


What a stroke of luck then that this morning we got eye-watering


new figures on a huge untapped resource of shale gas, buried under


a swathe of northern England. Suggesting a source of energy that


has transformed the market in America.


The Government is keen on renewables, nuclear and coal for a


while longer, but the question now is could shale gas keep the lights


on and the economy growing. Shale gas in the United States has


had a huge impact, the price of gas in the United States, if you


express it in oil terms is about $25 a barrel. That is a quarter of


the price of oil. That is getting into the economy and it is a very


flexible economy in the United States. It is brings prices down


for industry and the consumer. It is giving a big economic boost.


The numbers are impressive, the shale lies in two layers, some


areas have gas held in a thin upper layer, some have it in a lower


layer, others hold gas in both. In total, 1329 trillion cubic feet in


this part of Britain alone. And there are unquantified shale


resources elsewhere in the UK too. Shale gas is extracted through


fracking, a process which frees gas trapped thousands of feet below


ground by pumping millions of gallons of wart, plus sand and


chemicals into a well, lined with alternate layers of metal tubing


and casing. Done report properly it can be safe. But if there is corner


cutting then the risk of problems goes up. Local communities where


fracking first began have complained of gas leaks into their


water wells, earth tremors and huge disruption as the wells are dug.


Exploratory fracking in the UK in Lancashire also caused small


earthquakes and some here worry about the effect that might have on


house prices. One key question is can methane gas escaping from wells


be minimiseed so it doesn't reach ground water. This is a former gas


engineer, Mike Hill, who used to work in the industry. He's not


against fracking, but he lives locally and wants to ensure it is


done properly. I think understandably the general public


and the people in this area don't really know what's coming down the


line to them at this point in time until it happens. When they see,


over a period of time, ten years, for example, 3,400 wells being


drilled, flaring, truck, chemicals, total industrialisation of the


coast, damage to the tourist industry, damage to the


agricultural sector, people will be very angry indeed. What I say to


people in the public meetings in Lancashire is this is the price


that the coast has to pay for the benefit of the nation.


The industry says that once producing the well heads sit


quietly on a pad and can be hidden from view. What's more they are


offering local people an incentive, at least �100,000 for each well


where fracking takes place to explore, and 1% of revenues if


drilling proves commercially viable. Government promises it will be


properly regulated. Whether it is water issues, which the Environment


Agency has a robust regime on. Whether it is the integrity of the


wells that are dug, with independent well examiners that we


have used for many decades in the North Sea. Whether it is methane


emissions and so on, we have taken a very robust approach to making


sure this can be done in a way that is safer, safer for communities,


property and the environment. burn more gas and want to keep


carbon emissions down, we will need technology like this. Burning gas


releases half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. This


demonstration plant at London's Imperial College, traps those


emissions to be stored, called carbon capture and storage. It will


be many years before shale gas comes on stream, in the meantime


coal will play an important part in our energy mix. Both our fossil


fuels and technology being developed here to capture carbon


dioxide emissions will be really important if we want to minimise


the impact of emissions from the industry and energy tech sectors. -


- energy sectors. Today so energy announcements, including renewables


and a multibillion guarantee to raise finance for a new nuclear


power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. This is the day the


Government says the search for shale gas gets serious, as it seeks


to keep the public on side and the lights on. With us now is the


Energy Minister, Michael Fallon, also with us Andrew Austin the


chief executive of iGas Energy, which has fracking sites in the UK.


And Jenny Banks, the energy spokesperson for the WWF UK.


Can we speak for a moment or two about the electrical shortage and


the predictions. Does the word "negligence" occur to you at all?


From previous Governments that didn't build enough power station,


they knew the nuclear would come offline in a few years time, they


didn't do anything to replace nuclear power, they didn't build


enough stations. How many have closed since you came to office?


few have had to close because of European regulation and they have


come off line. Have any opened? Only one is being built at the


moment, others are gas generation, others have consent but the world


gas price doesn't allow that. stories running in tomorrow


morning's newspapers about how factories and businesses are going


to be asked to switch off in order that power isn't cut to people's


homes in 2015, are they true? The latest assessment is, as shown,


that the position is slightly worse than the previous assessment last


year. And they have got to make sure, the regulator, Ofgem, has to


make sure with all the tools at its disposal bringing the mothball


plant out back in action, back on- line, but all the tools it has at


its disposal it has to make sure the lights stay on and they will.


That is based on heroic assumptions about a lacklustre performance in


the economy, is that correct? based overall, they do assessments


of what demand is likely to be. They have to assess what plants


will be lost to the system, what new plant is coming on. There is a


lot of wind farms coming on the system. They make that assessment,


I assure you the lights won't go out. You can give us that


categorical assurance, and supposing in the unlikely event


that the economy suddenly improves, that will still be true? They


factor in the growth in the economy as well as everything else. Can you


tell us on the question of shale gas, what status does David


Cameron's promise to be the greenest Government ever have now?


We are meeting our targets. We are still on track to decarbonise the


economy. To meet our obligations under European and international


treaties, to make sure that we bring on more renewables. Shale gas


is the cleanest form of fossil fuel there is. It is a new form of


fossil fuel isn't it? It is new, it doesn't mean we don't meet our


decarbonisation target. We can do that as well. How does producing a


new fossil fuel to the mix equate with being the cleanest Government


ever? A couple of minutes ago you said we would be short of energy.


This adds to the mix. You have a choice about how you meet the gap?


We have to meet it at home. We can't keep importing very expensive


energy from abroad at a time of very volatile prices. You have


given up on green energy have you? No we have not. We are going to


meet our green targets. We will meet our renewables target. Have


you met the Green Deal target? have started on that, it is a new


scheme and only just opened. many homes have signed up? We have


had several thousand assessments being done. How many have signed up


to? I don't know how many have signed up. It is a very new scheme,


it will run for 20, 30 years as people build energy efficiency into


their homes. Going to the question of shale gas, is it safe to extract


it? It will only be done, it will only be extracted if it is safe. We


had a moratorium on this structure. You don't know? We will make sure.


Now they will have to not only have a license and planning permission,


they will have to have permits from the Environment Agency. They will


have to authorisation from Health & Safety Executives, they will have


to have all these permits to make sure it is extracted safely and


properly without damaging the environment. Just to be clear about


this, you are offering communities bribes of �100,000 a pop to have


one of these extraction plants, experimental extraction plants


without knowing whether it is safe or not? The developers are offering


community some compensation for the disruption that there is going to


be. That is nothing to do with the Government. It is an offer from the


industry. You are going to give them tax breaks? Let me be clear,


they won't be allowed to extract unless the method is judged safe by


the Environment Agency and the Health & Safety Executive. Andrew


Austin, is it safe, can you guarantee that? Yes, yes.There is


no danger whatsoever? There is rigorous background to how we


extract oil and gas in this country. We have been doing it for many


years on shore. Both on shore and off shore. The UK in boat


environments has a long history of safe and proper regulation of those


processes. The largest oil and gas field on shore in Europe is in the


UK and has been conducting operations for the last 25 years.


The Government has added to the level of regulation today and the


level of control and building on that gold standard of history of


how to regulate this industry. the Blackpool earth tremors? Were,


as the Durham Energy Institute said were extremely small and were of a


level that would be involved in most other extractive industries


like coal mining or gravel extraction. I think the phrase the


professor used "it is a bit like jumping off a step ladder in terms


of the impact". We still stopped it to check and make sure the system


was robust. It is only since Christmas we have allowed fracking


to resume. The consequence of this will be lower energy bills, that is


a good thing, isn't it? It would be a good thing, but actually if you


have a look at some of the studies, the serious analytical studies done


by Bloomberg New Energy Finance and others, that there will be no


impact or negligible impact on the cost of gas in the short-term, up


to 2025 or later. That is predicated on actually getting this


gas out of the ground. Will it have an impact on gas prices? Yes, I


think it will. Not to necessarily push them down dramatically in the


same way as the states. You more or less agree on that? Rather than to


put a cap on gas prices that will give more people confidence to


invest in industry et. Actually it will have an impact -- et cetera.


It actually will have an impact to home bills that they won't rise


than they would necessarily, if the country continues to rely on


imported energy. I thought you were suggesting they would drive down


prices? They clearly have in the United States both for household


and industry, that has been extreme low important for the revival of


the economy in the United States. That's why it would be pretty


irresponsible not to encourage the industry to go down and see if the


shale can be recovered in the same way. We don't know that yet. We


don't know whether it can be recovered in sufficient volume to


drive down prices. But it would be quite wrong not to check. It would


be wrong, it would be idiotic not to check wouldn't it? It depends


what your objectives are, what we are looking at, and what our


biggest concern about shale gas is, climate change. We are looking at


it from this context. An organisation called Carbon Tracker,


recently revealed we have listed on stock exchanges across the world


five-times more fossil fuels globally than we can burn if we are


no meet the target to keep temperature rises within two


degrows. That doesn't include resources like shale gas, if you


are then taking shale gas out of the ground that is increasing the


already too many fossil fuels that we have. So you object to this


really on principle, that it is a fossil, a further fossil fuel?


at some point if we are going to tackle. All the other, the danger


is icing on the cake? We are an environmental organisation we care


about climate change and local environmental impacts and their


effect on people. But our view is that really climate change is the


one thing that whatever you do about the local environmental


impacts and they absolutely need to be addressed and there is some of


the science is still really quite uncertain. What is the worst that


could happen from extracting this stuff? Well, there was a study


released recently from Duke's University in the US that suggested


that the well bores themselves are leaking methane, they found


consntraigss of methane between six and seven-times higher in shale gas


areas to non-shale gas areas. That is one of the potential concerns


there are a number of others. with that? One of the things that


the Government is actually insistent on, and one of the


reasons why the more tain yum was in place, was to ensure that the


right level of background monitoring was carried out prior to


any operations. Prior to any operations we carry out we have to


monitor both the ground water and background size movement, and


natural low occurring earth tremors, so one can detect any changes


happening. The university study had no background information prior to


that happening. You will be able to tell us after the event that there


has been a pollution event? there is a clear set of traffic


lights set out with the Environment Agency. After the event?No, on the


way through the event. Especially in terms of tracking. If it is


monitored week by week it can only report what has happened? It can


report any seismic activity. soon as something like Take That


happens you stop. -- as soon as something like that happens you


stop. We will have more discussion about


that again. Of it the day of rage after the


night before today, except it wasn't. The news that yet again the


burden of salvaging the economy is to fall first on those who most


depend upon its benefits system hasn't stirred up a hornet's nest.


Opposition to the plan is the dog that didn't bark. It seems to


represent a growing and changing consensus, in particular attitudes


seem to have changed among younger voters. Generation Y as the under-


34s are called, they have a different set of beliefs from those


of their parents and grandparents. We will speak to three from this


group in a few minutes. First here is Paul Mason.


For ten years Sarah Sullivan lived in a one bedroom council flat with


her partner and four children. Then she got moved by housing


association to a four bedroomed house in Orpington, Kent. It was


like Christmass all in one when we got this because my children had


their own bedroom, their faces, it was absolutely lovely to see their


faces. Now because one daughter has moved out they have been told to


move to a smaller house or pay �21 extra a week. I feel like a


criminal that I'm on benefits. I shouldn't though because we haven't


been on full benefits, my partner used to work, but he had had a


breakdown. It is a big difference to if we had the �21. We would move,


but the thing is my son is going to secondary school in September and


for us to uproot and go somewhere else, they can't say they can give


us another property where we are, it is, I don't want to do it to my


children, it is not fair. Sarah's partner is long-term sick, so they


live on ESA, child benefit, housing benefit. A general cap on welfare


spending would affect them. So what does she think of that. Why


shouldn't we have a cap on benefit spending? We should, there is


people out there that are scroungers, but then there is


people like myself and my partner who really need the help. It is


hard to get the help because of the other people how hard they have


made it for us. Yesterday the Government signalled a whole new


ball game when it comes to benefits. Two groups of people need to be


satisfied with our welfare system. Those who need it, who are old, who


are vulnerable, who are disabled, or lost their job, and who we as a


compassionate society want to support. There is a second group,


the people who pay for this welfare system, who go out to work, who pay


their taxes and expect it to be fair on them too. But public


attitudes have turned against welfare. On thes state where Sarah


lives official figures show unemployment levels double the


national average and half the families are single parent families.


But 20 minutes away by train and you are in streets awash with


finance and fashion, and among the wider population is seems that even


Labour people now have what we thought were Tory attitudes to the


poor. This graph shows the percentage of


people surveyed who said the Government should spend more on


been fits for the poor. Among Labour people, where it was once


close to 80%, it is now below half, among Conservative voters where it


started at about half it is now just 20%. And what's most striking


is the change in attitudes among the young. Among those under-35,


those wanting more spent on benefits has fallen from 50% to 20%.


There is a perception that all people on benefits have been in


receipt of extra money from the welfare system. In fact, if you


look at people who are out of work and on jobseeker's allowance, they


have had no real increase in the benefits available to them for 20


or 30 years. But they are the ones who are receiving the brunt of


people's anger against perceptions about fraud and dishonesty within


the well from state. Life in a place like this can be tough, above


all for the young, they know their lives are being scrutinised and


generalisations being made, most people are just as keen as the


Government to see the welfare system working fairly. Attitudes


towards people receiving benefits have been hardening now for about


two decades, since the financial crisis something has changed. The


survival strategy of the young seems to be work at all costs for


low wages or even no wages. And that has changed what they think


the state and taxation should be used for.


I think it is very difficult for the bulk of the population to fully


understand what it is like to be reliant upon the state for


everything. And then be subject to the changes that happen in the


amount of income that comes in through the door. There are


families right now struggling to make decisions between whether to


heat their home or feed their children. That is a reality. That


is something we see within our bureau. I think that is a million


miles away from a lot of the population. And Sarah, who has to


live on welfare, but is all too well aware of the fall in public


support for it has a challenge. in my shoes for a week or a month


and see how it is. It is easy for people to say oh you are doing this


and that, but then they don't know the full circumstances. Unless they


have been in my shoes, then they can say OK. Do you think they want


to know? No. There is a lot of ignorance out there. A lot of


ignorance. With us now is a member of the tax-


payers' alliance, and an author of Jilted Generation, and the


columnist at the New Statesman, all a part of the called "generation Y".


You must have all observed this, it is quite apparent on certain


occasions, why do you think it is that younger people seem to be


turning against the welfare system? It is actually quite a complex


issue, I think the first thing to say is that young people actually


tend not to be in receipt of some of those universal benefits and


advantages that a lot of people expected them to be. But they are,


actually, bearing the brunt of the recession in the sense that they


are the ones most likely to be unemployed. About 40% of those


unemployed in Britain are under 30. It is really centered in this


cohort. And yet actually they want themselves to be able to stand on


their own two feet. They are finding they can't. As a result


they are actually becoming dependant, not just on the state,


however mealy-mouthed it is to their problems, but also on their


parents. And yet they feel they have in some respects a worse life


than their parents, what they are entitled to expect? Actually living


standards are worse for somebody working on average in their 20s


than a grandparent in their 80s now. The standard of living is lower.


They are right to feel that way. Why do you think there has been


this apparent change? I think it is very funny isn't it that we are


suddenly so interested in what young people think and what young


people have to say. Young people have been squeezed hardest and poor


people have been squeezed hardest over the past three years of this


coalition Government and in the five years since the crash. And


young people have had a lot of opinions about he hadcation, about


the tripling of university fees and the move We are talking about


benefit now? When people came out on to the streets and answered the


opinion polls in their thousands saying they were against those


changes, people didn't pay attention. On this occasion they


are supporting George Osborne? necessarily. They are. Let's look


at this. I'm going to show you a graph now, it will show you what


opinion has done on the question of, the question was put "if welfare


benefits weren't so generous people would learn to stand on their own


two feet" the number of people agreeing is the blue line, soaring


in recent years, and previous recessions it hasn't? I can see the


graph, Jeremy. What has happened over the past three years there has


been a sustained campaign of lies and disinformation being spread


about what benefits mean, about who get them. There has been a campaign


of shame and alienation against young people and working people in


this country. It is no surprise that people. Are they too stupid to


see through it? I'm not saying that, this Government is much better at


PR than it is at fixing the economy. What do you think the reason is?


According to Laurie it is all the media's fault. No, she's not


blaming the media, she's blaming the Government? Generation Y have


seen they have become less reliant on welfare. They have become more


typical liberal, they believe in lower taxes, limited welfare.


no. That is the British, that is what the British Association


attitude survey shows, it shows it is developing over a -- British


Association attitude survey shows. You are more liberal on social


attitudes? They haven't embraced the teachings of Milton Friedman


these people are massively insecure, they have been failed by society


and are bearing the brunt of unemployment. If people feel they


have no stake in society why should they feel the welfare state has


anything to give them. People our age and younger have grown up


believing that society has no stake in them, has nothing to offer them.


It is no surprise that people are feeling that welfare is not what


people should be relying on. Welfare has been madly insufficient


for years. I'm not sure...Why they asking for more of it? People


are asking for more of it. graph shows precisely the reverse


of that. The fact is younger people are incredibly realistic about the


fact that their retirements aren't going to be paid for. They are more


individualistic and liberal in their outlook, they get used to the


state not providing anything. Whether we like it or not, we are


all children of Thatcher because she has changed the political


debate and what we are looking at. Are they more self-sufficient?


is not the state who gave them the iPhone. More people young men are


living with their parents. Is that what Thatcher wanted, 30% of young


people living with their parents. Our younger generation is being


priced out of the housing ladder, and finding it more difficult to


get on the job market. What is the solution to that. They are not


standing on their own two feet, they are living with their parents


and unemployed on a mass scale. We have the third-highest youth


unemployment in the OECD. That is a massive question that both


political parties have to answer. It touch on benefits because young


people actually are massively in receipt of them. If they are


against benefits what it says is they are desperately self-reliant


because they have been taught that nobody else is going to help them.


We have a responsibility to, surely. Isn't it admirable to have a sense


of self-sufficiency? It isn't that, because it is not self-sufficiency,


but they are reloint on their parents and what their parents --


reliant on their parents and what they can do. They are reliant on


JSA because they can't get job. They can't be self-sufficient


because they haven't been given the tool to build stable adult lives.


That is the crisis. What the Government calls standing on your


two feet others call abandonment, which has happened to young people


in this country. That doesn't explain why there is the support


for cutting benefits? Shame explains it, there is a campaign


against all people who are poor and in receipt of benefits, most of


whom work and are tax-payers too. And you should represent their


interests. Maybe it is young people want to get on. I'm sure they want


to get on. They don't see well fare as an alternative in work. Creating


jobs helps them. I actually see it as making sure work pays, so not


taxing the lower paid to provide elsewhere. Young people don't see


benefits as the answer but work as the answer. Why has the


Conservative Government cut 140,000 jobs, they are destroying jobs not


creating jobs and taking away welfare leaving people to starve.


Foodbanks are on the rise, young people are living in crowded houses


in London. There has been a desmakes of welfare of education


and people are starving. This, I think, is the essential point,


there was a plan, a strategy that Labour pursued in Government, which


was to try to embed benefits throughout all of society for the


greatest possible degree. The idea was when the crash came, when the


Tories got in those been fits wouldn't be cut. Because they were


embedded in the rest of the society. Actually it has been very easy to


cut those benefits, it turns out most people in Britain don't want


to be dependant on benefits. The people on the margin are indulging


in benefit fraud, most of them are living very miserable lives. That


is why it is not popular, because nobody wants to be on benefits,


they want to build sustainable, coherent adult lives. It is only


that people don't want to be on benefits, they realise it is not


sustainable to have a system where the welfare state has gone from


helping the most vulnerable and being a safety net to where it is


topping up incomes. What the Government needs to be looking at


doing is given that generation Y want to get on and work, it is


ensuring that work pays. What will happen as generation Y get older?


Generation Y is incredibly realistic about what their


prospects are for retirement. More people believe the moon landings


were faked than the state providing for their current retirement. That


was TPA polling. We know people are realistic about it, they want to


save and get on, but the Government need to get out of the way. How is


getting out of the way solve things for the mill yun young people out


of work now not knowing what their future will hold, living miserable


lives. How is making work pay going to help that. What you call it that,


most people call it cutting benefits more. It is not, it is


enabling the economy to grow. Rather than burdening family


budgets and businesses out there taking on young people, ensuring


that taxes aren't actually destroying economic growth, but


that's the policy that you keep arguing. Because the economy is


doing really well. Because we front-loaded the tax rises. You are


looking baffled? Making work pay, middle-class pay, and most pages


have been stagnant, it is not just about ensuring that the state can


get out of the way of people. It isen suring that businesses pay


decent wages and the he economy is growing. These are the big -- and


the economy is growing, and these are the big issues, I don't feel


any party is doing that. Are you losing the argument with your


contemporaries? If you look at the polling, what is most interesting


is 40% of young people do not feel connected to any political party or


any argument being made in Government at all. Young people


right now and poor people have been abandoned by mainstream political


discourse. Most of this has no impact on how ordinary people are


living their lives on the breadline right now. Food banks are on the


rise, people have no idea. In many cases how they are going to have


the next meal, never mind make the next rent cheque.


Thank you very much. We will have more from Paul Mason in a few


minutes. First television's affection for helmets and teargas


and noise in general means hardly anyone can be unaware of the fact


that there are riot going on in Brazil. Some of the pictures are


quite dramatic. But what are they about. They began in the middle-


class, although unlike other protestors who dream of bringing


down dictator or spreading freedom, the Brazilians seem to have more


blooding ambition, they didn't like prices -- plodding ambition, they


didn't like price going up on transport or the staging of the


football World Cup. What about the poor of Brazil who have reason


enough to complain, perhaps. We went to find out.


A journey through Rio is a journey through discontent. However fast


Brazil's progress, it is not fast enough.


See it through the ice of Pedro Vicenti, who drives the number 415


bus. His parents are illiterate, a maid and a street vendor, he has a


steady job and is saving to go to university. He and the diverse


crowd of citizens he carries are dissatisfied. One of the striking


things about the protests here is they haven't set one section of


society against another, as revolutions often do, as certainly


happened in the recent unrest in Turkey. On the contrary, they seem


to have united social classes, who usually have very different


interests. Now Brazilians from all walks of life feel betrayed by


leader, but it is the young, the educated and the middle-class who


have driven protests. Those at the bottom of the heap, in Rio's


shantytowns, the fafvel lows, have largely -- favelas, have largely


stayed at home. Daisy is one of the 11 million Brazilian mothers who


gets payments for keeping their children in school. The family


allowance scheme aims to lift families like Daisy's out of


poverty. Many economyists say it is succeeding. But it is not enough to


keep this family loyal to the President. TRANSLATION: People


voted for her because they thought she would do the same things the


last person would because they are from the same party. She's not


doing the same things he did. That was why he was able to run Brazil


for eight years. She doing bad things. He helped much more, prices


were not so expensive. The main reason they don't take to


the streets, they say, is fear of police violence. More likely to be


directed against slum dwellers than against the middle-class. But Daisy


and her 16-year-old daughter, Larissa, are with the protestors in


spirit. We come from England and in the outside world people are really


impressed by Brazil. They say that Brazil is getting better and better,


it is getting richer and richer. It is going to have the World Cup, it


is going to have the Olympics? But it doesn't feel like that to you?


How does it seem to you? TRANSLATION: It is not what it


seems to be. I think they are hiding the truth. They are showing


something fake. TRANSLATION: They are lying, it is terrible here,


everything is terrible. The only thing I see improving are


the stadium for the World Cup, just that and we don't need it. We don't


need stadiums we need hospitals. Larissa wants to be a doctor, but


show says she's not getting the education she needs. -- but she


says she's not getting the education she needs. Her school is


in the middle of the slum. She's back now after taking a short time


off to have a baby. In the past many children dropped out of school.


Working to support their families, some joining the drug gangs that


control the favela. Now the family allowance payments keep them in


class. There are more teachers, and more music, sport and other


activities to stimulate pupils. So does the headteacher think that


the protestors who complained so bitterly about Brazil's schools are


simply ungrateful for what the Government has done? TRANSLATION:


No, I don't think so they are ungrateful. I think they understand


their benefit. But we need to demand from the state even more


investment in education. One thing does not cancel the other. They


receive these been fits from the people they voted for. -- these


benefits from the people they voted for. That is why they have the


right to demand more jobs, investment, that is a natural part


of democracy. The 415 is emptying as Pedro heads into leafy parts of


town. The authorities hope the streets will empty as they offer


ever more concessions. Fair increases have been withdrawn, more


cash promised for transport, schools and healthcare.


The protesters' demands are growing, some Brazilians are getting a taste


for street politics. Among them the driver of the 415.


TRANSLATION: In 27 years this is the first time something like this


has happened. If there is a protest every day then I will be here every


day. Because it is beautiful to see all these people together. It gives


me goosebumps and I have never seen anything like this before. I


believe that this time something really is going to change. This


week the crowd won another victory, the defeat of a measure that would


have limited prosecutors' powers to investigate corruption. Why were


Brazil's politicians caught so off guard? I have come to meet the


Mayor of Rio. Brazil is a democracy, I mean, the democracy has to get


more mature and improve. I think there is a problem with democracy,


representive democracy all over the world. On that level, on that basic


services, what can you tell me today that you will offer the


people who are still coming out on to the street who say education


isn't good enough, the health isn't good enough, what will you give


them? You have been to one of the schools of tomorrow. We did lots of


good things in the past few years for the education system. People


want more. That is the good thing about Brazilian democracy. On


education I it tell you it is not a problem of money. How can it not be


a problem with with money, primary school teachers earn so little


money. You are responsible for that? If you comair to the wages,


to the sal -- If you compare to the wages and salaries of Brazil it is


not that bad. To the man on the bus that is pretty complacent. But some


are uneasy that what started as a campaign about public transport has


been diverted into too man other causes. Some of the left, some of


the right. Already the unity that marks the beginning of the protests


is beginning to breakdown. And perhaps that's inevitable in a


society where many think inequality is still increasing.


We have reached the end of the line, and Pedro is finished driving fored


today. He has discovered ordinary people like him can be drivers of


change. And he thinks Brazil needs a lot more of it. TRANSLATION:


my opinion Brazil is becoming more unequal. The era of slavery is not


over yet. The only difference is that now we are getting paid.


That's it. Do you think that Brazil will ever be more equal?


TRANSLATION: I do believe it, if we keep protesting on the streets, I


believe that things will change. Politicians though are practised in


promising change. Brazil's new protest movement will have


difficulty retaining enough energy and enough social cohesion to hold


them to account. Those marvellous people in our Government are going


to spend loads more of our money digging holes and building roads


and railways and generally doing for more the infrastructure of this


country than anyone has done in a century. Also the propaganda


machine we also pay for told us today. What a load of dishonest


drivel said their opponents as they whittled down and alleged �100


million of investment to something a lot less impressive and urgent.


What have they promised? To build infrastruck stuer. People like


infrastructure. People don't just like it because they can get on a


train or a motorway, but they feel good when they live in a country


where there is the best in the world. You only have to get on a


400km train in China to understand how good that feels. The Government


spent last the last three years slashing spending on infrastructure,


its plans are not to particularly raise spending on infrastructure


for the rest of the parliament. What it did was pull together the


money it had already pledged to spend on infrastructure on the next


parliament, and put projects to that money. About �100 billion of


it, they decided to name them and specify them or do feasiblilty


studies, this is what provoked the outbreak of high perbowl lay in the


Commons today. -- h yperbole. I can announce the biggest housing


programme in manyies, the largest rail plans since Victorian times.


The greatest investment in roads since the 1970s. Fast on-line


access for the whole country. this what we used to call "money"?


It is real money. The important thing is if you say we are


definitely going to do this and not this, what you then do and what


they are trying to do is create certainty for private investors so


they can look at the UK. A lot will be wrapped up and sold to


inspection markets and protesters. We can say we think it has a future


in roads and investment. Often in economics we are talking about


facts and figures and graphs and charts. Actually it is quite a nice


thing to be talking about roads and railways, and flood defences.


Because we can feel these a touch them. This is HS2, already �9


million more than we expected it to cost. It will allow people to


comout between the cities on the map, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham,


London, rather than long run one- day journeys. Dependant on the cost


of the tickets. Yes. There is CrossRail, we have already got one


going across London, east to west, we have this one, this has been


given the nod, there is a feasiblilty study for it, so all


the tourists who can't afford the hotel room who live in campsites on


the edge of London will be able in the future to get on a train into


central London and work out where to get on a pavement. We would have


had a map of the motorways but it was too complicated. But there is a


huge road upgrading thing. By 2040 if we don't do this the whole


network will grind to a halt. 2040. The A14, the M4 will be


upgraded. Most motorway junctions will be upgrade the. Get ready for


a lifetime of traffic cones. The A1 north to new cast. There a stort of


stay in the UK appeal to the Scots that we build -- a sort of stay in


the UK appeal to the Scots if we build a road to them. The good


thing is the economics of it, if you decide not to spend on


departmental or spending and welfare, you can make the case that


spending it in a clear demonstrable and predictable way on all this.


Plus the flood defences and housing. Actually creates jobs. That's why


they have done it. Thank you very much indeed. Some of tomorrow


morning's front pages now, the Times goes with that story we were


dealing with earlier about the That's it. George Osborne has spent


the day trying to justify a photograph showing him preparing


his cuts to welfare while eating a rather putocratic-lookingburger,


don't worry George, it is an easy Hello there, good evening, quite a


mixture of weather to come of the we will start on a warm and humid


note. Two areas of rain, the first one heading eastwards and


brightening up for a while. Another band of rain sinking southwards


across Scotland and Northern Ireland. If we do get sunshine in


Northern Ireland it will be late in the day. Some drizzley rain.


Developing more and more in Scotland. A fresher feel in the


afternoon after the rain. The rainband sweeps southwards into


northern England, depressing the temperatures here. For a while the


rain could be heavy. This is the rain affecting Wimbledon earlier on


in the day's play. That pushes away and brightens up eventually. We get


sunshine. Humid air coming across the south and Wales, if the


sunshine comes out temperatures could get as good as 22 or 23.


Download Subtitles