14/01/2014 Newsnight

Forget the love nest, forget the early morning croissant deliveries,

don't inquire about the First Lady and listen up about how he's going

to save the economy. Facing journalists the President of France

was insowsant today. -- insoucient today. Translation, "mind your own

business"! But could this sandal be the one that nails the French

tolerance of bed hopping in high places.

In the midst of Civil War the pianist plays on at the Damascus

Opera House, what is it like to live or try to live in Syria now? Some

people are saying this is not the time for concerts. My opinion is

that this concert matters. And the car that drives and parks itself.

Coming soon to a forecourt near you. Do you really need to buy one?

Before that radical banking reform plan reportedly coming from the

Labour Party. Emily Maitlis is here. Tell us about it? Interesting

snippets emerging tonight ahead of Ed Miliband's keynote speech on

Friday. What we have heard this evening is proposals that he may

introduce some kind of competition within the high street banks. The

banking sector as a whole. He will, as I understand, suggest a cap on

the size of banks, possibly to do with their domestic market share,

possibly set at around 25%. We don't have confirmation on that figure.

This is a figure that is being talked about this evening. That

could draw on a scheme very similar to one in the United States, and

would involve getting rid of hundreds of bank branches, the idea

behind this is to split up the big five, the banking names that we are

all familiar with and give smaller banks the room to challenge them, to

come into the market. And if you look at this in the sort of wider

political frame, you will remember that before Christmas Ed Miliband

was hammering home the cost of living argument. That was very key.

That landmark moment at the conference speech when went after

the energy companies. And created, if you like, the impossible, by

suggesting this freeze and energy cap for two years on fuel prices.

Many people said, sounds utterly un-Israelistic -- unrealistic, but

it seemed to have a lot of traction in public opinion. He will try to

link the same argument from what we understand, the cost of living, by

saying not just these individual areas like energy, but bigger,

structural changes to the whole British economy. A lot of appeal to

those who think that the banking sector hasn't been bashed enough.

And who would like to see the banking sector paying the price. But

interestingly enough the responsive been getting this evening already

suggests this is more complicated than it sounds as a headline. For

example how do you start looking at the domestic share of a bank. How do

you look at something like HSBC, which is a global body, head

quartered in the UK but could go bust in China. What would 25% of

that look at? Just briefly, another senior business figure has been

saying you know we have had this nonstop intervention, intervention

on land, intervention on energy, it is part of a pattern and it is

rather anti-business, it could alienate business. I gather that

George Osborne is making a speech tomorrow as well? Yes, what we are

hearing is he's going to give a speech to the Open Europe Forum on

Europe, and it is to the Fresh Start Group also. The message then we are

getting a few key phrases from it, one is "reform or decline". He will

tell the EU, Europe itself that it has to back business, create jobs

and cut welfare spending. He's going to tell, if you like, the

institutions of Europe that they are not doing enough to become

productive to take on countries like China, India, the Asian giant who is

are really dominating the economy. There is the hint of a veiled threat

in this, that he may well say if we don't see significant reform, if

economic performance remains unacceptable, it might be that you

will find it difficult to persuade Britain it wants to remain a member

of the EU. A slight veiled threat. What is interesting about this is

the way he is straddling two audiences here. Because he will be

talking to Fresh Start, a think-tank about reform, they want reform from

the inside. They want to keep inside the EU. So it is significant he will

give this speech within that forum. But, of course, this is an answer to

all those backbenchers, up to 95, we understand, who signed a letter by

Bernard Jenkins, they are MPs who want to see a national veto, and

many would like to leave the EU all together. What he's saying here is

look I can be hard of nails on Europe but I want reform from inside

not out. Thank you very much. The Syrian

Government claimed today to have recaptured territory near the city

of Aleppo, after the recent fighting between different rebel groups it

does looks a though the balance in the Civil War has shifted a little.

It is nowhere near a conclusion. In the meantime the need for

humanitarian aid is so intense that the United Nations is about to

launch its biggest-ever appeal. Meantime the BBC's correspondent, in

and out of Syria all the time, has heard claims by the Al-Assad regime

that some western Governments may be beginning to change their tune.

She's here now. It is a real treat tonight, thank you for coming in.

Good to be with you. What is it you have heard from this Syrian

Government minister? Well let's be clear that what this the Syrian

Government is saying now, and of course this is very much a narrative

that it wants to spin. What it has been saying for many months is

listen, the real enemy in Syria is not President Assad, which American

Governments repeatedly call, and Arab states as well, on him to step

down saying he has no future. They say the real enemy is the rising

strength of these Islamist groups, some of whom are linked to Al-Qaeda,

and most of which are populated by foreign fighters, including

thousands that are coming from Europe. It is clear in the west that

they do regard this as a growing threat. Not just that the foreign

Jihadis are going to Syria and fighting there, but they will one

day come back. Come back to Britain as well. And we have heard

expressions of concern. The question is whether the Government is now

saying that the western intelligence agencies have accepted this threat

and want to make common cause. So when I was in Damascus recently I

put it to the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, I said, are we having

reports that western intelligence agencies are going to Damascus. This

is what he said. We understand that western

intelligence agencies have recently visited Damascus, including British

intelligence? I will not specify, but many have visited Damascus. Has

the British Foreign Office made inquiries about the return of its

diplomats? We are still listening to statements by Mr Hague statements

that are a flagrant intervention in our internal affairs. Statements

which he should particularly when it comes to democracy address his

friends in Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries or other countries

that are very close to the UK. But frankly speaking the spirit has

changed. What do you see? When sees countries ask us for security

operation, then it seems to me there is a schism between the political

and security leaderships. So in other words you have just confirmed

that British intelligence has been in touch with you? I'm not

confirming anything. I'm not confirming anything, I'm saying that

many of these countries have contacted us to co-ordinate security

measures. The political story apart... I should say now that of

course we contacted the for on office -- Foreign Office, they say

they don't comment on intelligence matters. They always say that.

Political stories apart, you know the things that baffles a lot of

people who look at these awful pictures coming out of Syria and the

size of the refugee crisis, is the whole country desolate or what?

Three years into the war in Syria and it is an absolutely punishing

war. On top of that, as aid officials put it, one of the worst

humanitarian crises we have ever seen. What we have seen from going

in and out of Syria over these three years that more and more of the

country is falling into rule. Every battlefield I have visited has been

an absolute ghost town. You drive for mile after mile after mile, with

not a house left standing, not a house which is not pockmarked with

bullet fire. Totally torn apart by aerial bombardments or torn apart by

the street-to-street fighting. We have often talked about the bubble

in the centre of some of these cities, still firmly under

Government control. That includes Damascus, where if you arrived and

didn't know there was a war you would say look at the parks, there

is lovers sitting in the park, civil servants are taking the buses and

going to work. The children are dutifully going to school. Then you

hear the mortars landing and the constant artillery fire. There is

not a single family that hasn't been affected by this war. But on this

recent visit to Damascus we decided to hear voices we don't often here.

This is what they have said to us about what it is like to live in a

warzone. A son nat toe by Scerleti, played by Syria's most renowned In

the Damascus Opera House it is something for another time.

TRANSLATION: Day after day the situation is getting worse. We have

more casualties, we are more stressed. You can't imagine how hard

I have to work to focus on art and this difficult atmosphere. Some

people don't come to the Opera House because of explosions, mortars. The

timing of the concerts has changed from the evening to the afternoon.

Some people are saying this is not the time for concerts. My opinion is

that these concerts matter, the role of art is to help build citizens.

Even when you are listening to the beauty of this music, it is hard not

to forget that just kilometres away, several miles away there are areas

outside Damascus where people are besieged and people are starving?

TRANSLATION: That's right, but the question is what should our reaction

be? I'm helpless to do anything except my music, and teaching my

students. I always try to support them, to build their awareness. That

is what I can do. I have another choice, I can stay at home, but that

wouldn't change anything. When the uprising began nearly three years

ago some Syrians felt they could change a lot by peaceful protest.

Including Rema Dali, they called her "the woman in the red dress". When

we interviewed her then, she told Newsnight she still had hope the

killing would stop. Now she's no longer taking to the streets. This

one was the one that became famous. Yes, I stood on the parliament in

Damascus and carried the banner and it said "stop the killing we want to

build a home for all Syrians". That was more than a year ago? It was

about one-and-a-half years ago. And that's when there were 10,000 dead,

sadly. Now it's 120,000. TRANSLATION: Our first mistake was

that we thought it was going to be fast, a quick change. And we are

paying for this mistake now. To make a change you need to be patient, you

need to look deeply, take a long breath and start working. There are

no quick changes here. I don't think we will see any change before five

years. But some people fear that if it does take another five years

there won't be any Syria left given all the killing and all the

destruction. TRANSLATION: There is no country that has days peered, no

people who have disappeared. There is some fear at how things will turn

out. What people are suffering what they will continue to suffer. How

Syria will be in five years and how different the Syrian people will be.

Three years on, do you believe that either the opposition or the

Government represent what you stand for? TRANSLATION: They are not

representative of the Syrian people, neither side are working for the

benefit of the Syrian people. They don't represent our values. But I

still believe in Syrian society, it still carries a lot of important and

noble values. No-one expected Syria's conflict would last so long,

cost so much, be so brutal. Few expected President Assad would still

be in power. Except perhaps those who support him. This is a wealthy

industrialist with ties to the President. He suggested we meet in

the Shakespeare Cafe. You were put on the western sanctions list, what

do you say to those countries now? I say first of all I tell those

countries I'm not urging them to lift me from the sanctions li list,

but I tell them in order for you, their politicians to protect the

interest of their own people, the western people, really you have to

side with the Syrian Government in fighting terrorism, because this is

the biggest fight against terrorism in the history since Al-Qaeda was

initiated and was born some 20 or 30 years ago in the Afghan war. This is

the biggest battle against terrorism in the world. And anyone who claims,

in the west, or in other countries, who claims that he is really

fighting terrorism, he should be a friend with the Syrian army and with

the Syrian Government. And the tragedy is people say it became a

self-fulfilling prophesy that President Assad talked about

terrorism before there was terrorism, because the war has been

so brutal it created terrorism. From day one, from day one they used

arms. No, there were peaceful protests when they started? That is

what they say. From day one they used arms, many used arms and tried

to create chaos. From day one or day two they attacked public buildings.

For months and months and months it was a peaceful protest? Of course we

had some mistakes in dealing with this. I don't want to defend the

Government. There are mistakes dealing with this, it happened,

Government has confessed, the President admitted the mistakes, all

these known TV stars that attack us on TV from five-star hotels, they

were all invited to sit with us and in a national dialogue in 2011, they

all refused. Because ambassadors, some ambassadors told them not to

come. Don't bet on a losing horse. We will, the regime will stay only

for three or four months. So basically don't lose your cards,

stay with us. This is what happened, unfortunately. If we were allowed to

sit together, we could have reached a solution a long time ago. Life

does go on. But Syria has been drawn into the abyss. With every day that

passes it gets worse. But after so much suffering and sacrifice,

emotions are raw. Still too raw for reconciliation. Or resolution. In a

moment... The driverless car. Now, he might not have reached the

rhetorical heights of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, but the President of

France, Francois Hollande, still managed some sort of record today

for the longest uninterrupted political speech in a foreign

language, broadcast in Britain. Doubtless there were many here who

were desperate to hear his sloganising about the French

economy. But even the eyes of some of the lap dogs in the French media

glazed over. As to the reason the rest of the world was interested, as

he put it, private matters should be dealt with privately. It was a very

French affair in every sense. We report from Paris.

What is it about the French? How does their language so plausibly

lend itself to a swelling love song. How has Paris so successfully

established itself as the global capital of the common human heart.

This has become a lovers rend day vow, each padlock marks a tryst,

couples come from all over the world to lock themselves together. In a

movie you can see a lot of movies talking about love in Paris and

Midnight in Paris is really romantic. Is it the most romantic

city you have been in. I think so. France's relationship with love and

sex runs deep. It has had a succession of Presidents,

Mitterrand's double life was an open secret among the Parisian elite.

Jacques Chirac's formidable life, Bernadette, knew about her husband's

liaisons, bore it and acknowledged it. But the French public looked the

other way. Why? Why until now has there been no salacious public

purience. It would have in Britain. A French lotion explained with

disdain the difference between the British and the French. He said we

British are obsessed with the loves of the famous because we lack

finesse in our own, and we disguise it with our excellent British

humour. That is the difference between us. We French are good at

love and you brush are good at -- British are good at comedy We are

sensual, sexy, and you are really very funny. It has been a long

traditionia public figures are entitled to their private life.

There are laws that limit the scope of the media work, we can be sued

very easily for breach of privacy of public figures. Actually the first

reactions to Francois Hollande's present problems was unanimous in

political establishment, all politicians of all sides immediately

reacted saying you know he is entitled to his private life.

Francois Hollande is a graduate of the Ecole Nationle it is an elite

institution that trains many of France's future leaders. It is often

argued that the French ruling elite is a home genius group of people,

and -- hem Mo genius group of people, and they went to the same

universities like this one where they were groomed for high status

lives. And this is why newspaper editors, senior politician, civil

servants, industry chiefs are connected to each other through a

network of lifelong loyalties and old friendships and this explains

why the sexual peck dill lows of previous Presidents stayed out of

the news. Is it true, in a press conference lasting more than two

hours today, Francois Hollande was asked only four times about his

private life. He gave them nothing. Was asked only four times about his

private life. He gave them nothing. The TRANSLATION: Everyone goes

through difficult moments and these are difficult moment, I have one

principle, private matters should be dealt with privately, and that is

the same for everyone concerned. He talked instead about the dire state

of the French economy, some here believe this is the real reason that

the old French privacy taboo has collapsed on him. Today the economic

situation is such and the indecision of this President, his inability to

make any decision is such that it looked plain ridiculous. The way we

look in the world I have many friends all over the world who

called me and this has become a play, more prone for sex than

serious economic reform. This is hurting the image of my country. And

I resent that. Whatever the reason, the old French consensus on privacy

in matters of the heart and the flesh is crumbling. The French

public are no longer looking the other way. Anne Elizabeth Moutet is

a French journalist for the Daily Telegraph, and we have a former

senior foreign correspondent for French television. Anne Elizabeth

Moutet, do you think this line that a private life should stay private

is going to hold in the case of President Hollande? No. I thought

that for years. Actually I changed my mind at the time of Mitterrand,

because he lied to the country about his parallel families. And it turned

out that the way he had behaved in his private life was exactly the way

he behaved in his political life. He lied about his past. He lied about

his links to Vichy France. He lied about his crooked friends and so I

thought that the passing was a fair indication of how the political

animal was behaving. We see this again withhold Hollande, he's a man

who has been vacilating all his life in his private life. He has never

been able to marry anyone of his partners, not even the mother of his

children, with whom he lived for 23 years. He didn't marry Miss

Trierweiler, we don't know about the next person. But in the same way he

has vacilated between several strains of policy, he has vacilated

about taxes, if people squealed enough in the street he withdrew the

taxes. He has basically taken off any kind of visibility to the French

economy. I think that too is a very straight parallel with his private

life. I think only for that, there are other reasons, but only for that

I would say we ought to know about their private lives. Why do the

French have this belief that a private life must stay private in a

public figure? Well you see the French do not like prying, they do

not like prying in their private lives. They don't like prying in

their bank accounts and this is this habit of considering that people

that do not have mistresses are not successful in politics, this is what

my diplomat friend was telling me this morning. He said two French

politicians did not have mistress, they were not re-elected. The last

one who was a Prime Minister and the other one was LouisXVI, who met the

guillotine. The argument of course is that the way a person behaves in

their private life, whether they honour their marriage vows or make

marriage vows are very often indicative of how they will behave

in their public life and therefore whether the public can trust them.

Why do you disregard that argument? You see it is not totally

disregarded. I think there is a lot which is true in what Anne Elizabeth

said. But in any country in the world the story of a man getting

caught with his pants down is funny. It is all the funnier except in

North Korea perhaps if this man is the President. But at the same time

the only thing that is not down at the moment in France is

unemployment. So after trying to get one of those pictures which are very

hard to get, I can tell you, I confessed to trying to buy the

magazine, it was impossible to find one. You know on a double-take the

French rather go to the core of the problems, that is the economy, that

is doing very bad. President Hollande had daringly promised that

it would be able to reverse the upward trend offen employment last

year and it just didn't happen. Anne Elizabeth Moutet there is the

question of the French press in all of this. Why are the French press so

deferential. That goes back to de Gaulle and before that. It goes back

to Louis XVI. If you really want to go into historical, when Louis Vi is

there and the monarchy takes over. On the one hand you have an Monarch

and oligarchy on the other. There is a strong tradition. This is the

whole negotiation about the establishment -- notion about the

establish the. The French are confirmist, newspapers write things

they think will be respectable. You notice that none of them sell many

copies, but Closer magazine sold out a first print run and they printed

again and they sold out the second print run. I take issue that the

French are not interested in the private life of their politicians,

the truth is they are fascinated by it. The truth is when it was

Mitterrand's daughter everybody was talking about it, in this case

everybody it talking about this. They have a two-faced attitude to

it. They judged Sarkozy because of his private life and they will judge

Mr Hollande for his private life. Thank you both very much. We have to

move on. Now it has taken four years but at last inflation has now

reached the Bank of England's target for the first time since November

2009, it is running at 2%. Lower than many predictions which led the

Chancellor of the Exchequer today to claim that his plan for the economy

is working. Labour replied there was still a cost of living crisis, but

if inflation stays low and the economy keeping growing, could

people start to feel differently. Cost of living crisis, what crisis?

The scourge of inflation has been stamped out. If it is only 2%, why

don't we feel better? You know the answer, wages are rising by less

than half that. For more than 30 years the debate about inflation has

been dominated by what the older generation think they remember about

the 1970s. With prices rising by 10-20%, the cost of living became

unaffordable and we all got worse off, right? Wrong, back in the 70s

prices may have risen, but what also gets forgotten is wages were rising

even faster. Take 1975 when prices rose by 25%, in that year household

disposable income still grew in real terms. In the middle of out of

control inflation we were still getting better off. Stripping out

inflation, in the 1970s we got better off on average by one. 2% a

year. In the 1980s incomes went up by two. 2%, in the 1990s by one. 3%

and in the noughties by one. 3%. It is only since then that the average

income started to fall in real terms, and it has fallen fastest,

not in the recession but the recovery. Why if we are in recovery

aren't we claiming higher pay rises. For the last five years we have been

through a difficult economic situation and a lot of people seem

to have been prepared to accept lower pay to help secure their job.

But if we look what is happening in the last year now employment is

growing, the economy is more obviously growing, so I think people

will feel more secure in going forward and saying I think we need a

pay rise. What will be interesting is, as we get through 2014, as a

real wages start to rise again, but real wage growth remains

historically very weak, does that change debate. Not all employers say

they can't afford bigger wage rises, however companies have built up a

pile of cash worth ?671. With prices rising faster than wages, they have

been getting more in for the goods they sell and paying out less for

staff. Why can't they spend it on bigger pay rises. The cash belongs

to shareholders and they expect it to be invested for a return. Those

workers need to be more productive, using more up-to-date technology.

Delivering new products and services, in order to generate a

bigger return for the business. Higher wages flow from productivity

growth. But yes, after several pretty flat years, in which living

standards have declined, if we now have the prospect of keeping

inflation at 2%, and skill shortages and pressure in the labour market

allows workers to earn more value by being more productive then wages

should modestly grow this year. The other thing that gets forgotten

about, the big wages of the 1970s is if you are in debt they did you a

big favour. Your wages would go up with inflation, but the amount you

owed wouldn't. Inflation makes your debts shrink. Not Take That is

relevant -- not that that is relevant now. Companies charged

higher prices and then workers want higher pay, but with pay claims as

meek as they are there is little danger of that.

To discuss this is Margaret Doyle formerly of the Economist and now

head of financial services research from Deloittes UK, we are joined

from Dartmouth College by a former member of the monetary policies

committee for the Bank of England. George Osborne says this inflation

figure proves his economic strategy is working, does it? Not really,

inflation is falling everywhere the world. It is in America and zero. 8%

in the eurozone. It is hard to say worldwide inflation is driven by

Osbourne's policies. We have seen real wages continuing to fall and

actually nominal wages, that is how much you get in your pay packet over

the last few months as been falling as well. Wages have been falling, it

doesn't look like much of a success. The man and woman in the middle is

worse off than they were in 2010 and six months ago. Not much indication

there. Why is it that wages aren't rising to keep pace with inflation?

I think it is really because we have had a huge downturn. That really

explains why wages haven't been rising as fast as inflation. And

effectively what has been happening is workers have chosen to accept

these real-term wage cuts, to accept changes in their working conditions.

For example we have seen things like zero hours contracts. And the

bargain that they have struck is that effectively it is better to

have a job although with lower real wages than it is to be unemployed.

And I would argue that for the economy as a whole it is better for

the economy as a whole to have lower unemployment. The surprise of the

recession has been that employment has held up remarkably well. But it

does mean that people are not feeling that things are getting

better? Exactly. People have not felt that things have been getting

better. Because for them they haven't been getting any better?

They haven't been, but certainly my colleague will tell you that real

wages will begin to increase in 2014, because inflation is coming

down, tax rises are on hold. We have had tax rises there on hold. And

earnings are going to and likely to increase for a variety of reasons,

partly because the economy is improving. Do you think that is

going to happen? I think that's really quite wishful thinking. If

you look at the Government's forecast and the OBR's forecast,

each forecast they have made they have said don't worry, real wages

will start to grow. The thing you have to ask yourself is what is

different today. The answer is really very little. If you look at

the example now, the UK starts to look like the US, and today real

wages in the US are the same as they were in 1979. Here we are in this

noble world, unions have -- global world, unions have gone, pressure

down with global forces because firms can go somewhere else,

migrants have come in. This is dream world not least because public

sector still has a pay freeze going. This is wishful thinking again. It

hasn't happened until now. What you have to ask yourself is what has

suddenly changed? The answer is little or nothing. In that case we

may well have reached the end, may we not, of a period of pretty

consistently rising standards of living? I think that's probably

right. We have seen people's standards of living rise at the top

end. The difference in a sense between the UK and the US and we

were saying this in your commentary earlier was up to 008 we saw

positive real wage growth for all the people in work. Because in the

past recessions 10% of the people were unemployed all the time and

everybody else was not unemployed and kept nice high wage growth, now

everybody is in this, and it may well be that the person at the

middle, the one that Ed Miliband has been talking about, the squeezed

middle, the medium voter, there is every prospect of no real wage

growth and certainly not between now and May 2015. I think it is wishful

thinking and it would be wonderful but there is no evidence in the date

Take That is -- data That is going to happen. There are signs that

recruitment is on the rise. That is likely to push up wages. Our latest

survey of chief financial and finance directors shows there is

increasing confidence. That is likely to be a leading indicator of

mergers and acquisitions, of hiring and general expansion which is

generally good for employment numbers. But as regards wage levels?

Well, if employment goes up typically wage levels follow. So we

do expect that real wages will rise this year. The professor is right to

say that there has been a global trend towards an increasing share in

profit and decreasing share of wages in the global economy over the past

30 years. That is right and not driven by particular policy

decisions in any country. What it is driven by huge forces like

globalisation and technological progress, like the decline of the

union. That is definitely a trend. We have also seen that there has

been a change in the distribution of income away from those lower skilled

towards the elite, those who are very well educated. I wanted to ask

you one other question, and I'm springing this on you, you won't

know about this speech or maybe you do know about the speech that Ed

Miliband is supposed to make later in the week, in which he is

proposing to restrict the big five banks and there by to the number of

branches they have, and market capitalisation or something or

other, some how to encourage competition from smaller offshoots

by making them shed parts of their business. Is that a goer? You sprung

that one on me. I haven't actually seen the details. But could try.

Obviously we need to get money flowing to people. Not least, and I

think you and I have talked about this before. How can we actually

expect workers' wages to lies, when small firms that are the job

generators in the economy can't get access to cash, can't get loans,

this seems like wishful thinking. But any attempt to try to

restructure the economy, get things to change and try to get help if you

like to the person in the middle. What we just heard was that things

were going to change but probably what they are going to do is change

for people at the top. They have had a tax cut, we have seen people at

the high end doing well, the question through all of this is

let's folk cuss on the average audience of Newsnight. What's going

to happen to them. If Ed Miliband can start to think about how you

helped the squeezed middle, good for him. Do you want to say anything? As

it happens the tax share borne by the very top earners has increased

in the last few years by a quarter. It is the case that those at the top

end have been taxed more. If you belong to that select

minority of Newsnight viewers who have no chauffeur, take heart! The

car which requires no driver is almost reality. This of course is

pretty bad news if you happen to work as a chauffeur, but those who

say autonomous automobiles will never happen are beginning to look

like the people who said there was no future in the horseless carriage.

Our technology correspondent can prove it.

Driving across the Golden Gate Bridge is a pretty special

experience, but let's be honest most of the time life looks nothing like

the car adverts. Being behind the wheel is often just boring

stop-start frustration. There has to be a better way. Of course a truly

autonomous car won't be just one technology, it is a whole range of

different jobs that the car is going to have to take over from the driver

before we can leave them to run themselves. For example, Audrey is

one of a number ash Audi is one of a number of manufacturers getting cars

to park themselves. If you look over there it is a tight space. I take

out my smartphone and the car should start parking itself. And what's

going on here is not, there is nothing special in the road, there

is nothing special in the parking space, all the technology necessary

for this is in the car. It is a bit of a tight one, it will have to make

a number of manoeuvres. There we go, the car is parked and everyone's

paint work is intact and I'm not stressed about it. All the big

manufacturers are in the race, the prize is potentially huge. This is

BMW's latest effort. Polling suggests drivers want the technology

as well. Firstly it is going to be a lot safer. Computers don't doze off,

lose concentration, start fiddling with their phones or shout at their

kids. We can't accept any more that every day the equivalent of

aeroplane crashing down of people die in traffic fatalities. These

technologies can help us use this and utilise the road infrastructure

that we have today because cars can drive closer together. Ford are

developing a system where cars can communicate with each other using

Wi-Fi to prevent collision. The range is up to 250ms. There is a bad

driver coming that way, our line of sight is obstructed by the truck,

but the car, this car will get a communication from that car saying

it will steam through. The vibrations have come the brakes

go on, the audible signal you heard, we come to a safe stop, even though

we couldn't really see that car until the last possible moment. The

idea of you know a computer driver or a human driver is that the more

information we can give them from better sensor technology the better

either a human driver can make decisions about what to do or a

computer driver could. When cars first arrived on the scene people

could only describe them in terms of what they lacked. They didn't have

horses, therefore they were horseless carriages. And yet the

social and environmental changes that the car brought went far beyond

just getting rid of horses. Likewise at the moment we are rather fixated

on driverlessness of autonomous vehicles and yet the changes that

are going to happen go far beyond liberating us from being behind the

wheel. The The technology to have self-driving cars is just the

beginning, the real implications is how to save money and how business

models will change. If I don't have to own a vehicle to have access to

transportation and I can get it on demand from an autonomous vehicle

that comes and picks me up and drops me off I save a lot of money as a

consumer. Insurance companies might change the way they ask you to pay

for premiums. Instead of paying an annual premium you only pay for it

when you use the vehicle. That could have huge implications for consumers

and costs associated with vehicle ownership. I could do Angela Merkel

and go like this. That is what she always does. Hands-free, look mum.

Look mum no hands, and hopefully "look mum no teeth". It is a way

off, on the Nevada freeway Audi show me their traffic system. In

slow-moving traffic the car will take over everything, but the driver

has to be ready to step in if conditions change. This is the

project lead e he says we need to be realistic about how safe these

technologies can make driving. LLOW We have to ask ourselves if we are

OK with a technology that is safer than the car in status quo but not

100% safe. Personally I think I would much rather save 90% of the

people that are hurt today and maybe still hurt 10% because I can't help

it, technologically. Then just don't put that technology in the market at

all because it is still going to, it is still not going to be able to

prevent all accidents. So how long until everyone can do

this, five, ten, twenty years, the hurdles are both technological and

legal. For me though, it can't come soon enough.

That's it for now, the great piano improviser, Sehrt Keith Jarrett has

been named as Jazz Master, we leave you in his prime playing in Tokyo in

1993. Good night. Hello, sunshine will be collector's

item tomorrow