:00:10. > :00:12.Exchequer is going to make sure everyone has job.
:00:13. > :00:15.Exchequer is going to make sure exactly. The Government is aiming
:00:16. > :00:20.for full employment, but what on earth is it? Full employment in
:00:21. > :00:24.economics a situation in which all available labour resources are being
:00:25. > :00:27.used in the most economically efficient way. The Economic
:00:28. > :00:32.Secretary to the Treasury will doubtless have an even snappier
:00:33. > :00:36.decision. They were sold as ways to freedom, but are screens enslaving
:00:37. > :00:41.us. We sent a scientist to find out. You check it on an hourly, more than
:00:42. > :00:52.that basis, when you get up and before you go to bed. And... Hitler
:00:53. > :00:59.on ice. Hitler gags may be fair game for Mel Brooks, John close Clese and
:01:00. > :01:02.Charlie chaplain. Should Germans be encouraged to make them? This one
:01:03. > :01:11.does George Osborne has had a conversion,
:01:12. > :01:15.after years of telling us he will stop at nothing to plug the hole in
:01:16. > :01:20.the public's finances he announced today he's going to fight for full
:01:21. > :01:23.employment in Britain. His target is for this country to have the highest
:01:24. > :01:27.employment rate of any advanced economy. Another Tory Chancellor,
:01:28. > :01:33.Norman Lamont once said unemployment was a price well worth paying. No
:01:34. > :01:38.it's not, said Mr George Osborne today. What does this new ambition
:01:39. > :01:56.of his actually mean? We have been finding out. Busy, busy, busy, look
:01:57. > :02:01.the Chancellor wants you to know how many jobs he has made. And promises
:02:02. > :02:06.just pressing a few more buttons on his economic machine could make
:02:07. > :02:10.around one million more. A that's why today I'm making a new
:02:11. > :02:15.commitment, a commitment to fight for full employment in Britain.
:02:16. > :02:21.Making jobs a central goal of our economic plan. That was a retro
:02:22. > :02:25.promise of full employment, he said it twice in case you missed it. A
:02:26. > :02:31.modern approach to full employment means backing business. Surprised,
:02:32. > :02:35.well it has been quite a while since any Conservative Chancellor talked
:02:36. > :02:39.of full employment. And decades since it has been anything like what
:02:40. > :02:46.we would traditionally consider it to be. At Tilbury Docks where George
:02:47. > :02:53.Osborne came to make his new promise. In days of old he 3,000
:02:54. > :02:58.people had work, now it is just 800. We were told today some of those
:02:59. > :03:02.jobs are uncertain. Is anything like full employment realistic when mass
:03:03. > :03:06.employers are mostly gone. Even Beveridge didn't believe full
:03:07. > :03:13.employment meant zero. It was remarkably stable and low between
:03:14. > :03:17.1950 and the early 1970s, average unemployment was just 2%. Always
:03:18. > :03:24.under a million. By the 80s the picture was drastically changed,
:03:25. > :03:28.hitting 13% at its peak in 1982. Right now it is seven. 2%, but the
:03:29. > :03:38.downturn changed the jobs market forever. We have seen the big rise
:03:39. > :03:41.in self-employment, a greater number of part-time work We have a more
:03:42. > :03:46.flexible labour market than back then. The types of jobs we are
:03:47. > :03:51.seeing being created are more diverse and secure There are more
:03:52. > :03:58.jobs, but more shaky. Workers do less, their productivity is low, if
:03:59. > :04:01.we solved that problem job creation could slow down. Luckily the
:04:02. > :04:05.Chancellor's promise isn't quite what it says on the tin? George
:04:06. > :04:09.Osborne doesn't appear that bothered by the dictionary definition of full
:04:10. > :04:13.employment. His actual goal is Britain having the biggest share of
:04:14. > :04:17.people in work out of all our economic rivals. And although it is
:04:18. > :04:23.not a strict promise, it is an effort to focus the debate on jobs.
:04:24. > :04:28.Falling unemployment is one of the coalition's successes. And by using
:04:29. > :04:33.the former language of Gordon Brown, it is rather harder for Labour to
:04:34. > :04:38.answer back. Our aspiration now must be more than helping people to find
:04:39. > :04:43.work, regardless of its quality and prospects. But ensuring full and
:04:44. > :04:46.fulfilling employment by expanding employment and training
:04:47. > :04:52.opportunities for all. A deliberate contrast to the words of his Tory
:04:53. > :04:54.forebear, that did such damage. Rising unemployment and the
:04:55. > :05:00.recession have been the price that we have had to pay in order to get
:05:01. > :05:05.inflation down. But that is a price well worth paying. So what does that
:05:06. > :05:09.Chancellor make of his descendant's vow? It has always been the
:05:10. > :05:14.objective of Conservative Governments to minimise unemployment
:05:15. > :05:17.and maximise employment. But this is completely different to the type of
:05:18. > :05:20.language we have heard from the Conservatives for a long time, not
:05:21. > :05:24.least from you? What George Osborne is talking about, in a world that's
:05:25. > :05:30.completely different where inflation is below 2%, is maximising the game
:05:31. > :05:36.gain the Government already have established in gating jobs. What
:05:37. > :05:40.kind of rate do you think we might get to? I have no idea. Labour
:05:41. > :05:44.claims there is nothing new to see her, and there is a risk George
:05:45. > :05:48.Osborne will be judged more as job numbers rise and fall. But this new
:05:49. > :05:53.version of a promise made opponents in the past, suggests the Chancellor
:05:54. > :06:00.is brave or foolhardy enough to limit his own room for manoeuvre.
:06:01. > :06:04.We're joined now by the Conservative Economic Secretary to the Treasury,
:06:05. > :06:07.Nicky Morgan, what is full employment then? The Chancellor was
:06:08. > :06:12.saying today that what he wants is everybody in Britain who wants a job
:06:13. > :06:16.can get a job, and people on welfare are incentivised and supported to
:06:17. > :06:19.get off benefits and find a job too. So when did we last have full
:06:20. > :06:24.employment in this country? Well, I'm not sure we have ever had full
:06:25. > :06:28.employment. Ever? We can talk about the definitions about this per cent
:06:29. > :06:31.and that per cent, but the point is the Chancellor is setting out a
:06:32. > :06:34.clear strategy and ambition that we want people who want a job to find a
:06:35. > :06:39.job. This is a revolutionary thing he as aiming for, it has never
:06:40. > :06:47.occurred before? Well, we can argue the economists today has been argue
:06:48. > :06:53.beg -- arguing about definition, but we have the highest employment rate
:06:54. > :06:56.in the G7. He was using language losely today, at one point in the
:06:57. > :07:01.speech he said we will have more people working than any other
:07:02. > :07:06.country in the G7. That's absolute rubbish isn't it? That is the
:07:07. > :07:11.ambition. More people working than any other countries in the G7, you
:07:12. > :07:14.know the size of the work force here and the United States, it is
:07:15. > :07:17.completely impossible. It is the employment rate. He didn't say, that
:07:18. > :07:21.that is different? He did say it in the question and answer session.
:07:22. > :07:24.Maybe somebody should look at the drafting of his speeches. Do you
:07:25. > :07:28.think that would be a good idea? I wouldn't presume to tell the
:07:29. > :07:31.Chancellor how to draft his speech. Somebody should, that's not an
:07:32. > :07:35.accurate statement. He also said that there will be full employment
:07:36. > :07:39.if more jobs were being created here than in any of our competitors, did
:07:40. > :07:43.he mean that literally? Absolutely, the Chancellor is talking about
:07:44. > :07:47.wanting people, everyone who wants a job, he wants Britain to be the best
:07:48. > :07:55.place in the world to get and hold a job. But that's not the same as more
:07:56. > :07:59.jobs being created Health Authority than -- here than anywhere else? If
:08:00. > :08:02.you want a job you should have a job. That is something up and down
:08:03. > :08:10.the country people will be grateful to hear. Because bomb are people --
:08:11. > :08:13.people are looking for jobs. It is a new announcement to incentivise
:08:14. > :08:17.businesses and create jobs. So he's talking about a higher rate of
:08:18. > :08:21.employment. Employment in this country than in any of the other G 7
:08:22. > :08:26.nations. That is what he set out, yes. That would mean, would it not,
:08:27. > :08:30.that if this economy stagnated and others shrank he would achieve his
:08:31. > :08:35.goal? That is looking at it in a very negative way. It is but it is a
:08:36. > :08:41.possible interpretation? It is, but if you set out a clear positive
:08:42. > :08:44.ambition for people having work. You are very familiar with the
:08:45. > :08:47.unemployment figures, there are about two million students, about
:08:48. > :08:52.two million single parents or carers, there are about 1. 3 million
:08:53. > :08:55.early retirees. How are you going to get them back into work? The
:08:56. > :08:59.Chancellor will set out in his speech today, it is about people who
:09:00. > :09:02.want a job and who are on benefits looking for a job. There will be a
:09:03. > :09:05.number of people for whom working is not an option, caring
:09:06. > :09:11.responsibility, people between jobs, people who are #12UDying. So -- --
:09:12. > :09:18.studying. All the others how will you get them back to work? The
:09:19. > :09:23.policies we have announce today incentivise businesses to invest,
:09:24. > :09:27.but also the policies that were announced by Iain Duncan Smith and
:09:28. > :09:32.helping people who are unemployed to get back into work. These will be
:09:33. > :09:36.British jobs for British workers as we were famously told? We want
:09:37. > :09:39.people from all over the world from all companies to be based here in
:09:40. > :09:44.the UK. Many are moving back. We have seen a number of people
:09:45. > :09:48.re-shoring. But, yes, it is for people who have been long-term, we
:09:49. > :09:53.want them to have those jobs. So it is British jobs for British workers
:09:54. > :09:59.is it? The Chancellor has not said. It. We want the highest employment
:10:00. > :10:04.rate. The lion's share of the jobs could be taken by people from
:10:05. > :10:08.elsewhere? We can have a debate about inflation. I'm interested in
:10:09. > :10:15.understanding what the Chancellor is promising? He's saying we want to be
:10:16. > :10:18.the best place where people to have jobs and we will create these jobs.
:10:19. > :10:22.These jobs could be taken by people who have come from elsewhere? Of
:10:23. > :10:26.course, we have an open labour market, and the flexible labour
:10:27. > :10:30.market is key to the way we have weathered, with many difficulty, the
:10:31. > :10:34.great recession we have inherited. You want to cut the number of people
:10:35. > :10:37.coming to this country? Not just us, there are many people out in the
:10:38. > :10:41.country who have very strong views on immigration. You are the
:10:42. > :10:44.Government? We want people in this country to have the best possible
:10:45. > :10:48.skills, we want to attract businesses from overseas to be based
:10:49. > :10:52.here. We have already seen 1. 3 million private sector jobs created
:10:53. > :10:57.since the last election, that is three times the rate of job creation
:10:58. > :11:04.in the last couple of sessions. You want to cut immigration? We do. We
:11:05. > :11:08.also want businesses locating here and expanding here to know there is
:11:09. > :11:11.skilled work force to recruit from. What were portion of these jobs you
:11:12. > :11:20.will create will go to native workers and what proportion would
:11:21. > :11:23.roughly go to in comers? I won't make course casters, there was a
:11:24. > :11:29.separate immigration debate if you want that. I wondered how you were
:11:30. > :11:32.going to achieve the full employment? I have set out the
:11:33. > :11:36.policies that George Osborne has set out in the recent budget and Autumn
:11:37. > :11:42.Statement, about incentivising business to create those jobs.
:11:43. > :11:46.Making it attractive for businesses to take on the next employee. And
:11:47. > :11:49.the people who are on benefits to get the jobs and have the skills
:11:50. > :11:54.that employers are looking for. Thank you very much. Now, introduced
:11:55. > :11:59.by Labour, increased by the Conservatives, the question of how
:12:00. > :12:04.to pay for higher education looks about to burst back into the heart
:12:05. > :12:07.of political debate. After the fatuous attitude by the Liberal
:12:08. > :12:11.Democrats at the last election, all pledges on student fees should be
:12:12. > :12:18.take within a super tanker load of salt. But the Labour Party are
:12:19. > :12:23.offering hints on reducing fees, but the word "may" is the one to watch
:12:24. > :12:29.out for. What is messing everyone up is the people who received loans to
:12:30. > :12:33.recover the fees look unlikely to pay them. What happened to the
:12:34. > :12:38.revolution, you this Devil Woman had never been written. The student of
:12:39. > :12:44.the 1980s popular imagination used to look a bit like this. I hope you
:12:45. > :12:49.realise all this loafing around has affected one day of being incredibly
:12:50. > :12:53.rich. Feckless, time wasting, on hight genetic and broke. Three
:12:54. > :12:58.decades later they are still, for the most part, broke, but they are a
:12:59. > :13:02.lot angrier. Our nation has been littered with them, a trail of
:13:03. > :13:05.broken promises. The words that months later would haunt him, the
:13:06. > :13:10.politician who had promised students he was on their side, and ended up
:13:11. > :13:14.epitomising the problem. When the coalition proposed to triple the
:13:15. > :13:24.tuition fees in the first six months of parliament this is what happened.
:13:25. > :13:29.It was an unhe hadifying spectacle for students and politicians, and it
:13:30. > :13:34.taught both a valuable lesson. For students that they should never take
:13:35. > :13:38.at face value anything that those in power promised, and for politicians
:13:39. > :13:43.that they would underestimate the toxicity of this issue at their
:13:44. > :13:50.peril. Labour said then it would cut tuition fees to ?6,000 if it was in
:13:51. > :13:54.tour. Power. This week it said it wanted to go further, hinting at
:13:55. > :13:58.radical reform. The timing may be key because the Government has just
:13:59. > :14:02.admitted it got the numbers badly wrong. When the Government
:14:03. > :14:07.introduced the new tuition fees system, and increasing them to
:14:08. > :14:10.?9,000 a year. It estimated 30% of the value of the loans would not be
:14:11. > :14:13.repaid. So people wouldn't earn enough when they graduated. The
:14:14. > :14:17.subsidy the Government would need to give them would be about 30%, that
:14:18. > :14:21.has gone up in the latest estimates to 45%. So nearly one pound in every
:14:22. > :14:28.two that the Government lend it expect not to get back. That isn't
:14:29. > :14:39.sustainable in the long-term. This man was a leading voice on the
:14:40. > :14:44.review that the cap be raised, does -- accept that the system is broken?
:14:45. > :14:47.If the lowest-earning graduates aren't going to pay the full costs
:14:48. > :14:50.of higher education, and some can't pay anything at all the Government
:14:51. > :14:55.has to pick up the cost. It means it is an expensive system for the
:14:56. > :14:59.Government. That is the price we pay for hiving a high, well functioning
:15:00. > :15:03.system of our education. Labour has a number of ways to address the
:15:04. > :15:08.problem T could choose to cut tuition fees even further. It could
:15:09. > :15:15.lower the repayment threshold, currently ?21,000, so graduates pay
:15:16. > :15:19.it back. Or it could come up with an entirely new system, such as a
:15:20. > :15:22.graduate tax. We are looking for a long-term and sustainable and
:15:23. > :15:27.affordable model of funding. One of the difficulties with changes in
:15:28. > :15:30.policies like this is it doesn't provide that degree of stability to
:15:31. > :15:35.students, let alone universities. You have one cohort of students who
:15:36. > :15:39.will pay a certain amount through their graduate contributions. And
:15:40. > :15:43.another who will pay a totally different amount. It doesn't feel
:15:44. > :15:46.fair to the students that they are studying alongside each other and
:15:47. > :15:51.paying very different amounts. Labour knows that there is an
:15:52. > :15:57.electoral market in the disillusioned it accident. That --
:15:58. > :16:01.student. The direct appeal of cutting fees was to them. The party
:16:02. > :16:03.knows it has borrowed votes from the Liberal Democrats, since they came
:16:04. > :16:10.to power. It knows that radical reform to an unpopular policy could
:16:11. > :16:15.help retain them. Where there are promises there are pitfalls? If you
:16:16. > :16:20.bring the fees down to ?6,000, the Government lends less and borrows
:16:21. > :16:26.less so the debt falls. However you have to make up the rest in grants
:16:27. > :16:29.to universities, if you want them to get ?9,000, ?3,000 has to come from
:16:30. > :16:35.public spending. In the short-term it adds to your deficit, turning a
:16:36. > :16:40.loan into public spending. Labour's hungry for this bright, new voter,
:16:41. > :16:43.but it knows its fiscal credibility will be key between now and the
:16:44. > :16:48.writing of the next manifesto, expect to hear every variation of
:16:49. > :16:53.idea. The one message it can't afford to the send the electorate
:16:54. > :17:07.too late is the one that simply says "I'm sorry". With us now is David
:17:08. > :17:11.Wiletts and the last Labour Government minister on innovation
:17:12. > :17:15.and skills. How close are you to accepting the system doesn't work?
:17:16. > :17:20.It does work, graduates repay, students don't pay up front, it
:17:21. > :17:23.delivers high-quality teaching, well-funded universities, ensuring
:17:24. > :17:29.students have better classes and labs. It is the case, is it not that
:17:30. > :17:34.you were expecting perhaps 28-30% of the students weren't able to repay
:17:35. > :17:39.their loans s that correct? Is that the working assumption? Every time
:17:40. > :17:42.there is a new earnings forecast we recalculate the repayments over 30
:17:43. > :17:48.years. It is true as earnings have not grown as much as was originally
:17:49. > :17:51.forecast the ?21,000 repayment threshold has become higher. People
:17:52. > :17:57.are expecting currently less to be repaid. What we are basically doing
:17:58. > :18:00.here is forecasting an income tax receipt over the next 30 years.
:18:01. > :18:04.Every six months in ray cordance to the rules we produce a new forecast
:18:05. > :18:12.and it will carry on changing. Because of the changes in
:18:13. > :18:16.employment. The figure is about 45%. That is the current estimate. I have
:18:17. > :18:21.warned it will change. What makes it unviable? You have a glad wit
:18:22. > :18:25.repayment -- graduate repayment scheme. And part of the scheme is if
:18:26. > :18:31.graduates have low earnings they don't replay. That was clear from
:18:32. > :18:34.the start? The exact calculation of how much they will pay will vary, as
:18:35. > :18:40.earnings forecasts change. At what point does it become unviable? I
:18:41. > :18:44.think this is a sol individual system. There is a big, there is an
:18:45. > :18:52.answer to this, you must have done the sums? I'm telling you all three
:18:53. > :18:57.political parties when faced with the challenge of repairing the
:18:58. > :19:02.education came one this model. You haven't given me a number yet? I
:19:03. > :19:05.don't think there is a number that answers your question. We have a
:19:06. > :19:11.graduate repayment scheme. If we did as Labour are envisaging and went
:19:12. > :19:19.down to ?6,000, you would write off all the money, you have to find an
:19:20. > :19:24.extra pound ?3,000 to pay off the universities as a grant. Let's speak
:19:25. > :19:29.to the man who used to sit in the seat you currently occupy. He seems
:19:30. > :19:32.to enjoy sit ago I cross from you. You have been writing a report for
:19:33. > :19:36.the Labour Party? I have been writing the report and I hope the
:19:37. > :19:45.Labour Party will take it seriously. At what point do you think the
:19:46. > :19:52.system sun viable. The situation we are in where the taxpayer borrows
:19:53. > :20:00.?10 billion and writes off ?4. It would be better to borrow the money
:20:01. > :20:03.and teach. Fees would fall and the universities would have much money
:20:04. > :20:08.and graduates should pay back less. We should have the courage in my
:20:09. > :20:12.view to switch from borrowing and cancelling money to spend money on
:20:13. > :20:17.teaching students. Does Ed Miliband like this idea? He's listening, as
:20:18. > :20:21.others are to what I'm proposing. They are listening to other people
:20:22. > :20:24.with other model, we will have to see. What is clear in the last few
:20:25. > :20:33.days is an appetite in the Labour Party for saying let's move in daven
:20:34. > :20:38.direction. I think that is important and we have a way to go. This isn't
:20:39. > :20:44.working brilliantly? What I don't understand in John's model, he talks
:20:45. > :20:51.about the loans written off as if it is wasted money. But the ?9,000 fee
:20:52. > :20:56.is all going to the education of the student. The student is getting more
:20:57. > :21:03.funding behind his or her education than before we brought in the
:21:04. > :21:06.system. We have students getting education for lower cost. I have
:21:07. > :21:09.been able to show you can produce exactly the same amount of income
:21:10. > :21:15.for universities as they have at the moment. But the Government on behalf
:21:16. > :21:19.of the taxpayer borrows less money and graduates have lower fees. It is
:21:20. > :21:24.a ridiculous level of waste in the system at the moment, wasteful of
:21:25. > :21:29.public spending and wasteful for the graduates paying over the odds for
:21:30. > :21:33.fees. No gut in university income. I don't think it is a waste to say if
:21:34. > :21:36.you have low earnings you don't pay. Every six nineties with a new
:21:37. > :21:39.earning forecast, exactly that change. It is what makes it
:21:40. > :21:45.progressive. If you have low earnings you don't repay. That was
:21:46. > :21:48.one of the learns. The film you showed of the students protesting, I
:21:49. > :21:53.think they thought if they were in low paid jobs they would be
:21:54. > :21:58.repaying. It is only when you earn ?21,000. If the fee is lower you pay
:21:59. > :22:02.less money back, there is a the whole point. I would rather have a
:22:03. > :22:07.system where students paid lower fees but a bigger percentage of the
:22:08. > :22:15.fee back. Your system started out as a way of trying to save public money
:22:16. > :22:18.and it has failed to do that? ? You still get the same income to
:22:19. > :22:25.universities. What you have done is switch money from the waste of debt
:22:26. > :22:28.cancellation into teaching. So the Government gives the money directly
:22:29. > :22:33.to the university? Instead of the taxpayer borrowing a huge amount of
:22:34. > :22:40.money and writing it off. The taxpayer borrows less money and goes
:22:41. > :22:48.straight to the university. There is maintenance grants to help students
:22:49. > :22:53.that they might be happy with that. Fees fall so much that a low income
:22:54. > :23:01.student ends up at the end of their degree with just as much money to
:23:02. > :23:04.live on but a lower overall debt. Provided each individual student
:23:05. > :23:09.knows they have just as much money to live on but a lower overall debt
:23:10. > :23:15.they are better off. That is counting fees as if it is the same
:23:16. > :23:20.as maintenance. We have Ed Miliband saying when he was wanting election
:23:21. > :23:23.said he would have a tax. We have fees with black hole in the finance,
:23:24. > :23:26.we have John with his interest wheeze different from the other two
:23:27. > :23:30.I don't know what it is that Labour are proposing, but I know what we
:23:31. > :23:34.are offering. Better-funded universities, with a fair repayment
:23:35. > :23:40.scheme. Can I ask you, are the universities asking you for the
:23:41. > :23:44.limit to be raised? They are there are always universities, well
:23:45. > :23:50.universities come to see me and obviously they all say they need
:23:51. > :23:53.more money. What I say is ?9,000 is enough to educate a student in
:23:54. > :23:58.Britain today. It is a fair deal apart from the high-cost subjects
:23:59. > :24:03.which cost more and for them with adding the fund to go meet the extra
:24:04. > :24:07.cost, indeed George Osborne in his Autumn Statement found extra money.
:24:08. > :24:13.Let me ask you a financial question too, there is talk about Labour
:24:14. > :24:17.bringing in a cap of say ?6,000 or ?6,000, we will find out later this
:24:18. > :24:23.week. Should Labour go further? What in what way? Do you think a cap of
:24:24. > :24:28.?6,000 is all right, or ?4,000? This is as you gathered through the
:24:29. > :24:33.conversation a complicated system. But if you maximise the amount of
:24:34. > :24:37.money you take out of debt cancellation and agency fees you can
:24:38. > :24:41.bring it below ?6,000. It is slightly odd the system, the more
:24:42. > :24:45.you make of big change the better it works. Trying to make changes at the
:24:46. > :24:49.top costs a lot of public money. You can make a big change and I think we
:24:50. > :24:56.should, but we will have to see what the Labour Party decides. There
:24:57. > :25:01.comes a point when you have heard so many warnings of apocalypse that
:25:02. > :25:08.there is a good chance of diminishing returns kicking in. The
:25:09. > :25:13.scientists are more certain than every and the world solution. That
:25:14. > :25:19.doesn't mean the apocalypse is any more likely to aright. The The
:25:20. > :25:23.international panel of on climate change said it has human causes and
:25:24. > :25:28.average temperatures rise and so does sea levels. In a noticeable
:25:29. > :25:33.shift from previous reports, as well as encouraging politicians to cut
:25:34. > :25:39.greenhouse gas, the authors say some changes are along the way we have to
:25:40. > :25:44.adapt to. What does that mean? Will it work for everyone? Who will pay
:25:45. > :25:59.for it. We report on a tale of two nation. This is what climate change
:26:00. > :26:06.adaptation looks like. In the wilds of Exmoor a scheme to stop the
:26:07. > :26:13.flooding we are experiencing. They are blocking up drainage dishes, the
:26:14. > :26:23.plan is to capture rainfall in the bog and Moss that created it. This
:26:24. > :26:30.Moss scores 20-tim its own weight in water. Every drop up here doesn't
:26:31. > :26:37.end up in a flood downstream. We estimate when the restoration is
:26:38. > :26:43.complete there is 6,000 Olympic swimming pools will be initially
:26:44. > :26:50.stored up here. We can improve warming too. Here in Cranfield
:26:51. > :26:57.university, they have created arch fish mini-fields and switched on the
:26:58. > :27:03.rain. In the plot on the let the soil has been compacted by farm
:27:04. > :27:10.reasonably. Compacted fields contribute to flooding. We have to
:27:11. > :27:15.smart about managing soils and land. And good soil management is the key
:27:16. > :27:19.to the rainfall events, and reduce the impact of the flooding we have
:27:20. > :27:24.been HACHLTH It may not be marketed that way, about adaptation is under
:27:25. > :27:28.way in many parts of the UK. Over in East London, for example, is the
:27:29. > :27:37.Thames Barrier, it is a classic piece of hard engineering,
:27:38. > :27:42.adaptation to climate change. Today work started on dredging the River
:27:43. > :27:46.Parrot. Like many strategies protection against climate change is
:27:47. > :27:58.part of a package of benefits. A rich nation like the UK have the
:27:59. > :28:05.business adaptation well. Unlike Bangladesh, I visited these rues
:28:06. > :28:12.fleeing from floods in the countryside. TRANSLATION: My sister
:28:13. > :28:17.left her baby on the bed, she came back to see and the baby was gone.
:28:18. > :28:22.The baby was swashed away and later on we found the body. Adaptation is
:28:23. > :28:29.advanced in Bangladesh, it has to be. This British aid scheme helped
:28:30. > :28:34.people on an island to build a platform to raise their homes. New
:28:35. > :28:40.cyclone centres on the coast have saved thousands of lives. Now flood
:28:41. > :28:49.tolerant rice has been developed. But the sea water is making farmland
:28:50. > :28:53.unusable. Almost anybody you talk to in Bangladesh is familiar to the
:28:54. > :28:57.project and will talk about how unjust it is that the bigger
:28:58. > :29:00.countries are doing this. There is a strong feeling of injustice involved
:29:01. > :29:05.in this. If we could move these people from the water's edge to
:29:06. > :29:10.decent homes inland, we would improve their lives and adapt to
:29:11. > :29:14.climate change. The win-win lauded in today's report. It takes money
:29:15. > :29:19.that Bangladesh doesn't have. Where I feel disappointed is the global
:29:20. > :29:23.leaders to have responsibility to reduce emissions so we don't have
:29:24. > :29:28.the catastrophic impacts predicted in this report of the IPCC,
:29:29. > :29:34.hopefully this report will ring alarm bells cloud enough to hear and
:29:35. > :29:41.they will get over the deafness they seem to be expecting. The new parity
:29:42. > :29:45.in the UN report of adaptation alongside emissions cuts is a
:29:46. > :29:51.striking shift. Some willing with come its pragmatisim, and others say
:29:52. > :29:56.it lets rich nations off the hook. It is a constant complaint from
:29:57. > :29:59.parents as they watch their teenagers fingers engaged in
:30:00. > :30:05.conversations with unseen others, you are addict to that thing! And
:30:06. > :30:09.privately plenty of adults too wonder if there might genuinely be
:30:10. > :30:18.an element of addiction in their devotion to social networks or
:30:19. > :30:22.on-screen gaming. We asked a psychology what they made of it.
:30:23. > :30:28.Through smartphone, apps and laptops, technology influences
:30:29. > :30:34.almost every aspect of our lives. We are engaged politically, socially
:30:35. > :30:36.and emotionally 24-hours a day, because of the technology
:30:37. > :30:42.revolution. Our digital lives are just as full on as real world lives.
:30:43. > :30:48.But the fear is that this new digital way of life, that we are all
:30:49. > :30:53.exposed to, is in reality powerfully and dangerously addictive. For me
:30:54. > :30:57.this is one of the most important issues concerning mental health.
:30:58. > :31:00.However, in our overly diagnostic world, before we push to
:31:01. > :31:04.memberedically label yet another one of our behaviours. I need to be
:31:05. > :31:11.convinced, is there really something to fear. Is there something truly
:31:12. > :31:18.inherently addicted about modern technology? Technology is so
:31:19. > :31:24.immeshed in life, that it is becoming difficult to tell what is
:31:25. > :31:28.normal use and what is obsessive and dangerous use. I'm meeting
:31:29. > :31:35.self-confessed heavy users, are they addicts. How often are you using it
:31:36. > :31:39.defer day? Pretty much -- every day. Pretty much all the time, I couldn't
:31:40. > :31:43.tell you the amount of times I'm checking Facebook. I do too, even if
:31:44. > :31:50.I'm board, you look straight at what people are doing it. You check it on
:31:51. > :31:57.ran hourly basis, before you go to bed and after you get up. We are
:31:58. > :32:10.going to see if they get rid of all data. It starts with deleting the
:32:11. > :32:14.apps from their phones. I'm going to do it too, I feel I'm going to be
:32:15. > :32:19.disconnected and I can't spy on my kids! It is definitely going to be
:32:20. > :32:22.difficult to give it up. There is a difference between the annoyance of
:32:23. > :32:26.losing a useful and enjoyable tool, and the physical and mental anguish
:32:27. > :32:33.that comes from giving up something truly addictive. Most addictions in
:32:34. > :32:40.the classic sense, such as to drugs, have a physical dimension, linked to
:32:41. > :32:44.our inbuilt rewards system. So the rewards system in the brain is both
:32:45. > :32:49.about pleasure and about motivation, so when we do certain behaviours
:32:50. > :32:55.like eating, drinking and sex, natural chemicals are released that
:32:56. > :32:59.both help us enjoy those behaviours but also motivate us to do them
:33:00. > :33:04.again and again and again. This scam shows the rewards system in action,
:33:05. > :33:12.areas of the brain that are flooded with the dopamine, the key element
:33:13. > :33:17.of the rewards system. Recreational drugs stimulate massive reward
:33:18. > :33:21.response, and the combined buzz and motivation is for some, powerfully
:33:22. > :33:27.addicted. But this scan is actually not taken from a recreational drug
:33:28. > :33:32.user, it is taken from a gambler. We are seeing a response in the rewards
:33:33. > :33:38.system, a smaller one, but nevertheless a response from a
:33:39. > :33:43.purely behavioural activity. It is It is one of the reasons why problem
:33:44. > :33:46.gambling became one of the first memberedically recognised addictions
:33:47. > :33:50.in 2013. Early studies are beginning to see the same response with
:33:51. > :33:57.technology. Particularly when we look at internet gaming. Could that
:33:58. > :34:06.response lead dictive-like behaviour. This scientist believes
:34:07. > :34:16.it can. The gaming industry is adept with reward levels and dope in
:34:17. > :34:20.dopamine hits. Especially if you have done something that gives you a
:34:21. > :34:24.hit. Of course if you have it flowing through you, you want more
:34:25. > :34:30.of it. Can you give me a few examples of negative outcomes?
:34:31. > :34:38.Simply attendance at school tends fog, -- to go. Family life is
:34:39. > :34:42.affected because they are not participating or coming down for
:34:43. > :34:48.meals. When it gets really bad what are they doing to resist the
:34:49. > :34:52.parental experience? I have had situations of knives being pulled on
:34:53. > :34:55.parents because they are take ago I way their gaming advice. It is a
:34:56. > :35:00.minefield to parent through that. Gaming addiction is the focus of
:35:01. > :35:03.research to decide if it should join problem gambling as a recognised
:35:04. > :35:09.condition. What about other elements of the feck neology revolution.
:35:10. > :35:13.Where is the addictive trigger is something like social networking.
:35:14. > :35:17.Many point to the ability to change the mood, the emotional boost and
:35:18. > :35:22.sense of self-worth we get from peers, liking, sharing and
:35:23. > :35:29.retweeting that we post. Then there is the thrill of finding if we have
:35:30. > :35:36.found out we have had those comments, and driving us to log in
:35:37. > :35:43.and keep posting. It may be be why social networking is so important.
:35:44. > :35:47.But there isn't enough research to say anything. What is more important
:35:48. > :35:55.is why the heavy use becomes addictive behaviour. Mark grief
:35:56. > :36:02.faiths has been -- Griffiths who has been studying this for 25 years. My
:36:03. > :36:06.argument is technology enhances and facilitates the vulnerability. It is
:36:07. > :36:10.not to demonise the Internet, most of us use it and it is a positive
:36:11. > :36:15.thing in our lives. One of the things I want to stress is doing
:36:16. > :36:21.something a lot doesn't necessarily mean it is problematic. Genuine
:36:22. > :36:25.internet addiction I would put it one tenth of a certificate. I hear
:36:26. > :36:30.parents say there is nothing I can do the kid is an addict. If you put
:36:31. > :36:35.the kid in front there is no way it is an addict. Can you understand why
:36:36. > :36:45.there is an urge to memberedically label behaviour, particularly for
:36:46. > :36:48.parents. Parents might use a label to justify or try to explain the
:36:49. > :36:53.behaviour they are doing. Every week I get e-mails and without fail, from
:36:54. > :37:01.parents, saying that my son or daughter is addicted to Facebook or
:37:02. > :37:05.playing World of War craft. They will e-mail and say they are
:37:06. > :37:09.watching three hours a day, I would say that is normal, is it affecting
:37:10. > :37:13.their education or childhood friendships. If it is no to all
:37:14. > :37:19.those questions to me it is not something parents see as a problem.
:37:20. > :37:26.They need to take it on board that kids do this these days. How have
:37:27. > :37:38.the heavy users fared, have they struggled to give up social media.
:37:39. > :37:43.Did you manage to lapse or relapse? I didn't. A few urges but didn't act
:37:44. > :37:46.on it. It has been refreshing to realise I could get rid of Facebook.
:37:47. > :37:51.It took a little while. Now it is OK, but in the mornings, I still
:37:52. > :37:56.check my phone. There is nothing to do and where's Facebook and Twitter.
:37:57. > :38:02.It doesn't sound like it has been too give for you really. I have to
:38:03. > :38:07.admit something to you all. You guys are in your early 20s, I'm in my
:38:08. > :38:15.late 40s, I cracked. Obviously I'm just completely beyond help. I just
:38:16. > :38:19.missed that kind of -- breadth of connection, and I felt incred below
:38:20. > :38:22.disconnect #D. Even simply from my own experience, it is clear that
:38:23. > :38:28.technology can have a powerful hold on us. But by labelling it as an I
:38:29. > :38:32.diction, before we really understand the processes at work. We run the
:38:33. > :38:38.risk of removing our own responsibility for how we use
:38:39. > :38:43.technology. We are going through massive change in the way we live
:38:44. > :38:48.our lives, because of this huge technological revolution. There are
:38:49. > :38:52.those vulnerable and addicted to new pleasurable behaviours. We have a
:38:53. > :38:56.duty of care. This is about adaptation, it is about
:38:57. > :38:59.understanding our behaviour, not panicking about change and taking
:39:00. > :39:03.personal responsibility. Responsibility as parent,
:39:04. > :39:10.responsibility as individuals and as society as a whole. Could Adolf
:39:11. > :39:19.Hitler have cut it as a stand-up comic. Apparently so if we are to
:39:20. > :39:27.take a hugely successful comic novel does. Look Who's Back, imagine
:39:28. > :39:33.Hitler on the loose and picked up by a concert promoter. German humour is
:39:34. > :39:38.no laughing matter, but if they can see the funny side in his bone
:39:39. > :39:51.headed offensiveness, is something changed. The Brits have been
:39:52. > :40:16.fascinated by Hitler. I had do the funny walk. Hitler on ice! Hiel
:40:17. > :40:23.myself, Hiel to me. I am # I'm the crowd Kraut out to change
:40:24. > :40:26.history # Heil myself
:40:27. > :40:45.# There is no greater dictator in the land.
:40:46. > :40:55.Can you guess which one of those was the advertisment for the book Look
:40:56. > :40:59.Who's Back. I have the author and a German author and journalist working
:41:00. > :41:07.in the UK. What do you think the success of this book tells us about
:41:08. > :41:12.Germany? It is hard to say. Obviously I have to, I think it is
:41:13. > :41:17.something new for Germans. Mostly. Because I think it is telling the
:41:18. > :41:22.story of Hitler, without telling what you should think of it. You
:41:23. > :41:25.should have your own opinion and this is something unusual for
:41:26. > :41:35.Germans, I think. What is your feeling about it? Well I read the
:41:36. > :41:40.book, I felt it wasn't as successful as the other examples we have seen.
:41:41. > :41:46.The difference for me is if you look at monthity python, the produce --
:41:47. > :41:51.Monty Python, if you look at this book it is not really making fun of
:41:52. > :41:56.Hitler, I'm not sure if it is meant to be a social satire or critque. It
:41:57. > :42:01.wasn't clear who the butt of the joke was, but it was. For the
:42:02. > :42:08.feeling that we are ridiculing the Nazis and there by taking them down
:42:09. > :42:13.a peg or something. I didn't get it. What was the intention? Having fun
:42:14. > :42:18.righting it, but quite soon I in theed that it was something
:42:19. > :42:24.different, it was not making fun of Hitler, of course, it was just
:42:25. > :42:30.showing his thoughts and showing the funny conflict with the MoD he were
:42:31. > :42:38.society and the difficulties in finding out who he was. -- modern
:42:39. > :42:45.society and the difficulties of finding out who he was. There is a
:42:46. > :42:49.danger embarking on that sort of enterprise when it can be seen it is
:42:50. > :42:56.diminishing the terrible things he did. He don't ever deny anything he
:42:57. > :43:01.did. He is constantly throughout the whole book telling you he is doing
:43:02. > :43:08.the same things again. Whatever he is doing in this book is in reaching
:43:09. > :43:14.these old goals again. He makes no secret of this. Does he engage with
:43:15. > :43:20.the Holocaust in your book? Of course, why shouldn't he. Why should
:43:21. > :43:24.he deny T it is East proud of it, of -- he's proud of it of course. You
:43:25. > :43:28.know it is the real Hitler and he will do it again. That is the scary
:43:29. > :43:38.part in the book. Do you think it is easy for Germans to laugh at Hitler?
:43:39. > :43:43.I'm German and it is easy to laugh at it. The way the Holocaust has
:43:44. > :43:48.trothed, for me that was one of the real problems I had with it, there
:43:49. > :43:53.is a scene where the fictional Hitler speaks to an elderly
:43:54. > :43:57.Holocaust survivor, whose entire family perished in the Holocaust,
:43:58. > :44:03.her granddaughter is a secretary, he goes to see this elderly laid year,
:44:04. > :44:07.we hear it from the fictional Hitler perspective, he says after he told
:44:08. > :44:11.her that her granddaughter was such great assistant and praised her, she
:44:12. > :44:15.came around and she was fine with it. I felt in the scene who is the
:44:16. > :44:19.butt of the joke who is shown as gullible. We are being encourage
:44:20. > :44:24.today laugh at the elderly Holocaust survivor. When there are living
:44:25. > :44:31.Holocaust survivors we could be listening to instead telling their
:44:32. > :44:36.stories. It wasn't so much as are we allowed to laugh at Hitler, it was
:44:37. > :44:40.more like who are we encourage today laugh at here. I know the scene you
:44:41. > :44:48.are talking about, most people in that scene are expecting something.
:44:49. > :44:51.Because the readers are the only ones knowing this is the real
:44:52. > :44:55.Hitler. We are expecting this grandmother is take up the fight
:44:56. > :45:01.instead of us. We are hoping she will do some resistance and show us
:45:02. > :45:06.some sign of resistance, because we could close the book, or we should,
:45:07. > :45:12.but we hope too much of this grandmother because for her it is
:45:13. > :45:16.not the real Hitler, there is no such thing as time travelling. She
:45:17. > :45:24.hasn't the advantage we have as a reader. That wasn't my expectation
:45:25. > :45:29.as well, I wanted to find one drawn well Jewish character in the book.
:45:30. > :45:33.I'm a Jew from North London, I didn't have expectation as what she
:45:34. > :45:39.should say or take up as a fight. I thought just like a person, and we
:45:40. > :45:43.have this person who appears for one stage and made to represent. It was
:45:44. > :45:50.almost reading it as if the author decides there should be one
:45:51. > :45:55.confrontation between Hitler victor and Holocaust victim. We don't know
:45:56. > :46:02.anything about her. The second thing is quite right, the first part I
:46:03. > :46:08.think it is difficult. The narrator is Hitler himself. You wouldn't
:46:09. > :46:13.expect a fully pledged Jewish character telling the story. Maybe
:46:14. > :46:39.it is not the problem it might be the limitation of the form.
:46:40. > :46:51.This is the youth orchestra from Japan, performing at the south bang
:46:52. > :46:53.this week, to raise awareness about the nuclear power station. Here they
:46:54. > :47:56.are playing a piece called home. Good evening, but I think Tuesday is
:47:57. > :47:57.going to be a