07/09/2016 Newsnight


Is the report into Saudi arms sales being whitewashed? Will grammar schools return? Plus, new developments in the child abuse inquiry, going cashless, and Iphones and innovation.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



If Saudi Arabia is using British weapons to bomb Yemen,should we be


Newsnight learns of turmoil at the heart of the establishment


as senior MPs try to water down the draft report


We bring you what appears to be the anatomy of a whitewash.


I've got documents that show how some MPs want to remove references


to violations of international law and calls for a suspenison of arms


sales from an influential Parliamentary report.


Hilary Benn and a former general will help us unpick it.


Time for school for the boys of Bristol Grammar School.


And will she ever convince anyone else?


Nowadays, grammar schools are very much occupied by kids from affluent


backgrounds and very few low-income, working-class kids that we all care


about have the opportunity of getting into grammar schools.


We're going to make some history together today.


It's the best iPhone that we have ever created.


Is innovation dead, or has it just moved to Asia?


Do weapons sold to Saudi Arabia by Britain break


international humanitarian law with their use in Yemen, and if so,


Newsnight has learnt of extraordinary divisions betwen


Newsnight has learnt of extraordinary divisions between


the legislators trying to answer that exact question.


Last night, this programme saw evidence that the Committees


on Arms Export Controls was recommending Britain


stop selling weapons to Saudi for use in Yemen,


in a war where many civilians have been bombed.


But tonight, further leaks show certain MPs trying to water


down the draft report, with some rowing back altogether.


The committee met again earlier this evening to try to hammer


Gabriel Gatehouse has been following the story.


How did it end? Late. We don't know whether it ended in agreement,


because the members are sworn to secrecy and won't tell us. Given the


divisions, I very much doubt it. The draft report we saw yesterday


basically said it was inevitable that weapons supplied by Britain


were being used by the Saudis in the coalition in Yemen, in contravention


of international humanitarian law, that's basically war crimes. It is a


draft, and tonight, we've seen proposed amendments. We've got 11


pages here in total. This is the kind of things that happens with


these reports, people write it up and then amendments coming, but what


is unusual is to get the insight into the process, especially on this


most controversial of issues. Most of the amendments come from two MPs


- Crispin Blunt and John Spellar. What we see, really, is a concerted


effort to water down, or in some cases completely eliminate, the


legality of the issue of Britain's arms sales. Let's look at the


summary. Here is the original draft. It says there has been very serious


evidence of violations of humanitarian and human rights law by


the Saudi led coalition in Yemen, including the targeting of civilian


areas and medical facilities will top both John Spellar and Crispin


Blunt want the term allegations to be used. Crispin Blunt once


references to civilian areas removed altogether. The draft goes on, we


believe there must be an independent, United Nations led


investigation of these violations, and we call upon the UK Government


to support and press for such an investigation. Crispin Blunt


slightly softened the language on this to refer to alleged violations


by all parties to the conflict. John Spellar wants the reference to an


independent investigation removed altogether. Both Blunt and Spellar


take exception to the following sentence:


They both want that changed to a simple allegation. Then comes the


recommendation. We therefore recommend, the draft says, that Her


Majesty's Government suspend sales of arms that could be used in Yemen


to Saudi Arabia until the independent UN led investigation has


come to its conclusions. Crispin Blunt replaces that recommendation


with a reference to a legal case that will come before the High Court


next year. John Spellar removes it altogether. What might you mentioned


Crispin Blunt and John Spellar, talk us through who they are. Crispin


Blunt is Conservative MP for Reigate in Surrey, chair of the influential


foreign affairs select committee. John Spellar is a former Armed


Forces Minister. They are both verbally senior MPs and both have


been members of the pro-Saudi or poly parter mail -- Parliamentary


group. If you look at MPs' interest, you will see that Crispin Blunt has


connections with a military company. He said the work was unrelated to


Saudi Arabia. John Spellar has a record of defending arms sales to


Saudi Arabia on the basis that it creates British jobs. None of this


is unusual, or improper, but it gives us a sense of where people


stand. What might you have an idea of the extent of British arms sales


to Saudi Arabia. About a third of our arms exports go to Saudi Arabia.


What is startling is the extent to which it has increased since the


campaign in Yemen. According to the draft report, the UK sold more than


?1.3 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia in the first 12 months of the war.


To put it in context, that represents a 30 fold increase on the


same period of the previous year. Any response tonight from the


Government? The Foreign Office, who did not want to come on the


programme, sent us a statement, saying what they usually say, that


they operate one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the


world and that they are satisfied that are in line with international


obligations. The problem is that this report in its current form


suggests that that is not credible. Well, last night, the Saudi Foreign


Minister entered the debate, saying it was in Britain's interest


to supply Saudi with arms for Yemen to help them fight


Iran-backed rebel groups there, which would increase


the risk of terrorism Certainly, British-Saudi


relations are complicated - their tentacles go beyond economics


to security and diplomacy and So, can we afford to upset


Saudi Arabia on the question of arms sales, or does


the question betray cowardice? Joining me now, Simon Mayall,


former Lieutenant General and former senior British military advisor


on the Middle East. And Hilary Benn, former


Shadow Foreign Secretary. Very nice to have you both here.


Hilary Benn, you wanted the Government to be investigated over


this. From what is coming up tonight, what do you make of it?


Where are we? It remains to be seen what report the committee on arms


export controls finally decides. I've been calling for some months


for arms sales to be suspended because there have been numerous


reports of breaches of international humanitarian law by both sides. And


I think it is important to emphasise that. The rebels and the Saudi


coalition. We have legislation, and crazed TV and to -- and criterion to


says we should not be exporting if there is a clear risk of serious


violations. For me, the issue is, are we upholding the law that


Parliament has passed? It seems extraordinary to ignore that, if all


the signs are that we are breaking humanitarian law. I don't think that


has been proven yet. What Gabriel was indicating was the usual, dare I


say, conflicting interests within these committees. There are those,


including those who gave evidence. I gave evidence to a committee. There


are those who are viscerally against the whole of the defence industry


and defence sales. There are people on it who are viscerally against the


Saudi Government for a number of reasons. There are people who are


deeply, I have to say, misinformed about the realities of the situation


in Yemen. And there are those who really are not being really sensible


about the threats. Is Hilary Benn one of those? He might have


perfectly respectable concerns about issues to do with Saudi Arabia.


There is a big regional issue here about who is really responsible when


50,000 rebels are able to hold in hock 27 million people in Yemen. And


we know where the finger points, I'm afraid, and it is to Iran, who are


interfering across the region. Would you accept that Saudi Arabia becomes


a lightning rod for this type of criticism? There is perhaps a good


taste amongst a lot of the British public over our relations to Saudi.


It is an important one. The security cooperation we have with them,


because we face a common threat, is important. With people you have a


long-standing relationship with, you have to be honest. Simon is right


that the rebellion, there is a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen,


and the Saudi led coalition is supported by a UN resolution, but


that is about how that campaign is conducted. Given that we have


received repeated reports of civilians being hit and affected,


and that's why international humanitarian law is so important.


The way to resolve the argument, Emily, that has been going on is to


have an independent, international investigation. Which we know is not


going on because Saudi wants to conducted itself. You are happy for


Saudi to conduct its own... 14 nations are in the joint assessment


team. What you make of the UN report calling the Saudi operation against


civilians widespread and systematic? What would it take to make you


uncomfortable with this situation? I have to say, the nature of the


operation is extremely complex. But you didn't think it should be


investigated. I don't think we have enough weight of evidence, I'm


afraid, that tells us we should be suspending one of the most important


aspects of our relationship with a key ally in the Gulf, who is


involved in a major aspect of countering so-called Islamic State.


It is about sceptre -- separatism and security. And whatever they do


in Yemen, perhaps we should look farther afield unthinkably risks to


Britain. I don't think we should be doing that. The UK Government has


showed itself incapable of doing its job. The first part of this year...


It is not just the Government, it is people like John Spellar on your


site. It has not applied its own legislation and for a long time has


said, we've made an assessment and we don't think there are breaches of


international humanitarian law. They said that to me as Gabriel was


reporting on this programme. Then on the last day of the Parliamentary


session, they said, that is not quite right, we have made an


assessment. And then on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said, when it


comes to this question, are there serious violations? He said, based


on the information we have, we don't think that test has been met. We


don't know what assessment has been done. In fairness to Saudi Arabia, I


don't think it is fair to axe -- expect them to do it in a way that


will command confidence. Should we pause are selling of arms and still


expect them to help out on all the things Simon was talking about?


Would they still do that? In the context of our failure to tackle


Assad and our Sunni Muslim allies in the Gulf when we did a nuclear deal


with Iran, in the context of not supporting Bahrain, this would be


yet another blow to any sense of the Americans and ourselves being


reliable allies. So we shut our eyes? We engage, and if you don't


wish to be engaged, and they feel deeply insecure at the moment, they


will go to people who could not care less about humanitarian law, and


that is the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians. Moral relativism


is a dodgy place to be. If we don't sell them arms, the Russians will,


and that will be worse. That is a weird place to come from. The report


shows that there has not been clear-cut evidence of breaches. That


is precisely the argument for having an independent international


investigation. The sooner that can be done and we can answer the


question about breaches of humanitarian law, we can then take


the appropriate action. It is our legislation. The last Labour


Government put it on the statute book. It is important to uphold it,


including in conversation with our friends and partners. That


relationship with Saudi Arabia is important, even though we have


criticisms on their record on human rights and the death penalty, which


I oppose. Thank you both for coming in.


So grammar schools are back in the headlines this evening.


After yesterday's accidental ministerial leak reinforced


suspicions that they are back on the Government agenda,


the Prime Minister was quizzed on the topic earlier


today by backbenchers, many of whom would be happy


Nick Watt's here and has the latest.


Take us through the meeting. The new Prime Minister is more than a few


words but she faced into the crumbling dry and the Conservative


party by saying that she wants to move ahead with their plans to


expand the grammar school system in England and she went to that meeting


and said they would be an element of selection but then said, we already


have selection in our system, selection by house price. And she


would like to do with that, focusing reforms on disadvantaged children


and one idea doing the rounds is you could say that grammar schools would


have to give 50 presented the places to the poorest children, those are


the ones on Free School meals. We thought this was an issue that has


bedevilled English politics for the last 40 years so we thought we would


take a look at the dilemmas facing Theresa May.


It is a line no political leader has been able to cross in four decades.


Now Theresa May wants to go where Margaret Thatcher dared not


tread as Education Secretary and as Prime Minister.


It goes right to the core of what I believe as a Conservative.


That we should have the opportunity to progress in life,


that where we end up in life should not be dictated by where we start.


It does seem to me absurd that if parents and communities


want something similar, they should be barred


But grammar schools are a toxic issue and there are Tories


who agree with Labour, who say they actually fail


The evidence is that even if, historically, grammar schools did


enable kids from very poor backgrounds to get


on and have an opportunity, nowadays grammar schools are very


much occupied by kids from affluent backgrounds and very few low income


working class kids that we all care about have the opportunity


of getting into grammar schools and that is the situation in Kent,


it is the situation across the country and the outgoing


Chief Inspector of Schools made that point very powerfully the other day.


That is the evidence he sees as well.


Theresa May believes the reforms lie at the heart of her vision


of creating a country that works for everyone and not


But the Prime Minister knows that she needs to move with care


because there are doubts in her party right up


to Education Secretary, Justine Greening, who is adopting,


in the words of one minister, a sinuous approach on this.


I have been told the reforms will be introduced incrementally,


with no wholesale change, in line with the thinking


of the brains behind the idea - her joint Chief of


Amid signs of unease amongst some of the Tory modernisers sacked


by the Prime Minister, Theresa May made clear to the 1922


Committee this evening that she would move with caution.


Graeme Brady, who resigned from the Tory front bench in 2007


when David Cameron backed a speech by David Willetts rejecting a return


I think the only concern that would arise is if there was any


suggestion of a big top-down reorganisation being imposed


on areas, whether they wanted it or not.


I don't think anybody is talking about that.


What we are looking at here, I hope, is a modest measure


to provide more freedom, to provide more choice for parents


and for communities and to free people up to have these kinds


But Labour are confident they can block it.


I think that this was not in the Conservative manifesto.


Therefore, first of all, the House of Lords will not feel


they are bound by the Parliament Act because it was not in the manifesto.


There are many Conservative MPs who have doubts or are seriously


opposed to this policy as well as many that support it.


So I think that first of all, Theresa May will struggle to get


this through the House of Commons and then she would struggle to get


Theresa May believes she has found the elixir to reach out to


Others think she has opened a can of worms.


Theresa May was pressed again on her plans for Brexit today


She managed to hold off the questions from MPs and insisted


that she had no plans to "reveal our hand prematurely".


But she's likely to come under more pressure tomorrow


Nick is here with me now and has the details.


What is happening? Tomorrow we will see the preparations for Britain's


Brexit negotiations move from neutral into first gear, Theresa May


will host the president of European Council for breakfast and it'll be


their first meeting since becoming Prime Minister and has been a


rotation in Brussels that Brussels has not triggered Article 50, the


mechanism taking the side of the EU and friend Donald Tusk leaves he


will have it clear in his mind that Britain will be triggering it and


they will be triggering that in the New Year and from behind-the-scenes


were getting an idea of the shape of how the UK sees those negotiations.


One thing we are hearing is that senior ministers believe that


Theresa May will concentrate on what are described as a few iconic


issues, maybe only half a dozen, and what that is about is ensuring she


manages to get the best deal for British goods and services and they


say, 20 million other issues- pensions reform officials in the


commission, we believe that to the officials. The other thing is the


negotiations will be underweight in the New Year but they expect


theatres for the French and German elections. Thank you very much for


that. News now of fresh problems


for the independent Newsnight has learned


that the leaders of one of the main groups representing survivors


of alleged abuse - a group who have been designated


official participant status by the inquiry - have lost


faith in it and will recommend to their members


that the group abandon it. We'll speak to the group's


leader in a moment. It was over one month ago that we


got the unexpected news that Justice Lyle Gothard would quit from this


enquiry, the third share in fractionally over 90 years since it


was set up. In terms of why she quit, we had a brief obligation of


correspondence had been hurt and the new Home Secretary and told us


little and that prompted the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee


Keith Vaz to call just as Goddard. And we got that committee today.


Minus Keith Vaz for reasons that have been well documented and also


minus Justice Goddard, who chose to submit written evidence to the


committee and in that evidence there was something that is causing


problems. She complained that she was unable to select her own staff


for the enquiry, her own secretary it and she accused the Home Office


of fixing the way staff was elected so the secretary at was stuffed full


of Home Office civil servants and she said they were bureaucratic in


their approach but it is not that I position that is a problem for the


survivors. Learn about to hear from one of the main survivors groups,


who represents over 600 children who were in Lambeth's care homes in the


latter part of the 20th century and many say they burn abused and the


problem here is this is the Home Office, one of the institutions who


stand accused of failing children in the past. Lambert is one of 13


strands in this enquiry, it is one of the key once that has been


started on, one of the ones that will report back first when this


enquiry does finally report stop it was raised in the Select Committee


today by Chukka Umunna, the Labour MP who represents the constituency


in Lambeth and this issue of Home Office staff essentially having a


big role in the enquiry when the Home Office is one of the


institutions who stand accused. Amber Rudd said that Justice Goddard


was mistaken and she had been free to pick her own staff. Why does this


matter? There is an argument to be made that it does not matter, if


survivor groups want to lose faith, and they don't want to be part of


the enquiry, that is their business and the enquiry carries on but the


reality is that firstly they might have important information to impart


and it is also important for the enquiry to be seen to be credible,


to have the support and the belief of those who were abused and it is


also worth saying that this enquiry is under flak from all sides, many


say the scope is far too big and it should be scaled back, something


Amber Rudd said she did not think should happen. And you have that


criticism and also the survivors. Thank you.


Well, Raymond Stevenson, representive of the Shirley Oaks


What is your sense, your concerns? We had concerned six months ago when


we met with the enquiry team and a first question I asked was how many


people weren't for the Home Office and we always knew during the


investigation that they were implicated in what took place at


Shirley Oaks and a failure to intervene so to read the document


today from Justice Goddard and read her reasons for being concerned


matching the reasons we expressed a while ago is very concerning. Do you


really not believe that Home Office staff members today, all these years


later, cannot be impartial? We're not going to take that risk. Some of


our members have been through investigations before which had Home


Office members and staff as part of that and we have been through that


so this is about the third investigation Lambeth has been


through so what we wanted from this was followed to be truly independent


and we were sold the theory that it would be. If Justice Goddard is


concerned, we are definitely concerned. There is another issue-


the chair has spent 30 years in the social service department, that


would have been another condition for us because we are accusing the


social services of also being part of this so there has been a sea


change in non-2 weeks, and you have Justice Goddard highlighting these


concerns that we expressed. What would you recommend to your members?


At this moment in time, we recommend that we pull out. We have given the


enquiry an opportunity to meet us, we contacted them non-2 weeks ago


and we're still waiting for that meeting. We don't know how they will


jump through the hurdles of having two people compromised, the Home


Office is compromised if they are as involved as it seems they are. If


you pull out and others follow, this could be the beginning of the end of


the whole thing? We are lucky, we set out to investigate this


ourselves and we will produce our own report on the first 100 pages


will be presented next week. It is a damning indictment of what took


place in Lambeth and also it is a macro of what took place around the


country. We wanted to join this enquiry to share our report with


them and that they are unable to receive this in an independent we


were definitely going to publish it ourselves. Thank you very much for


coming in. When disgraced boss Mike Ashley


turned up at an inspection of a Sports Direct factory this


morning, they frisked him and found Nothing illegal


about that, of course. Yet somehow we're conditioned


to find raw, ready cash a sign of the underhand these days -


or at least something slightly And now there are esteemed voices


ready to make the argument A leading US economist suggests that


central banks should phase out paper Lewis Goodall tries


to figure it out. # Money, money, money,


money, money #. How many of us would pay


for something with 50s? And even if we did, how many


shopkeepers would accept them? This is at the heart of Harvard


economist Ken Rogoff's thesis. That high denomination banknotes -


?50 notes or $50 bills in the US - are used for organised crime,


tax evasion and even spur If you see a briefcase of $100


bills, you know where it is from, as any fan of Breaking Bad


will tell you. Rogoff believes that abolishing


high-value cash notes would allow central banks to stimulate


the economy by making negative At the moment, if negative rates


are in place, ie banks are charging you to deposit money,


you may as well hold them in cash. By abolishing high-value notes,


you remove that option and make But from gold coins to the gold


standard - money has existed in high-value form


since the ancient world. How prepared would people be


to give up that right? Ask the Weimar Republic


or Harold Wilson - politicians have oft come unstuck


messing with our money. In this uncertain financial world,


it might take a brave one to ask us It doesn't mean, of course,


that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse


or in your bag, has been devalued. Ken Rogoff joins us now


from Boston and Fran Boait - the Executive director


of Positive Money - is with me now. Thank you for joining us. Ken


Rogoff, how do you see this working? To be clear, I am in favour of less


cash, rather than being without cash. I think it would be eight


mistake. It has convenience for small transactions. If you look


around the world, countries are swimming in big bills that most


people never see. There was a joke that the 500 euros note, everyone


knew about it but no one had seen one. We have 36 $100 bills for every


man woman and child in America, on what the same in the Eurozone and


Japan. Central banks have been surveyed and they say, people love


our currency. If we are swimming in cash we never use and most of us


never see, what is the point? In the UK, cash is only 3% of all the money


that we use. The remaining 97% is digital that we use with our debit


cards. It is an interesting idea to move towards less cash in society,


but a big part of the debate which isn't being discussed is, what is


that cash replaced with? The electronic money we use through


debit cards is not the electronic version of cash. They are different


because of the institutions that create them. Is that not the point,


that suddenly you have the privatisation of money? If I have


wads of cash, I can keep it under the bed whatever I want, but as soon


as it belongs in a digital structure like a bank or in society, they can


do with that what they want. The UK is in a different position than the


United States and Europe. You don't have... We have the $100 bill, euro


has the 500 euros bill. Singapore has a 10,000 note. The UK is in a


different position. That said, if you look at actual sales and retail


shops, they are not using so much these large notes. But if you look


at when they seized drug... Big busts and so on, they find them a


lot. Cash is declining in the legal economy and rising in the


underground economy. It is an ideal striking a balance. And there is


this seediness that is associated with wads of cash. If you open a


suitcase and it has cash, you don't think what a wonderful surprise. You


think of what on earth has gone on here? There is that connotation. I


am not denying that there are issues of tax evasion, and I'm not denying


that abolishing big notes could help with that. But it throws a bigger


questions, such as, what is money for? How do we design a system that


works were people? I think if we're going to worry about tax issues, the


seediness of big suitcases full of money, the biggest tax justice


issues are around corporate tax avoidance. I don't think they are


bigger quantitatively. What about the idea that money is a very public


currency, for want of a better word? As soon as it is digital, you lose


that. I'm not getting rid of smaller notes that most people use. It's


perfectly possible, and I discuss it in my book, for the Government to


provide its own electronic currency at a subsidised rate. In the UK,


this has been long considered, but I thought about giving low income


people debit cards. We need to think about central banks issuing digital


cash. There is more and more research to say that they want to


move in this the Wrexham. At the same time, we need to look at the


actual system and how it works, and the structure that underpins it. It


is not necessarily that simple to move to an economy that gets rid of


cash and replaces it with a digital currency completely. But I think I


would agree that we need to move in that direction, and we need to think


about money being a public good and how we make it work for society. Do


you think there is ever a danger, when you start to play around with


money in this way, that you destroy the value of it? I don't think so,


but I look at it very carefully in the book. There are all sorts of


subtle issues about, if you get rid of too many notes, can the central


bank still control the currency? If currency were all electronic, it


looks different from Treasury bills and it is difficult to look at


deposits. It has to be done slowly. You don't know what is going to


happen. I am looking at ten, 20 years, and once you get going, I


think it is important to include financial inclusion. Last word.


Negative interest rates are bad idea. There are better ways to


stimulate and boost demand. I couldn't disagree more! Thank you


both very much. Alongside Watt, Faraday


and Stevenson, the launch of an identical, expensive


new rectangle that is missing a phone jack probably


won't warrant its own set of commemorative stamps


in years to come. Which heralds the question


of the night. If the brand new iPhone 7


is the best our leading inventors can do to excite us,


have we reached the high Or does the absentee phone jack


signify greatness to come? Ladies and gentlemen,


our presentation will begin shortly. So, how does the CEO of the world's


most valuable company begin his big


product launch of the year? # I did it all #.


. You get the sense there is a bit


more sizzle than sausage


with Apple at the moment. It's the best iPhone


that we have ever created. Yes, there were some neat


new features but nothing to rival the startling


innovation of the Jobs era. At some point the new


computers will end up collectors like Max Smith,


a repair shop in East London. But some economists believe


that we are now at the end of this period


of extraordinary technological That all the big changes that have


transformed our societies The challenge for the future


is how do we satisfy the wants and needs


of more and more people


with minimal economic growth? Economist Robert Gordon created this


graph showing economic growth in the leading


industrial nation - that was first There has been a blip,


he says, over the past 100 years from innovations like


the steam locomotive, the telegraph But the trend, he says,


is very much now downwards. The problem we face is that


all these great inventions, we have


to match them in the future. And my prediction that we're not


going to match them brings us down from the original 2% growth down to


0.2%, the fanciful curve that I drew you at the beginning. The theory is


that most of the huge advantages of organisation, allegation, sanitation


and computing have already been raped. What is left is marginal,


incremental evolution, not revolution. According to other


academics, this pessimism couldn't be more unwarranted. I think the


really important age of innovation is still ahead of us. We have


innovated a lot in terms of gaining control of the world outside, but we


haven't really began in terms of changing the world inside us, just


as in the Bible God has the ability to create animals and plants and


humans are according to his wishes, Sylvie are now gaining with the help


of biotechnology and artificial intelligence is the ability to start


engineering and manufacturing living beings. I think that in the next


century, in the 21st-century, the main products of the human economy


will not be textiles and food and iPhones, they will be bodies, brains


and minds. Some economists believe that what is missing today are


engaged state institutions to set the direction for innovation. Beef


fame Apollo man on the and programme from Nasa actually ended up over


time, and that is another thing, allowing that time to take place,


ended up producing most of the technology that is in the iPhone.


What makes the smart -- iPhone smart not stupid are things like GPS,


voice-activated systems, as well as the touch-screen display. All those


were publicly financed. Without some idea of the big goals for


innovation, perhaps we end up pursuing the short-term, marginal


and trivial. And producing a pristine, Mira- like surface. There


is a parallel with the hierarchy of needs. Our society progresses, we go


for things like focusing on survival, to establishing the social


order, to self actualisation. We become more obsessed with ourselves,


and that is what innovators are responding to. It may be, then, that


the future will contain innovation, but not innovation that leads to


economic growth or makes the growing global population more prosperous,


and that truly is a challenge for the innovators.


And that was it from David Grossman. Almost time to go, but one story to


bring you on the front of the Times. MPs will be leaving Parliament in a


?4 billion restoration plan. It is the first time since 1941. Theresa


May taking action to recommend that they decamp, and the MPs will go.


The House of Lords will move to the Queen Elizabeth conference centre.


That's it for tonight. Tomorrow will be a very special day


in the hearts of true sci-fi fans - it's the 50th anniversary


of the first ever screening And just in case you think


it was just a TV show, ask the staff at Nasa


or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ask any Western scientist


or engineer involved The largest federation of


scientists, engineers and explorers. So, from all of us here


at Nasa headquarters...


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

Is the report into Saudi arms sales being whitewashed? Will grammar schools return? Plus, a look at new developments in the child abuse inquiry, going cashless, and Iphones and innovation.

Download Subtitles