16/07/2012 Newsnight

Security, what security? As athletes from all over the world

arrive in the UK, police and troops have to cover for missing security

guards, as G4S fails to deliver its multimillion pound security

contract. I will be asking the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, if

this is in danger of sending this into an Olympic shambles and who is

to blame. Now is not the time for a witch-hunt, we want G4S to deliver

on what they say they can deliver on. A former Security Minister and

the chair of the Public Accounts Committee will be telling us who

should be for the high jump. A summer of religionship

counselling lies ahead for the coalition, but will the angry Lib

Dem Lords tear them away. Newsnight investigates research

that simply seems to say that a yes about cancer.

We will speak to our guests. Good evening, it is going to be a

great winter Olympics, one athlete was reported to have said upon

arriving at Heathrow this morning. But the great British summer

problems. Despite another appearance in the Commons by the

Home Secretary, we still don't know how many security staff the private

contractor, G4S will be able to provide. And today, there were more

Tories that sounded like plot lines from the supposedly fictional

sitcom 2012. Buses containing athletes getting lost, and police

being called in to cover for security guards that just didn't

show up. The writers of 2012 the parody of

the Olympics, couldn't have written the script for this very real

security nightmare any better. Last week's episode saw them discussing

catastropheisation. I know you are taking us through that feedback

later. Ironically Lord Coe, who is Mr

Olympics, plays himself in the BBC comedy. His quotes on this actual

crisis were not unlike the show. London's mayor, who many feel is

beyond parody, was dismissing some of the negativity surrounding the

build-up to the games. When people in this city see the torch relay,

any remaining Olympo-sceptisp. We will want the souffle to collapse

when this goes home in September. Filling the shortfall left by G4S,

which the Defence Secretary described it as a deb backle.

Nobody will remain longer on operations in Afghanistan because

of the deb backle on the G4S issue. G4S had been advising Theresa May

up to last week that they would have more than enough staff.

repeatedly assured us they would overshoot their targets. Shift of

blame towards G4S seemed to clash with the Culture Secretary, Jeremy

Hunt, whose department runs the Olympics, he was playing it down

yesterday. This isn't a moment to get into the blame game, G4S have

put their hands up. Contractors on a project of this size will

This was another shambles in the makes. How on earth could a

minister delivering Olympic security be the only person who

didn't know. On top of the army being drafted in, today it was

revealed that the police had to step in, and Olympic locations all

over Britain, where G4S security staff had failed to turn up. So,

for example, in Northumbria, an expected 58 staff, only 10 put on

their jackets, the picture the same across the country.

Even the athletes themselves didn't have a great start to their

Olympiad. The American sprinter, Kerron Clement, tweeted after a

four-hour odyssey from Heathrow to Stratford, that athletes were tired,

hungry and needed a pee, could they get to the Olympic village. Tonight

the spotlight turned on the Olympic organisers themselves, LOCOG. We

have spoken to a senior insider at LOCOG, working for years at the top

level, he described the management as amateurish and unable to deal

with contractor, and they couldn't spot where contractors were cutting

corners. Crucially, the source said it was the wrong strategy to use

only one provider for all Olympic security needs. Other parts of the

Olympics use multiple providers, they haven't had as many problems.

Having had seven years to prepare for the event, the last thing

either this or the previous Government would want now would be

galvanised troublemakers, yet that might be the prospect. It could

involve anybody who wanted to cause a bit of a problem if they thought

the system wasn't working properly you are talking about 20,000 people

all across the country, mainly in London, providing a visible sign of

security. If somebody believes that security operation is being

compromised, of course they might try something. It looks like a

shamble and sounds like a shambles and feels like a shambles, it is

definitely shambles. The big problem here is about monitoring,

it is attention, there is always the tension between the private

sector who want to make their contracts as economically tight as

possible. This is the official 2012 version,

Corinthian Mark III. Even though all events have scares before the

starting pistol is fired, few have the capacity to embarrass the

government in such a global way. If the games are a success, we will

have forgotten G4S's role in September, if there is a security

lapse, the Government will have politically shot itself in the

proverbial foot. A little earlier I went to the

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to interview Jeremy Hunt.

G4S said they would come up with 10,000 security personnel,

originally, now they are saying 6,500. Is there any guarantee they

will turn up? We have been following it very closely, and we

have had contingency plans in place, we have been in constant touch with

G4S management. We hope they will play a very important role, but we

have had some problems. guarantees? We can guarantee the

Olympics will be safe and secure, and we will have plans in place to

make sure whatever happens, if this company isn't able to deliver

everything they promised, we will make sure we have plans in place to

make sure the public are safe, that is our job.

They have made very big promises and haven't delivered right now,

today, Manchester, 17 out of 56 workers, Tyneside 10 out of 58. You

can understand for security for athlete, how concerned people are.

Nine police forces have had to pitch up. If they can't do this in

other areas, presumably then the police will have to step?

compleed ly -- I completely understand and I am concerned, and

that is why we took the measures we did to bring in 3,500 troops, and

the police are helping out. That was a step in at the last minute

today, it wasn't planned that the police would turn up, the police

had to step in, there was not enough security for athletes?

is absolutely not the case. What we had was very clear contingency

plans, we had a contract with the biggest private security provider

in the world. We had constant assurances from them that they

would deliver. But we also thought, what happens if they don't? And

even several months ago, we were always thinking, what happens if by

any reason, even at the last minute, there is a hitch. So you were

considering it, even though Theresa May said it would be constantly

reassured by G4S that they would easily, and be able to overprovide,

so they were deceiving you? I think what was happening is the

management didn't know how difficult it was on the ground. The

management I don't think were deceiving us, they thought they

were going to meet the targets. they are incompetent, it is one or

the other? We will obviously have a very thorough postmortem. With 11

days to go to the opening ceremony, we want to make sure we pull

together. That is quite scary isn't it, when you have this level of

problems for a company of this size, with a multimillion pound contract,

it is very bad? It would only be scary if we hadn't been doing our

job as ministers and made sure we had good contingency plans.

course, you had already planned for some military personnel, and now

another 3,500. Presumably you will put in as many troops as necessary,

if you find that G4S lifts the phone tomorrow and says we can't

provide the 6,500 we have said we can provide? Of course if they

can't deliver, we have contingency plans. When you have someone like

Boris Johnson, and his deputy, talking before the beginning of

this year, that there were problems, and issues ahead, were these just

being ignored? They weren't being ignored, what we had was a very

solid plan, so we weren't actually going to be dependant on this

company, and we hope not to have to activate those plans, but in the

eventuality that something went wrong, as it did, we moved very

quickly. We have talked to senior security sources inside LOCOG, one

side the job was too big to be given to one company, that was a

mistake, wasn't it? We will look at those issues, and I don't want to

prejudge what conclusions we may. The only thing I would say is G4S

is the biggest security company in the world, it is ten-times bigger

than the competitor down. Big isn't always better? Self-evidently as

they haven't delivered on this very important krlt. This same LOCOG

insider said that the management couldn't spot contractors cutting

corners? I will look very closely at what happened, I don't think

this is about cutting corners, I don't want to prejudge, we will

look into it very thoroughly. It is more about what seemed to happen is

G4S trained a lot of people, then a lot of people were accredited, but,

it seems like those people weren't kept in touch with. So then when

they needed to report for duty and commit to coming at particular

times, they then said that they weren't available to do that.

is incompetence? Clearly it wasn't run as successfully as it could

have been, that is why we are in this position. That is why we have

very robust contingency plans in place. Your defence minister said

today this was a complete debacle, is it, is it a normal debacle, what

is it? Clearly an important contract has not been delivered on,

that is why we have put in place the contingency plans we worked out.

We can have this debate, can I make this point. Do you apologise to any

athlete who feels their security has been compromised? We would be

failing in our job as ministers if a contract had gone wrong and we

didn't have a back-up plan that worked. Woe do have a back-up plan,

that is what we have put in place. -- we do have a back-up plan and we

have put that in place, we will monitor it, and if anything else

goes wrong we will bring in further back-up plans. In the future do you

think that G4S will not be allowed, for a while, to bid for public

contracts? I think now, with 11 days to go to the opening ceremony,

with G4S as an organisation that is already providing 3,500 security

guards, I don't think anything has been said so far that questions the

professionalism of the people they are currently providing. But the

shed loads of public money, huge amounts of public money? If can I

finish. I don't think now is the time for going on a big witch-hunt.

What we actually want is for G4S to deliver on what they say they can

deliver. Then we will look at it. They have put their hands up, they

have said they got it wrong, they said they will finance all the

additional costs of bringing in additional troops, it won't cost

the taxpayer any extra money. Now I think what we want to do is pull

together, on both the private sector providers, the volunteers,

the armed services and the police. And do what I know we will, which

is to provide a safe and secure olympics, which is the number one

priority. We need to remind people that this is one contract thatover

all this is a contract that is extremely successful. That overall

this has been a contract that is extremely successful. Will this be

a safe and secure Olympics? believe it will be, we are doing

everything we can to make sure it will be. Is this all a storm in a

high-performance sports drink, or are there bigger issues here. We

have Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister last year, and

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the Public Accounts Select Committee.

First of all, Baroness Neville- Jones, you looked at all security

arrangements, how on earth did G4S slip into pole position?

contract that they got was let by LOCOG.

They are a very extensive contractor, with Government, they

do a vast range of security jobs. They are a very experienced

security company. Do you think LOCOG as contractors weren't as

experienced, and thought they should go for G4S because they have

all the contracts? They would have taken advice, and it was very

important for them to have specified the contract and the duty

that is in that contract. I haven't seen that contract, so I don't know

the detail of that. But, do you feel that they should have used

more than one contractor, that is one of the big criticisms, that by

having a single contractor, LOCOG laid themselves wide open to this

stuff? You can also argue it the other way round, if you have

multiple contracts you wouldn't have the problem of co-ordination

between them. Having said, LOCOG have done exactly that, their

events and other parts of it did have problems? There were clearly

choices, this was the choice that was made. Where I would point the

finger, is not so much on the original arrangement It is the

implementation, and the ability and seriousness which LOCOG has, sorry

G4S has fulfilled that contract. Margaret Hodge, the Public Accounts

Committee has appointed you, have you concerns about the way the

contract was handed out in the first place? Yes, my first concern

is that the whole issue of security was left too late. We knew in 2005

it was going to be a key challenge, yet it was only in 2007 we let the

first contract. When the contract was let in 2010, a few months later

they renegotiated it, and decided to add a further 10,000 security

staffing. That is dreadful planning. The second thing is, I think this

"who was to blame" I think everybody is to blame. Jeremy Hunt

said it would not be a witch-hunt, but it will have to be a huge

postmortem because of public money. Theresa May was very clear until

last Wednesday she had no idea, it had not been flagged up to her. Not

necessarily flagged up to her, but Boris Johnson made it clear he knew

there were problems at the beginning of the year? We looked at

the contract last December, just before Christmas, just before they

had taken the position to increase by 10,000, which we thought was

unachievable. At that time the permanent secretary, in the Home

Office, said, he would just like to say, that of course, that is

something that ministers have looked at extremely carefully. And

it is completely clear, from all the monitoring that we have done,

that this whole implementation, that ministers, the senior civil

servants at LOCOG and G4S, were all involved. If you say, as you have,

it was too late to have let that contract, your Government ought to

have let it. So this Government. So this Government has let that

contract. Let me just say. Let me just say, I think, it is all very

well to say it is too late. One of the problems of an event of this

kind, it isn't a fully fledged event straight away, you have to

decide on the sides and the security needs, and all the

cultural stuff, then you get a view of the overall Securitask. Isn't

the problem that we are holding an Olympic Games at a time when there

is so much insecurity in the world, that security is a very emotive and

emotional issue. People want to feel they are coming to take part,

and also to view in total security. This does not give the impression

that is under control? Can I just say, it is silly to make a

political partisan point on it. This should have been planned much

earlier. Let me say something about the Olympics. The Olympic delivery

authority is a public body, totally transparent and delivered

brilliantly, so all the facilities on the site are there. LOCOG is a

private body, G4S is a private contractor, there is no

transparency at all, and the thing goes wrong. There is something

about transparency and our ability to see what happens that is hugely

important. What Jeremy Hunt said there cleeerm, there is a huge

troop -- clearly, there is a huge troop presence, there will be

something 7,000 military personnel, not all visible. He did say that

G4S can't deliver, more troops will be brought in. So people should

have confidence, because the soldiers will deliver? That is the

point that is really important. I have no doubt at all that the, our

Armed Forces will fill the gap. If, indeed, there is still a gap, even

after the 3,500, I'm sure that gap will be filled too. We don't

actually know at the moment how many people. We don't know ten days

from the games, and we actually don't know? This is not a brilliant

story. No it is not. But I don't think the general public, or our

visitors, or the competitors, do need to be worried. On the wider

point, if police officers are being deployed, who could be doing other

things, on the beats on the streets? One of the reasons why a

company like G4S was brought in, is because we have a limited number of

policemen, and they have other things to do, as you rightly say.

There is public order policing, there is crime prevention, a whole

lot of other things, they will have to be done alongside this. This is

all part of both safety and security. Thank you very much.

There was a train platform, there were two people bucking social

conventions, but this morning David Cameron and Nick Clegg were

determined to show that the coalition wouldn't just be a brief

encounter. With an announcement on rail infrastructure, and a joint

press conference, they tried to show the Government still has

purpose and unity after the rebellions of last week and

mutterings off-age. With more gloomy predictions for the economy

from the IMF, is it a love affair that can endure. We assess whether

two hearts are beating still as one. This is a story of different

backdrops, it was all gently perfumed back in the garden back in

2010. There was still plenty of idealism, at the Olympic Park one

year later. By May this year, there was more of an industrial feel to

the coalition. The tractor factory backdrop said, it may not be pretty

or glamorous, it is necessary. Then today it was trains that said, why

don't I let the Prime Minister explain. We are not here to help

the headline writers, sharing platforms and minding gaps, trains

on track, and I'm sure you will think of some others. It is the

rose garden part II, whether it will work or not is a big question,

it remains to be seen. It is OK for the two principals involved that

want to keep things going, I'm sure they will for their own sakes as

well as others, and the country's. They only speak for themselves, it

is the members of each party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories,

who will finally decide the fate of the coalition. The point of today

was to announce funding for a huge amount of rail improvements, over

�9 billion. But the subtext was all about the state of the coalition,

following last week's row about House of Lords reform. Of course

the coalition has come into question, some asking whether it

has real momentum for the rest of this parliament. Others even asking

whether it should end. I just want to say I'm even more committed to

coalition Government, to making this coalition today, than I was in

May 2010, when Nick Clegg and I formed this Government. Sure, we're

two different parties, he doesn't agree with all my opinions, and I

don't agree with all his opinions. That is coalition Government. It is

tough, also, of course, to be in Government in difficult times, it

is not always a walk in the park, or in the rose garden. And of

course you also get some bumps on the road in the Westminster village,

as we did last week on House of Lords reform. This backdrop, and

announcement today, is designed to send a message that the coalition

is doing what is needed to get the economy moving. But, as critics

have pointed out all day, much of the money is not strictly new, and

in any case, won't start being spent until 2014, as Labour puts it,

this recovery is on pause. The Prime Minister and his deputy

know that this coalition was sold to the public as being all about

just one thing, sorting out the economy. That hasn't happened yet.

It may be there are all sorts of reasons why it hasn't happened, it

may be all the fault of the eurozone, perhaps no set of

policies would have made the slightest bit of difference,

politically they know that doesn't seem to matter. Most of their

problems stem from this weaker than expected economy.

The shine come off the coalition is almost exactly tracked by the IMF's

growth forecast for the UK in 2012. Way back in May 2010, it was a

blooming 12.9%. One year later, the IM -- 1.2%, one year later the IMF

was predicting 1.3%, but in 2012 it was now saying that growth in 2012

would be just 0.8%, not great, unless you compare it to today's

predictions from the IMF, just 20.2%. There are domestic policies

we could be pursuing that would help our economy grow and create

jobs. So a VAT reduction and national insurance holiday for

small businesss and we would be taxing bank bonuses for 50%, and

using that money to fund a job creation scheme for those million

young people who are out of work right now. There are things the

Government could do. But this Government is sitting back, and not

taking the action that is required. And of today's big announcement, is

building big ticket railways the answer. All over Europe there are

these kinds of railways, like this one in Greece, if this was the

answer to growth, you would expect Greece to be bailing out others

rather than Germany. Government's investment in

infrastructure will not create growth in the UK. If you look at

the �9 billion announced today, it is tax-payers picking up the bill

for that. Growth won't come from that. If the Government wants to

create growth from infrastructure, the best thing to do is allow

things like the third runway. It looks -- it needs to look at

letting the private sector take the lead on building infrastructure.

Where are they for the next act of unity, what they could really do

with is a better economic backdrop. Can the Liberal Democrats and

Conservatives agree on new policies, Tim Montgomerie, the editor of

ConservativeHome website, and Evan Harris, a member of the party as

policy committee. The important thing for it

Government, as far as the population is concerned, is a

strong, decisive Government, it is a Government that can't even get

business through? It can't get its business through in some key

respect that is we have focused on a lot recently. On deficit

reduction, in the spirit of coalition relationship would pay

tribute to the Lib Dems on this, the central mission of deficit

reduction, the two parties have been completely united on that

issue. It was central to the coalition agreement, and there is

no wavering from it. This is the mid-term of a parliament. David

Cameron says it is important for the population a strong, decisive

Government, the Lords last week was yet another debacle? It was, and

neither of us will deny T the central mission of this coalition

isn't Lords reform or boundary changing, or other headlines

grabbing the headlines, it is education reform, and most

importantly, getting the deficit under control. There the parties

are as united. Welfare reform, you need to get away from a situation

where people are better off not working. In that respect there is

agreement on that. Of course difficult decisions need to be

taken to get the deficit right. That is and always of the reason

why two parties, neither of whom won the election themselves, are

working together, at some cost, especially for the lads. The IMF is

saying it is going the other way at the moment? Just as we are together

to deal with the deficit it has to be done. You can only do it with a

stable Government not a minority Government. We will fall together

if the economy does not turn by the next general election. That is

clear as well. Everyone knows that. What I'm pleased about, is that

finally today, they are saying what I think they should have been

saying at least a year ago, if not from the very beginning. That these

are two different parties, who don't actually rejoice in a huge

amount of things. Don't you think the population knows that? They

know it now. There is this idea, you can understand where it came

from. Nick Clegg was clear, you couldn't see when you are forming

the coalition it was important not to be seen as cats fight anything

sack. What was more important, everyone will see the parties

working together, it was to demonstrate the independence of

both those parties, and the fact they didn't agree as much as where

they aed greed. It is all very well, David Cameron and Nick Clegg

standing in front of us, all with this big rail infrastructure and

looking incredibly happy with each other, that doesn't mean the

backbench Liberal Democrats or Tories are happy about this at all?

That is the problem with the coalition. If you look at the

people at the heart of the arrangement, Nick Clegg and David

Cameron, they are not that dissimilar, but Evan and I are

quite far apart. It is the in-laws in the relationship who have always

been the trouble. The Tory backbenchers were happy with the

Government programme, then I would be appalled. I guess that Tim and

right-wing Conservatives would be appalled if we were happy with the

Government's programme. That is the nature of coalition. In every other

country in Europe where it takes place, it is just the media here,

as your demonstrating, cannot get their mind around two parties

getting together, who disagree with much. It is not so much getting our

heads around it, but where is the radical agenda that you two will

agree on for the next two years, is it Europe? On the Lib Dem Voice

website, a partner website, yet there were quotes on there about

reforming capitalism, and breaking up the banks and a much more

competitive economic system. I think that is perfect consistent of

the classical Lib Dem traditions, and these are the capitalistic

traditions of Conservatism. separation of retail and investment

banks isn't that radical. Rebalancing the economy away from

financial services has to begin. It has to begin. And I suspect there

is unity on that project. We cannot be so reliant on one aspect of the

economy, as we have been in the past, that is a shared programme.

You say we want to make sure that people out of work are not better

off than people in work. Not better off by being out of work. That is

different from signing up to a cuts agenda that we have here?

recognise, all Liberal Democrats recognise that if you have to take

20%, 30%, on average, out of public spending, there is no way the

welfare budget can remain intact. That is just simply unIsrael yiesic.

-- realistic, as it would be under Labour, they have plans for-to-

reduce welfare spending. I'm concerned that the rich, in terms

of tax rises, pay their fair shai share, that is why I was very

disappointed, and many Liberal Democrats were, with the crazy

politically and dubious economic decision to cut the 50p tax rate.

Bad idea? It wasn't the most popular idea, but there were also

many other things the Chancellor introduced, not least the taking

the low paid out of the income system, which were much more

powerful and benefited many more people than have been affected by

the 50p tax rate. Glad to have brought you two together. It costs

pennies and everybody can get hold of it, now in the face of an of a

large of cumulative research, it can be described as "preventing

cancer", it is the humble aspirin. A cheap generic drug, used as a

shield against heart attacks and strokes, and now described as a

wonder drug. Should we all be taking it? The struggle toe stay

fit and well gets tougher for everyone as we get older. These

subscribers to fitness sessions run by the ex-military, each have their

own recipe for good health. I take vitamins and protein shakes.

liver oil. Vitamin C. Fresh fruit and vegtables. Nothing. I look

after my body as much as I can. But as they strive to stay well, is

their one -- is there one more potentially powerful weapon they

should be adding to that list, aspirin, to ward off cancer.

Aspirin has been an essential part of modern medicine in synthetic

form for at least 100 years. Not only as a painkiller, but more

recently, at low dose, to ward off heart attacks and stroke.

But it was a close chemical relative, found in the leaves and

bark of the willow tree, that first drew people to its potential power.

Centuries ago, around 400 BC, Hypocraties, is said to have said

that people should chew the bark of the willow tree to ward off

inflamation. Its modern day cousin has so many uses, it is said by

some to be something of a wonder drug.

Cancer studies by Peter Rothwell have sparked global interest in the

protective powers of aspirin. Results in colon cancer, published

back in 2010, got everyone talking. They showed that after five years

on low-dose aspirin, people had had halved their risk of developing or

dying from kollan cancer. Then last year, the team showed that for two

more cancers, daily, low-dose aspirin cut the risk of dying by

66% for lung and ossof gall cancer. When they looked at the two

together, the risk fell by 25%. This year the team looked at

aspirin's effect on the spread of cancer, and found it reduced the

risk of secondary spread to the lungs, liver and brain, by about

half. How important is the secondary effect? Very important as

an additional treatment for those with cancer, if it hasn't spread

already. We found those who developed cancer on aspirin, were

about 40% less likely to have that cancer spread to different parts of

the body. It is the spread of the cancer that often kills patients,

rather than the primary cancer itself. So trials are now on going

to see whether that should be used more widely.

Angus dag illusion is a clinical study, his work on HIV showed it

causes -- he believes it could be aspirin's powerful anti-

inflammatory action that might help to explain its anti-cancer effect.

Many of the cancers occur only after decades of inflame racial,

for instance liver cancer, which we know is associated with two viruses

hepatitis B and C, it only occurs if the viruses produce chronic

inflamation of the liver for two or three decades, it doesn't occur

without the background inflamation. It is the same for lung cancer, it

comes out of chronic bronchitis, same with bowel cancer, these are

inflammatory leisons. Having something to turn off the

inflamation makes perfect sense, that is why aspirin is so important,

it is such an effective anti- inflamery agent. Everyone over 40

should consider taking 75 Milly grams a day, and everyone over 50,

300 mg a day, the dose for a headache. If an aspirin a day can

have a real impact on cancer, and some medicating, some say it is

time for the Government to step in with clear guidelines on who should

be taking aspirin and how much. Many people have heard about the

possible benefits of aspirin and are taking it any way. There are

risks. Some people are allergic to aspirin, and it can cause stomach

bleeds, sometimes serious. There is no doubt aspirin does reduce

cancers, but it will cause death in a small number of patients, very

small. But a preventive has to be given to a large number of people.

You will have a significant number of deaths that is stalling proper

guidance from politicians all over the world. But the scientists most

closely linked to aspirin research, say the downsides shouldn't be

overplayed. The risk of a bleed sufficiently serious to take you to

hospital is less than one per 1,000 people per year taking aspirin. The

benefits of preventing heart attack and strokes already outweighs that

risk. If you add in the cancer risk it does further outweigh the risk.

What's more, an influential study, run by the International Society of

cancer prevention, believes that downside could be dealt with by a

simple test. That expert group believes the Government should

consider a mass screening programme. To test and identify people at

higher risk of stomach bleeds. And in a few weeks time, they will

issue advice saying just that. We all make decisions every day

that will affect our risk of developing cancer. Choices about

the food we eat, or alcohol, or exercise. But on aspirin, we're all

in the dark about whether we should be taking aspirin, and how much.

With the evidence we now have, the need for clear advice is

overwhelming. Here to discuss the imI politician

kas of the latest findings is Dr -- implication of the latest findings

is I our guests. Julian Peto, on your assessment,

how good is the evidence on taking aspirin? The evidence is good, I

think Peter Rothwell presents a care case, and the evidence is very

strong. The question isn't whether the evidence is good, it is whether

it is good enough to justify the Government recommending that

everyone should take it. What is your view of that? My personal view

is it would need to be stronger. To recommend that everybody take

something for the rest of their lives is very different from

limited numbers of people taking it for five years, or ten or 15 years.

What do you see as the problems of a universal aspirin intake?

would be one thing having a few thousand people taking it, but when

you are talking about 20 million people taking it with with clear

risks in it. Not that much risk. There are 20 common medicines that

interact with medicines. What is that? Warfarin, a blood-thinner,

but also medicines used for glaucoma, that interferes with

aspirin. What about lifestyle with aspirin? I'm struck by your film,

you had two clear patients, one smoking and the other one drinking.

Taking aspirin are not protect you against the harps of drinking or

smoking. Also, the idea that you can take something that is going to

offset those risks, I think, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Never the less, the body of evidence seems to go going in a

positive direction, there is clearly an effect. Do you want

clear guidelines from the Government w what will help?

What will help? My sense is we don't get clear guidelines. The

idea of doing another full scale, randomised controlled trial,

probably isn't going to happen. I think, like many things in medicine,

we have to weigh up, at an individual level, theks and

benefits. If a patient came -- risks and benefits. If a patient

came to you and said I'm 40, what dose should I take, or I'm 55?

a patient not a doctor. I think if somebody said should I take it, it

looks to me as if it does more good than harm, I would agree with them.

I think that is true. The evidence has to be very strong, there is a

70-80% it will do more good than harm, it is a good enough reason to

take it yourself or advise your friends or patients to take it, if

they want. To you would need very strong evidence before something

becomes a Government-recommended medication. What about the idea of

isolating people to test them to make sure they would not fall into

that category? What they are talking about is a simple test, it

is a simple test we use on symptomatic people, not mass

screening. If we do mass screening we will pick up an awful lot of

false positives, and treat those people with high-dose antibiotics,

and that will create antibiotic resistance. It isn't as simple as

it seems to be testing people for this bug in the stomach. On the

other hand, if something like this will make a radical difference,

especially when the NHS is strapped, particularly when it is saying it

is reducing spread by 50%, that has moved things on? It won't make it

radical, we have to die from something. The studies show that

though it might reduce your death rate from cancers, particular ones,

we are all going to face mortality. You are probably going to die at

the same age of something else. We have to be really careful about

this, yet it appears to reduce your risk of bowel and other cancers,

but it won't stop you dying. There is more evidence, a lot of large

studies, some large studies weren't included in the review, and whether

it was appropriate to exclude people is arguable. There is a

cheap generic drug? There is no question, it is effectively free.

The question is the benefits clearly outweigh the issues. Would

you take it? I'm not a health freak. So you don't take it? No. Would you

take it? I think I would need to see a little more evidence about it.

Again, I'm not a particular health freak, he gave up smoking a number

of years ago. I try -- I gave up smoking a number of years ago. I

drink in moderation. The fact that you are a doctor and not a health

freak is disconcerting? I think there are much more boring things

to do to improve our lives, such as giving up smoking and reducing

alcohol intake and keeping your weight under control and exercising.

All those will do far for more your risk of cancer and getting heart

disease than taking a low dose of aspirin for five or ten years.

Thank you very much, may you both live a long and happy life.

Tomorrow morning's front pages beginning with the Guardian. Ten

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 57 seconds

days to the games, what could go That's just about all from

Newsnight tonight. We leave you with a very unrock 'n' roll moment,

10.30 on Saturday night, that is when the concert organisers pulled

the plug on bruise Springsteen and Paul McCartney together, on their

first performance ever together, on the grounds of health and safety.

It is not exactly the Promised Land. # Won't you work it on out

(no sound coming out of the microphone.

Good evening, after wet weather today, a dryer spell into the night

and the first part of Tuesday morning. Morning brightness through

eastern areas as well. To the west grey skies, patchy light rain or

drizzle. Across Wales and Northern Ireland, central and southern

Scotland and northern England, turning heavier in places in the

afternoon. Increasing humidity, increasingly muddy in the afternoon.

With dry conditions in the south- east. A little bit of sunshine here

and there. It will boost the temperatures, 23, 24 possible.

Drizzle easing a little in the south west. Around the coast, the

low cloud will still be there and there abouts, rain on and off

through much of the day across the mountains. A bit dry to the east.

In Northern Ireland the rain coming and going through the day, the

heavy burst in the morning and into the afternoon. Turning increasingly

wet. To the north and east of Scotland, dry, fairly bright, same

too on Wednesday. Noticing the difference from Tuesday into

Wednesday, the rain gets that bit heavier and more expensive. More in

the way of showers developing further south. Even the areas