13/05/2013 Newsnight

$:/STARTFEED. The Tory leadership has been blown around by euro-

sceptic rebels. Tonight the party offers a new deal. Will they simply

come back for more. In Washington the President offers sharp words to

Tory MPs. You probably want to see if you can fix what's broken in a

very important relationship before you break it off. We will be joined

for reaction tonight by Tory rebel, Nadine dor res. Also tonight:

The lauter in Syria continues, in Washington Cameron and Obama agree

to do nothing at least for now. All this debate may have done about

a peace conference is delay by a few weeks the decision the US and

the UK need to make about whether to arm the opposition. We will put

that to George W Bush's pent gone ally.

How bad can it get, the deadly global virus that can be passed

through personal contact. Good evening, who exactly is

throwing in the towel. Earlier today that charge was levelled at

rebel euro-sceptic MPs, those calling for an early referendum on

Europe. Yet tonight David Cameron's agreed to publish a draft bill that

will pave the way for an in-out vote in 2017. The timing is unlike

to be coincidence, and comes as the President of the United States came

to the Prime Minister's aid on this very subject. Where is the

leadership coming from, and will an awful like this be enough to stop

them, as one once said, "banging on". Take us through what this

draft suggests? It is a quite a loud bang of the drum this evening.

They hope it will be one of the final ones before the next election.

What the current strategy or strategy as of yesterday or this

morning was, was that 2015 if the Prime Minister manages to be in

some form of Government he will renegotiate with European partners

and then there is will be a referendum in 2017 and people in

Britain get a stay. Lots of backbenchers want his hands bound

in some ways to dictate to other Governments in the future or any

Government he will be part of as part of legislation. He says he

can't do that. Now he has said half an hour ago in America is we will

give awe bill, we will write it and publish it tomorrow, we cannot

charter it through, you as backbenchers have to adopt it

through this thing called the Private Members Bill all bot, where

they all go in the mix -- ballot, where they all go in the mix and if

it comes up top they have to chose it. In the last 40 minutes we have

seen one of the key euro-sceptic rebels has said he doesn't really

like this new proposition from David Cameron. He's actually called

it a ploy on Radio 4 this evening. That is because they think actually

if you really do believe this then you would just use Government time.

I think that is being a bit unkind on them, there is this Lib Dem

problem. The Lib Dems will not accept this. That is what some of

the euro-sceptics are saying, we will hear more later. If you

believe this you will push it through. There is a second problem,

this is more process, this is more about timing and it is not actually

about the heart of it which is what are you actually going to

renegotiate. What are you actually going to bring back. Until people

know what he's talking about bringing back, they are not sure

they want to be part of his strategy or want another one.

is Britain's route to Europe. Right now there is a pretty rigid

schedule to it. If the stories win a general election in 2015 and

Prime Minister David Cameron begins to renegotiate powers from Europe.

Time is up in 2017 and people are given a referendum. For a number in

the Conservative Party that's all just way too slow.

But the animal which provided the goat skin for last week's Queen's

Speech may have died in vain. Conservative backbenchers have

tabled an amendment, possibly to be voted Onil Wednesday. It expresses

regret that 2013's honourable address contains no EU referendum

bill. Tory backbenchers and privately some front benchers

believe David Cameron's 2017 referendum pledge is on the right

tracks, it just needs to be legislated for this parliament.

While the Prime Minister is in America extoling the virtues of

free demonstrate to President Obama, back here his euro-sceptic MPs are

also having a pretty good time. Tonight they throw a party to

welcome Nadine Dorres back to the fold after she lost the whip T will

be a pretty good bash. Euro- sceptics think the events of the

last few days suggests things are going their way. This is why, a

steady march of Tory grandees coming out. First Norman Lamont,

and Michael Portillo, so far so containable. Next up voices from

around the cabinet. On Sunday both Education Secretary, Michael Gove

and Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond. There are as many as seven

other cabinet ministers who share this view. If that was friend, this

morning it was the turn of a rival, David Cameron, at the White House

to discuss a new EU-US trade deal worth billions, he said, slapped

them down. There is a very good reason why there is not going to be

a referendum tomorrow, it is because it would give the British

public I think an entirely false choice between the status quo,

which I don't think is acceptable, I want to see the European Union

changed, I want to see Britain's relationship with the European

Union changed and improved. It would be a false choice between the

status quo and leaving. I don't think that is the choice that the

British public want or the British public deserve. The American

President had some advice as well. I think the UK's participation in

the EU is an expression of its influence. Of its role in the world

and obviously a very important economic partnership. Ultimately

the people of the UK have to make decisions for themselves. I will

say this, that David's basic point that you probably want to see if

you can fix what's broken in a very important relationship before you

break it off. It makes some sense to me. The Prime Minister's former

Welsh Secretary is among some 70 Tory MPs backing Wednesday's

Queen's Speech amendment, Sheryl Gillan thinks legislation is needed

now, partly to deal with the trust problem of the I think it is

important to restore some faith in our political parties and process.

Particularly in the Conservative Party. We have had so many promises

on referenda, but not a referendum the people have been able to vote

on since the 1970s. I, like many colleagues, think our relationship

does need renegotiation with the European Union. But it also then

needs putting to the people. It needs to be an in-out referendum.

The Prime Minister has promised that. But let's see him confirm

that, hopefully, with a piece of legislation. Tonight the Prime

Minister has done just that. Modifying his itinerary for

European renegotiation quite considerably. Half an hour ago he

announced he will tomorrow publish a draft parliamentary bill afterall.

It will legislation for an in-out referendum on Britain's membership

of the EU to be held by the end of 2017. Number Ten is urging

backbench MPs to adopt this legislation as their own. They

can't bring it as coalition legislation, the Lib Dems wouldn't

allow it. Whatever the speed of the journey, what's the cargo, what

does David Cameron want to bring back from Europe? Clearly there are

things that he could crack on with immediately and set out in more

detail. There are a lot of areas, for example fisheries policy, which

is already happening, access to benefits, which he is already

addressing. There are other areas as well, social employment law, the

budget, a whole range of areas around better regulation, the EU

doing less in Britain but better. In all these areas if you start to

address them now and give a bit more of a game plan his

backbenchers would probably be a bit happier, as would the public.

There are some in David Cameron's cabinet who think he should set out

what negotiations with Europe he plans, not so much detail he gives

the game away to European partners, but enough so that his voters and

his colleagues alike know what negotiation success and failure

looks like. Lib Dem sources have said this evening that the Tories

are banging on about Europe, the Prime Minister will hope his action

will actually be the last bang on the Europe drum for a while. But

with questions hanging over David Cameron's ambitions for

renegotiation, it's not clear it will be. Let's get some reaction to

what we have heard tonight, joining me now is the Tory MP Nadine Dorres,

who was expelled from her party over a reality show appearence and

has now been readmitted. And Stephen Dorrell who remembers the

John Major years and supports the Cameron strategy. And we will hear

from the spokesman of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy. What do

you make of this? It is interesting, it obviously shows the Prime

Minister is listeninging to both his backbenchers and actually --

listeninging to both his backbenchers and the people of the

country, that is what they are there to represent. It is an

interesting move. What is worrying is we are still stuck in the time

frame of 2016, people want to see things through much quicker than

this. If we can bring forward legislation on gay marriage and

referendum on an AV referendum for the Liberal Democrats, then surely

we can bring something much quicker forward than 2017. Let me just get

to the nitty gritty on this, would you throw your name into the ballot,

would you put this one forward? and I think in this process, which

is being allowed there will be a number of MPs who will want to do.

That as you say it would be very difficult with the coalition. What

everybody will be unhappy with is the time frame of 2017. The fact is,

nobody knows what will happen in the general election. It may not be

a Conservative Government, I hope it will be, it isn't whoever comes

in will reverse this legislation. Does that mean you will drop the

amendment to the Queen's Speech, will that not go ahead? I have no

idea because this news has only just broken, we haven't discussed

this. I think the amendment still will go ahead. One important aspect

of this piece, this move is quite tactical. It means both Labour and

Liberal Democrats will have to expose their hand in a vote and

their hand will be exposed as being anti- EU amendment. It is a clever

move tactically, but in terms of being a Private Members Bill, 2017

is too far in the future F we can give gay marriage promises in

legislation and an AV referendum, we need to bring through this much

quicker. It smacks of appeasment and of the kind that never works?

don't think it is, it is confirming the policy the Prime Minister set

out in January. That is to say there are two stages to his policy,

not one. It is not just about a referendum as he made clear in

Washington today, it is about renegotiating the arrangement that

is reveil in Europe. As Nigel Lawson said in his article at the

beginning of the week, the facts have changed in the euro. There are

euro members and those who will never be part of it. Doesn't it

seem an odd time to pet it out? is exactly the same policy, as I

made the point. Why not just put it in the Queen's Speech or said it

out in January? It is the same policy set out inen ja. It is

suddenly being published as a draft bill tomorrow? You asked me two

questions. It is the same policy set out by the Prime Minister in

January as Conservative Party policy. It has not changed one iota

since then. It wasn't in the Queen's Speech, because it isn't a

coalition policy and this is a coalition Government. The Prime

Minister as leader of the Conservative Party has set out a

policy, it was endorsed very widely within the Conservative Party in

January, this bill is a consequential from that policy and

changes the policy not one iota. understand John Baron leading the

amendment to the Queen's Speech says that is still going ahead. So

this won't work if you still have 70 rebels or whatever number it

will be by then signing that? don't have a very strong view about

this, what I would regard frankly as parliamentary placard raising on

Wednesday. Which one? The amendment. What matters to me is there is a

clear policy which the Prime Minister has set out, which the

Prime Minister intends to carry through. This bill is a

consequential that will be necessary to complete the two aims

of that policy. First to renegotiate and then to put the new

settlement to a referendum when the negotiations are complete. What

would be enough for you now? If this is an olive branch of sorts

and you are talking about 2017, is there any compromise between here

and there? Legislation that will trigger article 50, that does give

a two-year time frame is the kind of legislation that we, as you call

us "rebels" are looking for. We are not rebels, we are MPs representing

the views of our constituents. A large majority of the British

public. That's what would keep us happy. It has to be a tighter time

frame. The fact is that if we talk about 2017 the general public are

going to say, if you can, just to appease the Liberal Democrats, give

a national referendum on AV, why can't you give us one on EU, that

is self-serving the public. I am awondering if this gives you

confidence that the Prime Minister is committed to Europe? The Prime

Minister in his speech in January did make a very strong case for

Britain's membership of the European Union, and why it was in

Britain's advantage and why leaving it would be a major problem for

Britain. And then promised a referendum on possibly leaving. But

I think if you are asking about views in Brussels generally,

Brussels is just the meeting place of the different countries of

Europe. I think there is quite a range of use, some are rather

perplexed, saying this is very serious matters, and others saying

no it is just about internal divisions of the Conservative Party.

Some think it is a serious prospect that Britain might leave the eflt U,

some say no, -- the EU, some say surely that would be economic

suicide for Britain. Is there room for renegotiation, is there wriggle

room within where the EU is now? The European Union is a permanent

negotiation among its 27-member states on the issues which they

decide and choose to deal with jointly, because of interdependance

and other advantages of doing something jointly. At one level it

is a permanent negotiation. Sorry to interrupt, is there anything

that the Prime Minister could renegotiate or is there enough that

he could renegotiate that would make you change your mind on a

referendum? It is not about me or the British public. They were given

a very simple choice when asked to go into the Common Market, did they

want to go in or didn't they, yes or no. People deserve exactly the

same choice in terms of exiting. Whether or not we have a choice, an

option of renegotiation is actually a completely separate issue. People

deserve a choice. Do you want to be in or out of the European Union.

They deserve that at the very least. Does it matter if David Cameron

sets out his stall or as has been said, if MPs are responding to

constituents' wishes it doesn't matter? We go back to the Nigel

Lawson point in the article that kicked off this round of debate.

This is not just a rerun of the all of arguments we have had over the

last 20 years, Europe is different, it is changing, because some

European countries are members of the euro, some are not. That

requires, there is no escape from this. What does he want to get,

what does David Cameron hope to achieve which would push any

thought of a referendum out of the British public's mind? He wants to

achieve a changed relationship between this country as a long-term

out. What is that? In other words a freer more distant relationship

that doesn't aspire at any point to be part of the euro. That is not

what we want. What we want is trading relationship, outward

looking, more market orientated, more flexible in terms of our

labour markets, our trading with the rest of the world. That is the

kind of relationship that all the euro-outs need to make the euro-out

relationship work with the euro state member. Do you understand

what is being asked for there, and is it feasible? A lot of people

here would like to know exactly what is being asked for. Britains

had a choice whether to join the euro or not, nobody is asking it to

join the euro. Britain is part of the single market, most people in

the country want to remain in the single market. That is the bulk of

what the EU does, the Common Market and rules for the Common Market.

Everyone is curious to know exactly what changes Britain might put

forward. At the moment nothing has actually been tabled by Britain

this is what a future Government might do. Nothing has been tabled

at the moment. Some don't understand what David Cameron is

actually asking for, how can it be negotiated? I think Angela Merkel

understands it. Every time David Cameron goes to Europe, goes to the

institutions of the EU people say he won't come back with anything.

The last time for real he went into a negotiation in Brussels. It was

to deliver something in terms of the European budget, which everyone

in it this country said of unachievable. He achieved it

because he established a relationship with Angela Merkel and

other European leaders who share our view about the necessity to

change the direction of the European Union, in the interests of

British citizens, but in the interests of the whole of the rest

of Europe as well. It will look to some as if the Prime Minister is

trying to catch up with the events of last week. You have suggested

some kind of double-ticket between UKIP and the Conservatives, or ways

that candidates could work together. Spell out what you would like to

see, what you meant by that? Can I just address the question just

asked. I think that one very simple answer to this problem, in terms of

people understanding what it is that David Cameron is trying to

achieve. What they would like is to be removed from the promise of

ever-closer political union. If they can be removed from that it is

quite a simple exercise, I think that is what we are looking for and

what the British public are looking for. My comments and my article on

Sunday were quite clear, actually. Two years ago David Cameron and

Nick Clegg changed the law, altered the legislation, so candidates

going forward at the 2015 election could put two logos on the ballot

paper. Some MPs may feel that rather than have a Conservative-Lib

Dem double logo, which was originally tendered, may want to go

forward with a Conservative-UK logo. That would mean Conservative MPs

being adopted by their local associations and endorsed by UKIP.

That could be a way forward. Could you embrace that or does it horrify

you? I don't agree with it, and I don't agree with it for a very

simple reason. In party system a party must decide which members it

enforce dors -- endorses it and which it doesn't, and Nigel Farage

hasn't shown much interest in that idea. In a moment the killer virus

passed by human contact. Is it bold to go into Syria or bolder to stay

out? Tonight as David Cameron talks up the prospect of peace,

negotiated with Russia, to stop the bloodshed, we ask what America's

tactics would be. Is intervention now impossible? Or is it long

overdue? What message is sent to the Syrian Government when the red

line is crossed and nothing happens? We have been on the trail

of the Prime Minister and President in Washington and we have this

report. Neither of these leaders has a simple answer to the Syrian

crisis. Advisers talk about each of them facing only bad options. There

might be another way. Hot foot from talking to President Putin on

Friday, the Prime Minister came bearing the gift of promised

Russian co-operation in organising a Syrian peace conference. We all

have an interest in a stable, peaceful Syria, that looks after

minority rights and brings stability to the neighbourhood. I

think that was a breakthrough. I found in my talks with President

Putin that he's keen now to move from the generalities of having a

peace conference to talking through the specifics of how we can make

this work. Ameasure with domestic political difficulties, -- amesh

with domestic political difficulties, the leaders would

rather talk about domestic issues. Mr Cameron has been left

emphasisinging the chances that his recent talks with the Russians

might produce a peace conference. Good to see you. Can the Russian

offer to bring the Syrian Government to the negotiating table

amount to more than a glimmer of hope in a conflict that has already

claimed 08,000 lives. It is worth it for Prime Minister Cameron and

President Obama to try to see if the Russians can work together with

us on this endeavour. But I must say, the Russian track record is

not particularly brilliant. They have been sending arms to Syria,

they have been unstinting supporters of Syria, they have been

blocking all proposals in the UN Security Council for two years on

behalf of Syria. I think the pressure is on the Russians to show

they can be a productive and responsible counterpart to the

United Kingdom and the United States on this issue. The President

of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland. President Obama's response to the

proposed Geneva peace conference showed an awareness of how small

its chances of success might be. I'm not promising that it is going

to be successful. Frankly, sometimes once the fueries have

been unleashed in a situation like Syria, it is very hard to put

things back together. There are going to be enormous challenges in

getting a credible process going. Even if Russia is involved. At the

end of this one got the impression that the two leaders don't pin any

great hopes on a negotiated solution, despite Russia's apparent

change of position. All this debate may have done about a peace

conference is delay by a few weeks the decision that the US and UK

have to make about whether to arm the opposition. When it comes to

fuelling the conflict by sending in weapons, neither of these partners

are prepared to cross that rubicon now, despite the reports of

chemical weapons being used. have not made the decision to arm

opposition groups in Syria, what we have done is we have amended the EU

arms embargo, in order that we can give technical assistance and

technical advice, as I said in my statement, that's exactly what we

are doing. We are continuing to examine and look at the EU arms

embargo and see whether we need to make further changes to it in order

to facilitate our work with the opposition. Neither leader wants to

escalate their involvement in Syria. Thank you very much everybody.

the pressure of events on the ground, from regional spillover to

the risks of chemical weapons causing mass casualties could

easily force their hand. Let's pick up with our Washington

correspondent. You talked about the leaders not having great hopes from

this conference and yet it seems there is a time pressure of sorts.

What ultimately do you think they will do? It is such a difficult

issue. One should say one of the reasons they may not be that

hopeful is that their allies, the umbrella group of Syrian opposition

forces have really rejected this type of approach in the past and

have hinted today that they are not going to go for it now. It is not

as if the western side of this can deliver their side of it, let alone

the Russian side, which they always choose to foblg cuss on. This

question of how -- focus on. This question of how the countries

should act has been going on throughout the conflict. You can

see a slow and steady movement throughout the US. A year ago it

was a couple of Republican senators forcefully advocating the US should

get involved. Now you have a different situation, late last year

the head of the CIA, the Defence Secretary, both suggested arming

the opposition, the White House overruled them. Last week the

chairman of the for -- Foreign Relations Group said he was going

to put forward a bill to arm the rebels. It is the White House and

the President who has stood against it. Everything would change if

there was shocking news relating to chemical weapons and large-scale

casualties. Even if that doesn't happen that is what the President

is being pulled towards by political forces and professional

advice here. The UK it is a slightly different equation, they

will carry on aid to the opposition groups but they may stop short of

weapons. It does seem that President Obama is being drawn

towards that kind of step. Particularly if these attempted

peace moves don't produce a result in the next few weeks. Here to

discuss this from Washington is the US deputy secretary for defence

under President George W Bush. In a moment we will be joined by Florida

from a member of the Syrian Support Group, who regularly spends time

with the Free Syrian Army members in Aleppo. We also have our guest

in the studio. Do you think this peace negotiation stands a chance

in a conference? It would be wonderful to get a peaceful end to

the slaughter. We have had meetings before, and it don't stop anything.

I don't know what they are talking about when they talk about a

Russian change in position. The Russians are firm their position

does not include that Assad must leave. They haven't said anything

about a stable democratic Syria, which is what Prime Minister

Cameron's side talk about. They talk about protecting Syria's

integrity and sovereignty. That means protecting the present

Government. In the meantime they are escalating, using more violent

weapons, including chemical weapons and mobilising violent militias,

they are bringing in Iranians and Hezbollah. They are fighting while

pretending to negotiate. And we are pretending to negotiate while doing

nothing. I think it is a desperate situation. The longer we wait the

fewer options we have. How far would your intervention go then?

Look a year ago, two years ago we could have done a lot, simply by

supporting the opposition, there are moderate elements within the

opposition I believe, as time as gone on the extremists have come to

play a more and more significant role. The people who were moderate

are now deeply resentful of us. I'm not so sure what options we have,

but I do know there is no hope for a negotiation unless there is some

leverage on the side of the opposition and we have given them

no leverage at all. Let me throw a few thoughts at you, you tell me

yes or no. Would you arm rebels? That's obviously one of the ways in

which you can give them some leverage. We haven't been in there

enough to know which rebels we can work with and which can't. There

are some you would not want to arm at all. I would, look there is

nothing to be confident about except that we should have acted a

year or two years ago. Right now instead of dithering and talking

about a fruitless meeting with the Russians we should be getting in

there and figuring out our options. We can't do that in Washington.

understand you are saying it is too late, but we are where we are, what

would you do tomorrow if you were in charge? I would be sending

people in with a mandate, where we find opposition groups that are

prepared for a democratic and inclusive Syria, that are not

extremists, that we would in fact give them the kind of basic

defensive weaponry which we have an abundance. We would train them

openly, not covertly we would help them organise. We can do that I

presume on the territory of neighbouring countries. We can

create protected zones operating out of Turkey. But the important

thing is to have a strategy. Could that work, you heard about the idea

of being involved, intervention? haven't heard anything, actually.

There is obviously a lack of strategy, how can you succeed in

anything if you don't have a strategy. He fails to see peace, he

says it is going to fail and it is going to fail if they don't see it,

the others or the US. I don't believe that somebody with such

humanitarian deSAS ters on his CV to give me a strategy. The army

would need to progress but in the wrong direction. If you are heading

on the wrong direction the last thing you need is a progress. You

need a peaceful strategy for solution. We are past that aren't

we? No we are not. There is the lovely idea of the conference with

the Russians but it is not going to happen.

It is going in the right direction towards peace. You know the Free

Syrian Army high command, would you be confident that if rebels were

armed it would get into the right hand? Definitely, I would like

first to highlight that the relationship between the commanders

of the Free Syrian Army and the US add minutes and the European Union,

this relationship has been well established, communication has been

open and understanding of mutual a greeplt -- agreement being reached.

Over and over there has been relayed the point of view regarding

Syria about...That Is the top of the high command, what about the

defections lower down that you can't stop? I'm sorry I didn't hear

the question. There have been defections from within the Free

Syrian Army, people turning to Islamist groups instead, Al-Qaeda-

linked groups instead? This is not a defection in the general word of

defection. The fighters on the ground are lack weapons, they are

lacking food, they are lacking supplies. They are looking for

somebody to support them. We in the western Hemisphere we have an

option to be the side that can provide all of these means by

providing arms and support to the Free Syrian Army commanders. Then

gathering all of these fighters, or by creating a vacuum, which is what

we have been doing for the past two years. We have allowed extremists

and radical groups to attract these fighters. It is very clear, and

that has been relaid very clear, that we have no interest in radical

groups being in Syria. We have no interest in chemical weapons being

in the future of Syria. We are working hard to control our

fighters so they can abide by the international law. Would you feel

confident, from what you have heard, then, that there are groups that

have worked properly with US force that is you would feel confident

about arming in this situation? Confident might be a word you can't

use in this situation at this point. Would you do it? I feel reasonably

confident that if continue to sit on our hands and do nothing the

choice will be either between essentially an Assad controlling

Syria, which we understand said was unacceptable, or extremist groups

taking over. We need to find a third force, hopefully there is one,

or we are definitely the loser. 80,000 casualties and two years of

inaction? Exactly and 200 people dying a day. $100 million losses a

day. It has to stop, you end war with a political decommission, not

with an army who doesn't know who is a prter in. When the choices are

getting limited by the day. Now the arming is a choice to combat Al-

Qaeda, not the ray genome. It is getting extremely complex. You

don't know who is fighting against who. The more people holding a

weapon the more likely they will go to Al-Qaeda the next day. You can't

keep them under control. I would say it is extremely complex and we

have to head to peace. Thank you very much indeed. No-one knows

where the virus has come from, but the World Health Organisation has

warned it can be passed by close personal contact. The global

outbreak has called killed 18 people and infected 34. In France a

man is in intensive care after sharing a room with the country's

first victim. Most of the cases have been in Saudi Arabia or

affecting those travelling in the Middle East. The virus appears to

be incubated by bats. It was the virus that caused widespread alarm

in the world's most populated country. 8,000 infections and 800

deaths. The SARS virus back in 2003. Now a new virus from the same

family has scientists on alert again. The focus this time has not

been Hong Kong and China, but the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia at the

weekend, the World Health Organisation gave the latest update.

The different clusters seen in multiple countries increasingingly

support the hypothesis that when there is close contact this novel

corona virus can transmit from person-to-person, this pattern of

person-to-person transmission has remained limited to small clusters.

So far there is no evidence that this virus has the capacity to

sustain generalised community transmission. Since last year there

have been confirmed cases in Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates,

and most prevalently in Saudi Arabia. In February this year a

cancer sufferer from Birmingham died after contracting the virus.

Husband us husband is thought to have caught the virus from his

father who was travelling to Saudi Arabia, his father died in March.

worrying feature of the SARS virus, is a patient could infect a large

number of people, often healthcare workers in hospitals. We saw

examples where maybe 70 people were exposed during a single clinical

episode. A large number of those people became infected and a large

number died. That hasn't happened with this particular corona virus.

It seems much more limited in its ability to spread from person-to-

person. We have had to look quite hard to find the clusters which are

some what hospital-based. The virus is a new form of corona virus. A

family which have spikey surfaces, hence corona, or crown. Scientists

have a lot of unanswered questions about the latest form, not least

where it came from. Most outside, would point to the bat.

For years we overlooked these bats. There are still I don't knows of

them around. They are in great numbers, they freak close together.

We are realise -- frequent close together. We realise they are the

source of a lot of viruses. The finger is pointing at the bat. But

how do we come in contact with a bat. We might if bats are up in the

Belfry or the roof of the house. That is one way. But the bats

themselves could come in contact with a rat, who comes in contact

with a camel in the area and we go to the camel farms. At the moment

to get infects we have to have a connection with the Middle East and

a source. Last month a case crept up in France. A 65-year-old man,

who had recently visited Dubai. Then last week a 50-year-old man in

the same hospital room caught the virus from that first case. The new

French cases are the first to suggest the virus has been passed

between people with less close contact than a family setting. It

raises the possibility it can be spread in the air. People have

always moved around. But now that we can reach pretty much anywhere

on earth within 24 hours, so can a virus. The fact that so far this

virus seems to have one home base is reassuring. But what scientists

are watching for is any sign that it can spread beyond small clusters

in a way that is sustained. Most corona viruses prefer to just

multiply in one host. So we have our own corona viruses, cows have

their own corona viruses as do bats. Normally they don't particularly

like mult supplying in cells from a host that is not -- multiplying in

cells from a host that is not their own. This virus can multiply in

cells that are in different animals, or it might be able to have

different reservoirs and be transmitted today humans from

different sources. That is a worrying feature. What is the best

way of limiting the spread of this new virus? There is no anti-virl

drug, or magical cure for these viruses. You feel awful, there is

no vaccine, it is best not to get infect in the first place. How do

we avoid that. I will go to Dubai tomorrow, and I will avoid going to

farms or on any desert trips and looking in caves where there could

be bats. I will increase my hygiene level. That means proper low

watching your hand and a bit of social distancing. However awkward

that might be to an English person, moving away from someone a cough,

that is what you really have to do. We know this virus can kill, we

don't know if many others have been exposed to it and shown milder

systems. Scientists are waiting for test results to help answer that

question, that and many others they have about this virus. We are

joined from Maryland by Dr Fauci, a leading scientist and immunologist.

He as also an adviser to the White House on medical and public health

preparedness against disease and threat. His organisation is

investigating the nature of the corona virus. I want to ask you

whether that sound realistic, this idea of social distancing when you

travel. Is that something people should be reallying on board now?

think if you see someone who is coughing very aggressively, you

want to avoid them. Trying to modify just your every day social

interaction is probably not a practical thing. These people get

infected, they get rather sick. There have been 34 infections in 18

dates. When a person gets infected they generally start coughing and

would spread it that way. If you are talking about social distancing.

By avoiding that, washing your hand and doing the usual type of hygiene

you would do to avoid any respiratory infections, such as

influenza, that would be important. Pure social discipline is difficult

to implement. This idea of the origin coming from bats. Does that

make sense to you? The way it has travelled through the system?

makes perfect accepts. Different species have different viruses

associated with them. When you do molecular sequencing of the corona

virus affecting people in the Middle East, it is very similar to

a bat corona virus. The question is, are humans getting it from direct

exposure to bats. Or are bats infecting another mammal and the

human are getting infected by being exposed to the secondary or

tertiary host. Right now we really don't know what the source is, even

though we do know that the virus itself is related very much to a

bat corona virus. That is still a mystery. When you are looking for

the source how easy is it to work with the health departments of

other Governments, particularly within the Middle East? Well the

health departments right now there is an alert out, WHO particularly,

here in the United States we are following this very, very closely,

because of the events that have occurred for example in the UK and

in France. Where people have travelled from the Middle East to

countries like the UK and France. So when we have people coming from

the Middle East here who have respiratory symptoms, which is very

common and doesn't have to be the corona virus, we make sure we watch

them carefully and have them see a if I igs and get them checked out,

if -- physician, and get them checked out if it is an exposure.

We hear it is difficult to get information out of Saudi Arabia,

which seems to be he is enter of the virus, they are not offering up

what is going on? Well I'm not so sure that is the case. The WHO

officials as well as the CDC officials, our own CDC in the

United States have had pretty good communecations with the Saudi

officials. They have reported that in fact they have had clusters of

what looks like human-to-human transmission in Saudi Arabian

health facilities. They are being open about that. Just before we go

and I show you the papers, Manchester City have confirmed they

have sacked their manager, Roberto Macini, after the defeat in the FA

Cup Final against Watford. Sorry, Wigan, that will be two new

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 42 seconds

The commander of the International Space Station Chris Hadfield comes

back to earth this evening, after regaling us with YouTube videos

while in space. He has decided to delight or traumatise David Bowie

fans. # This is Major Tom to ground

control # I've left forever more