01/09/2014 Newsnight

A sick child 300 miles away from his parents, who are tonight behind

bars. How do the legal and medical procedures across Europe get to

this, and how much choice do parents have over their child's own

treatment. Also tonight: It sticks in the craw

the idea that someone can go from this country, go to Syria, declare

Jihad, make all sorts of plans do us damage and then contemplate

returning to Britain. Police get more powers to fight terror, are the

new rules legal and will they work? This man was once under a control

order, he thinks the Government have it all wrong.

And this: Technically I have DNA from three

different people. Is there any good reason why science should be able to

create children with three different biological parents. Today science

tries to work out the answer. Good evening. Southampton General

Hospital called it a "breakdown in communication", that breakdown has

resulted tonight in the parents of Ashya King spending the night in the

Soto Real prison in Madrid, whilst their desperately ill son lies in a

Malaga hospital 300 miles away. The family who brought him to Spain

without the consent of the authorities have refused to be

extradited to Britain. As a result they are now banned from seeing

their five-year-old. The situation is desperate. A Kafka plot with a

horribly real outcome. How does the law work to protect a child from its

parents when the parents believe they are only doing what is best.

It is the best treatment for Ashya. Parents in prison, away from their

ill little boy. He's in a hospital room with guards, miles away. The

Kings took a decision to trust their instinct not doctors. But predicted

nothing of what the consequences would be. Obviously we never thought

this would be such a big deal. We just wanted to do what was best for

Ashya. Obviously I'm just grateful for everyone back home. Obviously

petitions being signed and money being raised for his treatment,

obviously I'm really thankful. The King's Speeches refused the

authority's legal request to bring him home, so a Spanish judge ordered

them to stay in custody while the legal machine grinds on. I ask call

it off this ridiculous chase. It is not a crime for parents to remove

their child from hospital, that is unless a court has already put a

legal order in place. But cruelty to children can be a crime, and the CPS

believed there was enough evidence to get a warrant for The King's

Speeches' arrest. No other proton therapy centre around the world has

more advanced technology. Patients from all around the world are

accepted by our team of competent and friendly international

specialists. The King's Speeches plan was to sell their holiday house

in Spain pay for this, proton beam therapy in the Czech Republic, where

small parts of atoms are beamed at cancer tissue, it can be more

precise and less damaging than traditional radiotherapy, but

Ashya's doctors in the UK did not believe it was best for him. The

surrounding healthy tissue is protected and not damaged by

unwanted radiation. I have spoken to the hospital in

Prague where the little boy's family hoped he might be treated. They made

inquiries on August 20th. Tonight they said they are willing to offer

the little boy treatment in a few days' time if his medical situation

is appropriate. In fact they said they approached the NHS back in 2012

offering to make their services available to hospitals that don't

have the equipment. The technology was actually

developed in the UK, but there is only one hospital where it is in

use. Two will follow soon. NHS England say they do pay for

treatment overseas if and win it is appropriate. But when the doctors

say no, a number of families do decide to fund it themselves.

Everybody wants to hang on to that one thing that maybe the difference

between their child living or dying. I think you know sometimes yes, it

can be a false economy, but I think when you weigh the two things up,

you know, weighing one against the other then if my child only had a 1%

chance to beat the cancer I would want to exhaust the 1%. While that

emotion is straight forward, decision making about treatment is

not. Effective treatment really depends on integration. Now the new

organisation has made this more difficult. So many of the national

integration processes have been reduced and it seems perhaps as if

there has been slightly less focus on cancer. The Government's

reorganisation has made it more difficult? I think reorganisation of

the NHS has made it more difficult for cross-organisational specialist

work of this sort. Last year 99 children were sent abroad for just

had kind of treatment, with the NHS covering costs and travel and

accommodation for family too. The attraction and the novelty of a

high-tech new treatment doesn't mean it is always the best choice for any

patients. For some children the question isn't necessarily what kind

of radiotherapy they should have, it is how they would cope with any

treatment at all? But there are some cases where

doctors and parents just can't agree. This time with an

extraordinary outcome, parents in custody, doctors in Southampton

unable to help. Children who have life-threatening conditions, it is

really important that the family and the medical and nursing teams have a

good communication and good relationships. In Ashya's case we

really regret that the communication and the relationship broke down to

the extent that the family lost trust in the team that were caring

for him. And the little boy, table but seriously ill without family by

his bedside. Now under the court's protection, the decision about his

parents' future could take months. This evening, as you heard, the

Southampton Hospital Trust admitted that communication and relationship

with The King's Speech family had broken down. They said they

regretted it. How can the heavy hands of medical professionals and

lawyers come between a child and his parents when the same outcome is

presumably desired by them all. I'm joined by Professor Harrison and

Professor Jonathan Montgomery. Thank you very much for your time this

evening. Professor Montgomery, should the hospital go against the

wishes of the parents? There are two different sets offish use, the issue

first of all about what happens if a child is taken away who is severely

ill, I think the health professionals have to act then and

try to safeguard the child. Clearly that was what they were faced with

on Friday afternoon. If they have more time and the ability to discuss

it through then the issue are slightly different. There it was

unusual to go against the wishes of the parents as opposed to discuss it

with them. Don't you think that is odd, they already met the parents,

they knew the boy, they had seen the parents at the child's bedside. Why

would you be suspicious of parents in that situation? I'm not sure they

were suspicious of them at all until the boy was taken away from

hospital. Then they have to decide how dangerous it is for the boy to

be removed from hospital. It sounds as though from their view they

thought initially it was very dangerous, although we now know of

course the parents had taken significant precautions to make sure

he was safe. Does that ring true then, if they thought he was in

grave danger they had no choice? I don't think that rings true to me.

None of us know the basis on which the CPS took the decision to issue a

parent to hound this poor family. But the reason given by the CPS at

the request of the Hampshire Police was, and I quote "for an offence of

cruelty to a person under the age of 16". Well so far it is fairly

obvious that the only cruelty to this poor little boy has been his

abandonment in a Spanish hospital, where he doesn't speak the language,

without his parents, his mother I understand had been with him

constantly for the month before this, and without his family

present. This is a prima facia cruelty. Whether there was any

danger of any other sort of cruelty we don't know. We would have to, it

seems to me, with all due respect to Jonathan to be fairly powerful and

pressing reasons to believe that they were going to act recklessly or

negligently with respect to their son whom they obviously loved, to

warrant these draconian and heavy-handed measures. Why do you

think they did it, do you think there was professional pride at

play, or do you think this was a misjudgment? I have no idea. I'm not

going to try to guess the motives of people I don't know. But it is not a

crime to withdraw yourself or your children from hospital. And there is

no reason, unless they can show why there was a reason, to suppose they

were withdrawing him for some neferious reason. I think it was

about what was right for the boy. That is not a criminal marks the

oddity is it became a criminal matter. It became unnecessarily,

with respect, it became unnecessarily a criminal matter, and

this has been presented as if there was medical opinion on one side and

the family opinion on the other. As we all know medical opinion is not a

unitary thing, there are many difficult president Di Canio

opinions in case like this. It is not clear without further evidence

that the opinion of this particular team in this particular hospital was

right sort of opinion to take. I agree with that John. Do you know

some of those involved? I know some of the people there. I know this is

a hospital that has a clinical Ethics Committee which is way of

providing a process to discuss these things. What I don't know is whether

that was used in this case. This case emerges, last Friday, as a

sudden urgent problem of the boy being removed. I think if we were

talking about a more timely process and the Medical Director has

recognised that everybody would have desired a proper, timely discussion.

I think it would be very much like John is decribing. We don't know

where the reports came from, but the press reports were very much leaning

towards the parents' religion, they were Jehova's witnesses and the talk

of the battery running down, does that seem completely misplaced

knowing what we know now? As far as we can tell what we can pick up that

wasn't a dimension. What feels to be a dimension is two issues, one is a

question about how much faith one could put in this new treatment

which the doctors seemed to say is not appropriate for the particular

condition the boy is in, and the parents quite reasonably saying we

have reason to think that is something that would be success.

Ful. You would expect that to be worked through in a collaborative

process and you would expect the hospital to make available a second

reason. Absolutely, I agree with Jonathan, that is the nub of the

issue. But in circumstances like that would you not expect the

doctors to insist that they were the only people, this particular set of

doctors who who like all of us, do not have a monopoly of which is Don

Dom on these matters to insist that there must be bad faith and motives

of cruelty. So parents thinking they want to go down a different route of

treatment? That is very important, in the mind of the health

professionals you have to think what they thought might have been

happening. It sounds as if they thought what might be happening is a

boy relying on battery-powered feeding system would be without that

support. We know that is not the case. The analogy in their minds and

probably the minds of the Crown Prosecution Service when it became a

criminal matter was with parents, different groups of parents who in

the past have felt that because of their beliefs about appropriate

treatment they wouldn't, for example, provide insulin for

diabetics which becomes an urgent issue. That is where we have in the

past seen criminal intervention. Maybe this is outside the medical

sphere now, in terms of the ethics involved in a court in Spain keeping

them there and the extradition that would take them away from their son.

Can anyone step in now in terms of what the hospital could say to get

the parents and the child united? I think if this were happening in the

UK we would expect that to happen very quickly. We would expect the

court to take grip on it and make sure it kept the boy safe, it would

also expect them to make sure the parents were with the child. Can the

British Government now step in and tell a Spanish court or hospital

what to do? They could advise, they can't tell them what to do. Spain is

a sovereign state. But they could certainly give very strong

indication of what they thought an appropriate outcome would now be.

But I'm not just blaming the doctors here, I'm perhaps not blaming them

at all. The CPS have a lot to answer for. It may be that they acted on a

particular interpretation of events from one side. And it is always

dangerous when you only have, when you are only listening to one side

of what is clearly an on going and not all together happy relationship

between two sides in the care of this young man.

Thank you very much both of you indeed.

The threat from British Jihadis is real, the Prime Minister told

parliament this afternoon, and in so doing he announced police would have

temporary powers to exclude British nationals from returning to the UK.

Sounds bold, but what that means is currently and crucially pretty

unclear. The Government has not specified whether they would remove

passports or citizenship from suspected terrorists, but both

measures were tonight labelled probably impossible by the former

Attorney-General. We look at the entire package announced today and

what it really means. Ed Miliband today called it a summer

of international instability, August was the serious, not silly season,

such a steady stream of bad events, MPs told me they were convinced

parliament would be recalled. But it wasn't, leaving it all for

parliament today. The Prime Minister came to the House with a long list

of crises to address. But it was the counter terrorism announcements

people were waiting for. In the early days of the coalition Liberal

Democrats and Conservatives forged common cause in protecting civil

liberties, since then they have drifted apart, and over the weekend

Liberal Democrats voiced concerns that David Cameron today might go

too far. Even one Conservative cabinet minister was concerned the

Prime Minister might be too draconian. To confront the threat of

Islamic extremism we need a tough, intelligent, patient and

comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. He

started with the areas of agreement, legislation to give the border

police temporary powers to take passports away from UK citizens

planning to leave to fight Jihad. Airlines will also be required, by

law, to co-operate with the intelligence agencies on who is

flying where. But everything else was harder. On plans to exclude

suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK, David Cameron

was only able to say he would work up proposals and put them to

cross-party talks. Indeed, in another area, there was something of

a U-turn. The coalition shelved the Labour Party's control orders when

they came to power, today, to racaus laughter by the opposition, the

coalition had to agree they would be looking at bringing back control

orders in all but name. We will produce new powers to add to our

existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, including

stronger locational constraints on suspects under Tpims, either through

enhanced use of exclusion zones or relocation powers. David Cameron's

position on civil liberties has changed some what over the years,

when he became leader it was against Tony Blair and his tough law and

order Government. David Cameron sensed an opening and it was the

Tories that pledged to protect civil liberties in this country. Even

though, as a young man, he worked for Michael Howard's Home Office,

hardly noted for its lenient law and order agenda, when David Cameron

became leader of the Conservatives it was he that pledged civil

liberties. Part of an agenda to woo over metropolitan Britain. That

agenda has now been seriously downplayed. This is the then leader

of the opposition: Now today I want to focus my remarks

on terrorism. This speech at Munich in 2011 was a turning point, less

than one year of being in office had hardened David Cameron, here he say

the multiculturalism had failed and terrorism was a bigger threat than

thought. Here the parties started to go different ways on civil

liberties. When a white person holds racist views we rightly condemn

then, but when equally unacceptable practices come from someone who

isn't white we have been too cautious, frankly, even fearful to

stand up to them. Tonight it is unclear what elements of the Prime

Minister's package, apart from passport seizures and airline

operation will see the light of day. David Cameron was beaten back by Lib

Dem opposition and legal concerns. Not great first day back at

parliament. Joining me now the one-time control

order detainee, Cerie Bullivant, and the former independent reviewer of

terror legislation Lord Carlile, we will come to Lord Carl in a second.

First, Cerie, how did the control order affect you, you had it for a

year-and-a-half? In my case as in many others the control order

debilitates your life, that is the purpose of it. It left me with

severe depression and it pushed me into a corner where I felt my only

option was to abscond and go on the run for five weeks. How easy was it

to evade it? This is the problem, with all of these measures, if you

have dangerous people you don't want them being held in the community.

They need to be put in prison. The only way to do that is through

criminal charges. Evading these things was relatively easy, and none

of the people that have absconded from control orders or Tpims have

been caught. So the relocation measure being put in would stop

people like you reentering their own community. That is exactly what it

is designed to do? I could have absconded whether on a relocation

order or not. That would have had very little effect on whether I did

abscond. The fact of the matter is the relocation, even according to

Lord McDonald was disproportionate and unjustified. He said in his

report on control orders that it was against British values and norms.

While the Conservative Government are telling Muslims they need to

embrace British value, they themselves are bane donning them

with this internal exile. Could you have left the country, they took

your passport didn't they? I didn't leave the country but the two people

I absconded with left the country. With fake passports? I wasn't with

them when they did, that I handed myself in. You absconded and handed

yourself back in, so you are proving that they do work? No, the only

person who has only faced justice for this was myself. I handed myself

in. I chose to come back in everybody else has not been caught

and has not been brought to justice on this. The fact of the matter is

you have a measure that doesn't protect the British public that

captures innocent people like myself. I had my life ruined for two

years and continues until today on the basis of secret courts and

secret evidence. How is this a British value? The idea is to stop

Jihadies from coming back into Britain, can you see how these new

measures today will be a deterrent? They are not new measures brought in

today. Since April 2014, May has been using the Royal Peroogative to

take-away people's passports. What we see today is grandstanding, the

rehashing of old policies put out as new so the Government can be seen to

be tough on terrorism. In actual fact all it will do is create more

of a ghettoisation, and disenfranchisement in the Muslim

community. These are not used for Ukrainian separatist. Lord Carlile,

I know you don't want to interact particularly, you have heard the

arguments and they are pretty powerful, when you hear someone who

has had a control order saying more disenfranchised, and the whole idea

against British values? I think the arguments we have just heard are

misleading. Relocation orders worked very well, for the last five years

of control orders relocation orders were entirely effective, they were

properly policed, they became before the courts, the courts heard all the

evidence. Some people had their relocation orders varied by a judge,

it was found to be fair, it was found to be proportionate. There was

never a finding that control orders were couldn'try to the Human Rights

Act and to represent so is wrong. You make it sound like there is a

legal structure around this, there isn't a trial, there isn't a charge?

There is a legal structure, there is a complex legal structure around

Tpims and relocation orders under the old control orders' regime.

Every one of these cases went automatically before a senior High

Court judge, not only was the individual represented by his own

lawyers but special advocates were put in to represent the position of

the individual when secret intelligence was being heard in

court. It could not have been a fairer procedure. And yet you have

heard the testimony there of somebody who says they absconded.

Not from relocation, no. Well he said it didn't matter where he would

have been, he could have absconded? That is not true, I'm telling you

the facts, there were not absconds from relocation. As an independent

reviewer as I was at that time, I went to visit people who were

relocated, the system worked well and it was found to be fair and

proportionate. What about the two he was with who left the country? They

have nothing to do with relocation. They were the people subject to

control orders without relocation. We are trying to test whether this

is an effective system. If you have someone, who, OK, without

relocation, if you insist, still absconded, two others who left the

country and an overall impression that they have been maltreated by a

British system? I don't think the British public believes they were

maltreated at all. I repeat this system, which involved relocation

was upheld by the courts repeatedly. I want to talk about this idea of

taking somebody's passport on their way in, how workable is that? You

heard what was said this afternoon, probably impossible for Government

to prevent Britons returning? I agree entirely with the Attorney

General and Sir Ming Campbell who said the same yesterday. If somebody

is a British citizen with no other nationality, then it is unlawful

under international law to remove their passport from them until they

are within the country. Once they reenter the country it may be

lawful. How do you stop Jihadis recentering Britain? If they are --

Re-- reentering Britain? You can't, you re-arrest them if they have

committed criminal offence, if we have relocation, Tpims beefed up,

then that is an option that can be useded against them. Before they

have left? Before they have left or when they return. What we can't do

under international law and it would be asking for trouble if we tried to

do it is prevent British citizens who have no other nationality from

reentering their own country. Doesn't it strike you then that

there is a gap in the rhetoric tonight between what David Cameron

has said he's doing and what he is legally able to produce? What he

said was entirely truthful, he said and I summarise that they were going

to try to find an all-party approach to this question of Jihadis

reentering the country. I think it is certain that the all-party

approach they will find will correspond with what the Attorney

General said, I think the Government should tell us the gist of the

advice they were given by the current law officers, I wouldn't

mind betting that the advice they gave was entirely consistent with

the Attorney General's view. Thank you.

Pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong have vowed to fight a Chinese

Government ruling that effectively gives China control over the

candidates for the territory's next leader. Protesters clashed with

security as the decision was announced last night. It means a

special monitoring body will have to vet everyone standing in the

elections of 2017. The first of question, the Hong Kong chief

executive will be directly chosen by voters. Well the move by Beijing

appears to contravene the joint declaration signed between China and

Britain protecting democratic rights of Hong Kong citizens. In an

extraordinary letter, seen tonight by Newsnight, we learn that the head

of the foreign fares committee, Sir Richard Ottoway, has been advised by

his Chinese counterpart not to hold an inquiry into UK-Hong Kong

relations and has been warned of the consequences if he does.

We have the story. The language is pretty blunt in that letter? It is

very, very strong stuff, and British parliamentarians decided earlier

this year, perfectly properly because of the historic relationship

and Britain's historic responsibility to Hong Kong to take

a look at what was going on and progress towards democracy. This

letter could not be clearer about basically saying back off. The

Chinese do not see it as any of the UK's business. Just to give you a

flavour of that letter it suggests that the MP's intention has sent a

wrong political signal to the outside world, disrupting Hong

Kong's political reform. It says that Britain, these MPs should stop

interfering in Hong Kong's affairs, they should cancel the inquiry. Very

direct message there. Indeed they say China will brook no interference

either directly or indirectly from the UK. Extremely strong language

from the Chinese. The message could not be more straight forward, within

a sense you have British parliamentarians trying to do

exactly what they are meant to do and what they are entitled to.

Extremely strong enough. Stuff, we believe the Chinese Ambassador sent

this message too, very, very directly you will have seen in the

last couple of days due to the decision made by the Chinese

authorities, their move to limit the promise of democracy in Hong Kong,

this is a very tense time. Britain is not just interested because of

our historic role there, but also because of the interests of British

business based in Hong Kong. There is huge financial institutions who

have massive big operations in Hong Kong. What happens there doesn't

just matter because of our nostalgia towards the past, but it also

matters in economic terms, so our relationship is really important.

We go straight to the horse's mouth to Sir Richard Ottoway, you have the

letter, I'm wondering what your response was or would be? Laura has

put her finger on it, it is an intensive time in Hong Kong as soon

assiveties are running high. There is a misunderstanding about the role

of the committee in the UK. Back in 1984 Margaret Thatcher and the

President of China signed a joint undertaking to give ideas about the

future of Hong Kong. My job in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is

to look at whether Britain has complied with its undertakings, and

if China hasn't complied with their undertakings, what is the Foreign

Office doing about it? That is what we do in parliament. Will you carry

on doing that? We decided this afternoon we are going on because

our job is to report to parliament what is going on. This is a right

and proper procedure. But I don't want particularly to irritate the

Chinese, I think I want them to understand the way we work. Just to

give you an example. That sounds like you are sort of rather

pacifying them by this, do you not feel affronted by the letter? I'm

not offended by the letter. He has a job to do and I have a job to do.

But just to give you an example, the President of the Supreme Court was

recently in Hong Kong and invited to have a look at whether or not there

had been interference with the appointment of the judiciary. That

is one of the allegations made to my committee. He concluded there wasn't

any interference. The point is that it may well be that my committee

will decide that actually the Chinese are behaving perfectly

reasonably. What about the new law, the protests come from the decision

by China to essentially vet all the candidates. The joint declaration

you are talking about has at its heart the Hong Kong legal system and

democratic system. Do you think this is a breach? That is to prejudge

what the inquiry will conclude. Doesn't it sound like a breach of

democratic rights? The joint declaration called for universal

suffrage with the chief Executive Committee. If you are nominating a

limited number of comments, there seems a prima facia face that the

undertakings -- case that the undertakings have been given. I

don't want to reach that conclusion yet. The joint declaration is a

legal document, it is legally binding and 50 years, if that is

breached are there sanctions and are you willing to go there if it means

jeopardising commercial interests? We are planning to go there. But as

far as sanctions are concerned, frankly, we are in a fairly weak

position. Indeed we are in a very weak position right from the

beginning when the declaration was signed. But I think we can set out

the standards and norms that we in Britain think are important and that

will of course influence the way we conduct our relations with China. ,

The experimental infertility treatment offered in the US was

later banned but scientists in the UK have pioneered a new, similar

technique, that uses a donor's mitochondria to eliminate severe

genetic diseases. Parliament will vote on whether to legalise it later

this year. This is the hill, let's try to

really pump it. 13-year-old Alanah lives with her mum dad in Michigan

in the United States. She likes riding her bike, hanging out with

her friends, shopping, just like most teenagers. But she's special.

Technically I have DNA from three different people. My two parents

that I live with and my birth parents, but I also contain DNA from

a third donor. A lady that gave part of hermit mit to my mom's egg. Are

She's one of a handful of children born as a result of an experimental

fertility treatment. My family has a history of going into menopause

early. So my eggs weren't so healthy. That is when my doctor

recommended this cyto last Mikel transfer. It is an all consuming

drive to have a child. It is the Washington Post -- Washington Post

feeling because you will do whatever it takes. The treatment involved

tiny structures inside our cells called mitochondria, like little bat

trees they provide the power that keeps our bodies functioning, but

they also contain a bit of DNA. Doctors thought that Sharon's

mitochondria might be faulty. So they injected one of her eggs with

mitochondria from the egg of another woman and it worked. Nine months

later Alanah was born, baby with three genetic parents. Fewer than 50

children were conceived with this technique, but there were

complication. One mother miscarried and two babies developed health

problems. No-one knows if the treatment was to blame, but US

regulators soon stepped in and banned it. More than a decade later

researchers here in the UK have developed a new mitochondria

technique that could soon mean more children born with three genetic

parents. Now it is up to parliament to decide whether cide whether to

allow this. This time it is not to treat infertility, but to prevent

diseases. Ment in mitochondriaal diseases are those that protect the

power stations within ourselves. These diseases are passed down from

mother to child. These diseases tend to involve tissues or organs that

are heavily dependant on energy. Those organs are things like the

brain and sometimes it involves the heart, sometimes it involves the

skeltal muscle. Mitochondria diseases are rare, affecting one in

every 3,000 people. But they can be devastating. This is Holly, and she

was born and then she survived until she was 26 hours. This is Olivia,

she's survived until she was four days. Sharon has lost seven

children, all of them died within hours of being born, apart from her

son Edward. At first he seemed healthy, but he was soon diagnosed

with a mitochondria disease that has affected his central nervous system.

You could have a nice few hours, but then he would have about eight hours

where he would be in pain, screaming with the pain. His face would like

twist up and his hands would get really stiff, which was obviously

hard to see. Edward died three years ago aged 21. But scientists say they

can now stop the disease causing mitochondria from being passed from

mother to child. In the new treatment the nucleus of a woman's

fertilised egg that contains the DNA that determines our height, hair

colour and personality, all the traits that make us who we are is

taken out, leaving the faulty mitochondria behind. It is placed

into an egg from another woman, this egg has had its nucleus removed but

retains its healthy mitochondria, it is then implanted back into the

mother. This technique could completely eliminate mitochondria

diseases. But it would also alter our genetic code forever. Here at

London's Wellcome Collection, all 3. 3 billion letters of the human

genome have been written out. In these 115 book, each 1,000-pages

long, is all the DNA we inherit from our mum and dad. The amount of DNA

in our mitochondria would take up half a page. These are the genes

that would come from a third woman in this new treatment. It is a tiny

fraction. Nonetheless, this DNA would not only pass down to a child,

it would pass down to their children and their children's children.

Critics warn we will be creating entire lippages of genetically

modified -- lineages of genetically modified people. There have also

been safety concerns. Some animal tests suggested the treatment could

lead to health problems. However an extensive scientific review that is

concluded that the procedure is not unsafe. And that wording is crucial,

because scientists cannot guarantee the safety of this procedure because

it hasn't been tested on people. Essentially the British patients who

volunteer for this will do so knowing that they are human guinea

pigs. The champions of this radical new treatment say it could transform

lives and Britain could lead the world. But with no guarantees of

safety, and unprecedented changes to our genetic fabric at stake, it is

up to parliament to decide if this is a price worth paying. Now the

question of whether it is ever-safe to film a sex act on your phone may

have to wait for another day. Tonight we deal with the rather more

pressing issue of what exactly happened to privately stored data of

several Hollywood A-listers, naked pictures of the actres Jennifer

Lawrence, Kim Kardashian and others, they were claimed to have been

hacked from their private accounts. How much do we know about the cloud

and how it works? The cloud descended if you like upon u

everyone signed up to it without quite getting what it does? I don't

think a lot of people do. What it does is data centres that store your

data so you can access it on the move. You have lots of companies

doing t Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Dropbox and hosts of other smaller

companies. You have no idea how they are looking after your data, what

are the curt policies. Where it is. Is it in a server, in a space? In

servers farms. There are implication of who has access to your data from

a legal point of view. If it is the US the US could have access to it

through the NSA, there are all sorts of issues. Who owns it, is it still

mine? Yes, it is yours, but you are giving it to your cloud provider in

return for a service which is usually free, you are giving it to

Google in return for e-mail and map, they use it in return to serve you

adverts. It is a transaction except the power of the transaction is

mostly with the client provider rather than with you. What is your

sense of what might have happened here. You know, we think it was

iCloud, Apple said they can't confirm anything? Apple will never

confirm anything any way. My sense it is probably compromised passwords

rather than an actual hack where somebody would break into database

and steal passwords. What is the difference between a hack and

password? A hack is where they will try to break into servers, it has

happened to big companies. Two types of companies. That wouldn't target

celebrities? It would try to get passwords. This I think is more

specifically targeted at them. The celebrities have filled in a fake

form on-line that has harvested their passwords or perhaps an

assistant has had access to their passwords, or they have weak

passwords and used them everywhere and somebody has broken it. It is

not hard to crack passwords if you try hard enough. Are more people not

putting their stuff in cloud or is it not to do with the cloud? It is

do with the cloud f you keep your data in the house and it is not

on-line nobody has access. We like stuff available on-line. The iCloud

is a sinking service, when you take a picture of your iPhone, unless you

turn it off you sync to the cloud and available on other devices,

people love that but don't think about the implications about the

data. We all do it. Do you think the companies have any responsibility to

protect? Of course they do, and they are going to have more

responsibility. There is a big change coming to how the EU

regulates data protection. If a company is at fault for breach, they

will be up for five-times their global turnover. That will focus the

minds. It is a big one. Thank you very much. Many of you watching will

not care about football, know about football or even be particularly

aware that today was the final 24-hour window for club transfers,

this one is for you. Forget about Falcao, Di Maria, Torres, we give

you the bluffer's guide to the economics of deadline day.

Today is the end of the summer transfer window, it is deadline day,

there will be no more of this until the window reopens for January. The

last day of the transfer window is a day that is already lauded with

cliche, think of all the men holding up shirts to cameras, all those men

hiding from cameras in dark tinted Range Rovers, and Harry Redknapp's

interviews through a car window. It is a new institution, despite all

that tradition. It only started in the early 2000s, it seems fair to

ask is having transfer window even a good idea? Here is a question worth

asking, what is the effect of the transfer window? Arsenal fans might

think it just makes them missable, they haven't had a flurry of new

arrivals to fire them up. The only excitement this week is the arrival

of Danny Wellbeck from Manchester United. Some locals seem to be

giving up on football. We asked an expert on how you work the markets?

A short transfer window will enable the participants in the market to

compare their possible transactions in a short amount of time and there

by find the right price for a player and there is lots of indication that

the prices reflect the prayers very much. Just as you have a market, a

physical market where people come together and compare prices, the

transfer window does this in a short time frame. Why does everyone wait

until the last day of the transperwindow to seal their deals?

-- transfer window to seal their deals? There is lots of things at

play, like buying a house you might have a chain, you have to sell one

player to get another. Every bit of the chain has to work and it takes

place on a single day and the last day is a good candidate for this to

take place. The second one is people play poker, an act of brinkmanship,

because if they have several buyers for transfer they might try to get a

maximum price. If they wait until the last minute they hold out longer

and strengthen the bargaining position. The next Biggs question is

pretty -- big question is pretty simple, can clubs buy success? There

is a well functioning market in football players. There is a lot of

information about the players in the market. A lot of them are traded on

a regular basis. That means that the prices paid in the transfer market

tend to reflect reliably the value of the players. Teams that spend big

are the ones that perform well, you can show that over time to be a

reliable relationship. This Graf shows club spending over league

positions over spending for 2012. Spending more making you more likely

to do well. R Look at how the effect of the

managers is dwarfed by the presence of money. A lot of the big signings

in Europe are stars of the recent World Cup, it is worth pondering how

do World Cups affect the transfer market? Well the Professor's

research suggests that clubs often overpay for World Cup stars. People

overvalue players because they have noticed the performance very

recently, that may not be the best indicator of their long-term

performance. All fans hope their clubs will get a unique player

relatively cheaply who can inspire them to greatness. But, in general,

as Arsenal fans know, you won't win big if you don't spend big.

Whilst we have been on air you will be pleased to know that Ramires has

signed for Hull City. Now the papers.

That's it for tonight. We leave but the debut of 16-year-old Max

Verstapen, who was yesterday unveiled as the world's

youngest-ever Formula One driver to a crowd in his native Rotterdam, he

soon put to bed charges that he just got the gig because of his family

connections. Good evening, generally dryer and

warmer conditions this week compared with recent weeks. We start the day

with mist and low cloud across some central and eastern areas, a grey

start here. Some light rain or drizzle possible. It could be foggy

first thing. Lifting and shifting and a lot of dry and sunny weather

to