:00:08. > :00:12.It may not give him sleepless nights, well not as much as NATO
:00:12. > :00:17.bombs do, but the British have decided to chuck out Colonel
:00:17. > :00:20.Gaddafi's representatives in London, and to recognise the rebel National
:00:20. > :00:24.Transitional Council in Benghazi as the voice of the country. About
:00:24. > :00:34.time too, you might think, but what does it mean? Supporters of the
:00:34. > :00:38.rebels can't even get into the building. This is for us, this is
:00:38. > :00:41.for the Libyan people. Gaddafi this is for Libya.
:00:41. > :00:46.The new ambassador, who yesterday was just another London exile, is
:00:46. > :00:50.here with us. The man who was Gordon Brown's
:00:50. > :00:54.secretary for Work and Pensions has been looking for new ways to reform
:00:54. > :00:58.the welfare system. Could it reconnect his party with the voters.
:00:58. > :01:02.What I would love is to see Britain fall in love with welfare again,
:01:02. > :01:08.for people to love the welfare state as much as they do the NHS.
:01:08. > :01:12.He's here to explain his ideas to a couple of sceptics.
:01:12. > :01:22.And nine out of ten scientific experiments on monkeys are deemed
:01:22. > :01:23.
:01:23. > :01:28.necessary, high quality and useful. But why isn't it ten out of ten.
:01:28. > :01:31.Only a few weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary was telling us it was
:01:31. > :01:35.quite impossible for the British Government to give diplomatic
:01:35. > :01:39.recognition to the rebels trying to topple Colonel Gaddafi. Today,
:01:39. > :01:42.finally he changed his mind, and booted the remaining Gaddafi
:01:42. > :01:46.diplomats out of Britain. Apparently it was possible afterall,
:01:46. > :01:53.not least because the Americans had decided it was. The dictator,
:01:53. > :01:57.meanwhile, survives in Tripoli, after months of NATO bombing.
:01:57. > :02:01.You know what you did Gaddafi, you are killers, we will not forget
:02:01. > :02:07.what you did. Today they were outside the London embassy, by the
:02:07. > :02:13.end of the week, it will be their's. Supporters of the Libyan opposition
:02:13. > :02:20.were delighted that Britain has given Gaddafi's diplomats 24 hours
:02:20. > :02:23.to leave. The policy has shifted, the opposition are deemed Libya's
:02:23. > :02:29.authority. We have been waiting for this time and moment for five
:02:29. > :02:34.months now. We are very, very happy. Remember diplomacy, well to reverse
:02:34. > :02:40.the normal formula, it is war by other means. For months we have had
:02:40. > :02:44.the curious situation where Britain's bombing Gaddafi in his
:02:44. > :02:50.stronghold in Libya, while allowing his tkpwhats to remain here in the
:02:50. > :02:55.embassy in - diplomats to remain here in London. Suddenly that is
:02:55. > :02:57.changing, Britain is tightening the diplomating squeeze, why now?
:02:57. > :03:03.The Foreign Secretary was in Benghazi last month, now he says
:03:03. > :03:07.his status at the whole of Libya is unique, it warrants recognition of
:03:07. > :03:12.the National Transitional Council. Libya's assets will be unfrozen for
:03:12. > :03:16.their benefit. The Libyan people will be assured we will remain on
:03:16. > :03:19.their side for as long as it takes. I'm making the announcement today
:03:19. > :03:23.to reflect the facts on the ground and increase our support for those
:03:23. > :03:27.fighting and working for a better future in Libya. On the ground n
:03:27. > :03:33.Lybia, the effects of British and French bombs continue to be felt
:03:33. > :03:36.with the reported 40 strikes a day. Gaddafi's forces, skon scripts and
:03:36. > :03:39.mercenaries, are said to be near breaking point. In a way the
:03:39. > :03:43.bombing campaign is part of the generalised pressure, it is not a
:03:43. > :03:46.silver bullet by any stretch, it is part of a generalised pressure to
:03:46. > :03:50.create an uprising in Tripoli. As and when that happens, then I think
:03:50. > :03:54.you will find opposition forces moving into the city pretty quickly.
:03:54. > :03:57.Do you think that will happen? convinced myself there will be an
:03:57. > :04:02.uprising in Tripoli, whether it will happen soon as opposed to a
:04:02. > :04:08.couple of months time, we just don't know. But it has dragged on,
:04:08. > :04:12.and if Gaddafi holds on much longer, into August and Ramadan, NATO's
:04:12. > :04:17.ultimate success, always deemed inevitable, will ring hollow. The
:04:17. > :04:21.Libyan opposition TV channel, out of Doha, announced that the
:04:21. > :04:27.National Transitional Council had already appoint add London
:04:27. > :04:30.ambassador. But who are - appointed a London ambassador, but who are
:04:30. > :04:35.they themselves? It is an arrangement to bring into coalition
:04:35. > :04:40.a group of opposition supporters. Some of them are pretty Islamic
:04:40. > :04:46.fundamentalist, some are very secular, some are on the buy sis of
:04:46. > :04:50.tribal loyalties, a mixed - basis of tribal loyalties a mixed bunch.
:04:50. > :04:59.On Monday William Hague revealed that Gaddafi could remain in Libya,
:04:59. > :05:04.as long as he relinguished power, this confounded the advice of
:05:04. > :05:07.before. Our message to Colonel Gaddafi is to go now. He must go.
:05:07. > :05:10.It now transpires they merely need him to leave the presidential tent.
:05:10. > :05:13.Britain has thus fallen into line with the French policy. As for
:05:14. > :05:17.recognising the transitional council, that too is a policy
:05:17. > :05:21.already adopted elsewhere, by the international Contact Group, two
:05:21. > :05:28.weeks ago. But Gaddafi, remember, is facing an international arrest
:05:28. > :05:31.warrant for war crimes. So could he legally remain in internal exile.
:05:31. > :05:36.If privately Gaddafi, or those speaking for him, are sending
:05:36. > :05:40.signals to the British and the French, this would be a face-saving
:05:40. > :05:43.way out, then I can understand. makes sense? It makes sense, I can
:05:43. > :05:46.understand why the British Government would be publicly
:05:46. > :05:50.assuring him that this could be a way forward. But if they are not
:05:50. > :05:54.getting those signals, then the British Government is itself
:05:54. > :05:57.sending mixed signals and that is going to tend to undermine the
:05:57. > :06:01.effectiveness of the arrest warrant and the strategy that has been put
:06:01. > :06:04.in place so far. Isn't any Government compelled to arrest him,
:06:04. > :06:06.because the International Criminal Court have warrant out for him?
:06:06. > :06:09.Under the statute of the International Criminal Court, there
:06:10. > :06:14.is a rule in one of the little known provision that is allows the
:06:14. > :06:19.Security Council, to revisit the situation where it has instigated
:06:19. > :06:22.the investigation, which it did in this case and pass a new resolution,
:06:22. > :06:27.in effect, suspending the investigation and possibly also the
:06:27. > :06:31.arrest warrant. So there are possibilities in
:06:31. > :06:33.what's unchartered legal territory. The Libyan opposition will feel
:06:33. > :06:37.politically they are closer tonight to achieving their target. In
:06:37. > :06:42.London, at least, they are about to take possession. In Libya,
:06:42. > :06:47.Gaddafi's days may be numbered but he still has support. Here at rally
:06:47. > :06:52.last night, is Abdel Baser al- Megrahi, the man convicted of the
:06:52. > :06:55.Libyan bombing, defying medical prognosis, still alive.
:06:55. > :07:02.Our diplomatic editor is in Cairo, from where he joins us now. How
:07:03. > :07:07.does this look from Cairo, Mark? don't think it will surprise you if
:07:07. > :07:10.I tell you that Britain is kicking out eight Libyan diplomats has
:07:10. > :07:14.hardly stopped the traffic here at night. There is more interest in
:07:14. > :07:18.local media in the idea that the transitional council will take over
:07:18. > :07:22.the embassy, that certain funds may be freed up. But overall, the tone
:07:22. > :07:26.in the region seems to have been set in recent days by some quite
:07:26. > :07:32.pessimist be comments from the UN envoy, who is supposedly looking at
:07:32. > :07:35.way it find a way out of the Libyan embroilment. He's talked about the
:07:35. > :07:38.two sides not having moved at all in their position since the bombing
:07:39. > :07:42.started. That leaves a lot of people, I think, feeling this is
:07:42. > :07:45.just going to have to go on. I was speaking to a former senior
:07:45. > :07:49.Egyptian Air Force officer this evening, he basically said NATO has
:07:49. > :07:52.to carry on, we understand that, he described it as a relatively cheap
:07:52. > :07:56.operation in terms of the number of aircraft, and he said it could have
:07:56. > :08:00.a very cheap outcome with the death of one man and drew his finger
:08:00. > :08:04.across his throat. I think there is understanding here, that it may
:08:04. > :08:08.well carry on, and that the diplomatic situation may be pretty
:08:08. > :08:15.much deadlocked. What about the suggestion that it could end with
:08:15. > :08:19.Colonel Gaddafi still in Libya in some form? This is a really
:08:19. > :08:22.interesting area, in terms of diplomacy, the man I referred to,
:08:22. > :08:26.the official UN envoy, is not rated particularly by the British and
:08:26. > :08:29.French Governments. They have been exploring through other
:08:29. > :08:32.intermediaries various possible ways out of this. We know the
:08:32. > :08:35.African Union has been involved, the South Africans, we also know
:08:36. > :08:39.the Russians have been involved. I think it is really on the Russians
:08:39. > :08:44.that they pin their hopes. Now, we were hearing in the report just
:08:44. > :08:48.then, from the profess yo, that things could be done by the
:08:48. > :08:52.security d professor, that things could be done by the security
:08:52. > :08:55.powers to lift that arrest warrant if that was part of a package. If
:08:55. > :09:00.that situation was reached, and there is no indication tonight that
:09:00. > :09:04.they are that close to a solution, then you would have US, UK, France
:09:04. > :09:08.and, of course, Russia, as the brokers of such a deal, stepping
:09:08. > :09:12.forward. China wouldn't block it. You can see how it might just work.
:09:12. > :09:19.Most people seem to think we are still some way from that.
:09:19. > :09:22.We are joined now by the representative of the National
:09:23. > :09:27.Transitional Council, he was made effectively Libyan ambassador to
:09:27. > :09:32.London today. When did you learn? This morning. Were you surprised?
:09:32. > :09:37.Yes, a bit surprised. Have you any experience as a diplomat? No, I
:09:37. > :09:46.haven't any experience. But I'm a political fighter for more than 30
:09:46. > :09:52.years, I live in exile, and I am happy to serve my country and the
:09:52. > :09:56.relations between the UK and the new Libya. We appreciate very much
:09:56. > :10:03.the decision of the British Government, from the beginning of
:10:04. > :10:08.the crisis until now. But it is 30 years since you have been in Libya?
:10:09. > :10:15.33 years I'm away from Libya. that going to make it difficult to
:10:15. > :10:21.represent Libya here in Britain? live with Libyan problems, the
:10:21. > :10:27.Libyan life all my life. I'm in touch with my relations, with my
:10:27. > :10:30.friend, and I know what is going on in Libya every day. You're a
:10:30. > :10:37.journalist aren't you? Yes. I was reading something you wrote in
:10:37. > :10:41.February this year, I was rather astonished by it, you said, that
:10:41. > :10:44.despite the heavy sacrifice they are suffering every day, Libyans
:10:44. > :10:47.reject any foreign intervention even for their defence and
:10:47. > :10:51.protection s that still your position? At that time because
:10:51. > :10:56.there was no bombing and no atrocities. You didn't want any
:10:56. > :11:01.bombing? No atrocities from Gaddafi, but when he used his own weapons
:11:01. > :11:06.against the civilians, we have to ask for help. So we are
:11:06. > :11:10.appreciating the help of the international community, of the
:11:10. > :11:14.Arabic world, and everyone who helps us. There is also confusion
:11:14. > :11:19.about what is going to be the end game here. The British and various
:11:19. > :11:24.others were saying very early on that Gaddafi had to leave Libya, do
:11:24. > :11:30.you think he can stay there and this crisis be solved? No, it is
:11:30. > :11:36.impossible. So he has to quit the country? Either he stays in power,
:11:36. > :11:40.or he quits. And disappears from the stage in Libya. He can quit
:11:40. > :11:44.power, quit the Presidential Palace and stay in Libya do you think?
:11:44. > :11:47.I think it is impossible also. He will be taken to the courts, even
:11:48. > :11:50.to the criminal courts, or to the Libyan courts. That is what is
:11:50. > :11:57.being suggested by the British Government, that he might some how
:11:57. > :12:03.manage to stay living in Libya? think they will change finally
:12:03. > :12:08.their view, and many countries I think they got a lot of information
:12:08. > :12:13.now that Gaddafi and his soldiers, in the weakest position, at this
:12:13. > :12:20.time. Where would you like him to go?
:12:20. > :12:25.soon as possible. Where would you like him to go? He can decide, he
:12:25. > :12:33.can go to ...Should He be put on trial at the International Criminal
:12:33. > :12:40.Court? Yes, if they got him. They asked us in the last you know ...As
:12:40. > :12:44.Far as the people you represent are concerned, we heard in that report
:12:44. > :12:47.from Peter Marshall, that they are a broad coalition, some are
:12:47. > :12:54.secularist, some Islamic fundamentalist, what do you stand
:12:54. > :12:58.for apart from getting rid of Gaddafi? I think the moderate
:12:58. > :13:06.Libyan is the mainstream. When you look for the people who are
:13:06. > :13:13.fighting now on the ground, they are not elite, they are not
:13:13. > :13:17.fundamentalists, they are from the mainstream of Libyan people. And I
:13:17. > :13:25.think also the future will be controlled by the mainstream who
:13:25. > :13:28.look for work, or look for a good standard of life, who look for good
:13:28. > :13:35.hospitals, good schools, that is what they look for.
:13:35. > :13:42.When do you get possession of the embassy? Maybe next week. You hope?
:13:42. > :13:47.Yes. Have they told you how soon the current people will leave?
:13:47. > :13:51.think very soon they will leave. Thank you very much indeed.
:13:51. > :13:54.What's to be done about the welfare system in this country? As they
:13:54. > :13:58.looked around at the wreckage of the last Government in the
:13:58. > :14:01.aftermath of last year's election wipout, many senior Labour figures
:14:01. > :14:06.realised that many people had lost faith in them because they lost
:14:06. > :14:10.faith in the way the welfare system works. Now those Labour figures see
:14:10. > :14:14.reforming the system as a vital thing to reconnect with the voters.
:14:14. > :14:24.We asked James Purnell, secretary for Work and Pensions in Gordon
:14:24. > :14:26.
:14:26. > :14:29.Brown's Government, what he thought When I was a cabinet minister, we
:14:29. > :14:33.spent more money on welfare, because we wanted to reduce poverty,
:14:33. > :14:36.it was one of the things that everybody in the Labour Government
:14:37. > :14:40.agreed about. But when it came to the last election, one of the
:14:40. > :14:45.reasons that we lost was that traditional Labour supporters no
:14:45. > :14:50.longer backed the welfare state. When he was in his teens...Remember
:14:50. > :14:53.This famous encounter, everyone focused on the discussion about
:14:53. > :14:58.immigration, it was what came before that is to revealing. Three
:14:58. > :15:04.main things I was drummed in when I was a child, was education, health
:15:05. > :15:09.service and looking after people who are vulnerable. But there is
:15:09. > :15:14.too many people now who aren't vulnerable, but they can claim and
:15:14. > :15:19.people who are vulnerable can't get claims can't get it. They shouldn't
:15:19. > :15:24.be doing that. So that's Mrs Duffy, one of the really interesting
:15:24. > :15:29.things about her is that she's born in 1945 she's a Beveridge baby,
:15:29. > :15:34.part of the generation that grew up with new council estates and who
:15:34. > :15:39.love the welfare state as much as the NHS. But not any more.
:15:39. > :15:43.The pollster, Peter Kellner, says there is plenty of evidence that
:15:43. > :15:46.welfare supporters have lost faith in the welfare state. Great many of
:15:46. > :15:52.the people who one would have thought would be natural Labour
:15:52. > :15:57.voters came to think, by the end of Labour's time in power, that Labour
:15:57. > :16:04.reflected special groups. Immigrant, public sector workers, the poorest,
:16:04. > :16:10.single mothers. It was not seen as a party for the generality of white
:16:10. > :16:12.working-class Britain. And I think Gillian Duffy represented a
:16:13. > :16:16.widespread feeling that people paying their taxes and National
:16:16. > :16:20.Insurance, they thought it was a contributory system that would work
:16:20. > :16:27.fairly over their lifetime to their benefit, and they came to feel they
:16:27. > :16:30.weren't getting it back. As the as a result of much
:16:30. > :16:34.intensive study into questions of social security, Sir we have
:16:34. > :16:37.Beveridge is the recognised authority on present day and post-
:16:37. > :16:42.war problems. Voters loved Beveridge's welfare state, because
:16:42. > :16:47.it was based on a clear principle. In his words, benefit in return for
:16:47. > :16:51.contribution, rather than free allowances from the state was what
:16:51. > :16:55.the people of Britain require. extra you pay is your contribution
:16:55. > :16:59.towards the pension you will get when the time comes. This young
:16:59. > :17:03.fella can look forward to a secure old age.
:17:03. > :17:06.Jon Cruddas is the MP for Dagenham, he and I were elected at the same
:17:06. > :17:10.time. He believes that there is still a
:17:10. > :17:14.lot we can learn from that idea of social solidarity, that came out of
:17:14. > :17:17.Second World War. I think there was a new covenant
:17:17. > :17:22.between the people and the Government, at local level as well
:17:22. > :17:26.as national level, that you had good quality housing, you had good
:17:26. > :17:30.quality secure jobs for you and your family. You had pensions that
:17:30. > :17:33.went along with that, and you had public service, health and
:17:33. > :17:36.education that were developing and you could rely on it. It is about
:17:36. > :17:41.the essential character of the community and the country actually,
:17:41. > :17:45.it is a distinct Hallmark in terms of our sense of duty and obligation
:17:45. > :17:48.to others, beyond an individual economic transfer. Actually people
:17:48. > :17:52.were buying into it emotionally weren't they, it was deaf nigs of
:17:52. > :17:57.who they were and what society was - definition of who they were and
:17:57. > :18:01.what society was like? I like it, it resonates today as well as 1945.
:18:01. > :18:06.The reason Britain has fallen out of love with welfare is the
:18:06. > :18:09.covenant has broken down. We have a welfare state that isn't demanding
:18:09. > :18:13.enough of people and doesn't protect them enough. There are
:18:13. > :18:18.dozens of benefits in this country, they offer something to people that
:18:18. > :18:21.they don't value enough when times are good, but don't protect them
:18:21. > :18:24.enough when times are bad. We should have a smaller number of
:18:24. > :18:28.protection, but ones people would really value. Things of which
:18:28. > :18:32.people would say, that's why I pay my taxes. A bit like they do for
:18:32. > :18:37.the NHS. So there would be a right to work,
:18:37. > :18:40.but also an obligation to work. The Government would guarantee you
:18:41. > :18:44.a job, but if you didn't take it up, you would lose your benefit, you
:18:44. > :18:48.would get more if you paid in, perhaps some sort of wage
:18:48. > :18:51.protection, while you looked for another job. Free childcare would
:18:52. > :18:56.enable more parents to work. If you contributed all your life, it would
:18:56. > :19:01.be clear you would get a higher pension than those who hadn't paid
:19:01. > :19:05.in. To fund all that we might have to look to cut somewhere else,
:19:05. > :19:09.higher rate tax relief on pensions, free bus basss and free TV license,
:19:09. > :19:12.even some parts of child benefit, perhaps.
:19:12. > :19:17.Liam Byrne represents one of the poorest constituencies in the
:19:17. > :19:22.country, but that makes him more in favour of reforming welfare rather
:19:22. > :19:26.than less. Right now the problem I think we have got in Britain is
:19:26. > :19:31.that people don't feel they get out of the welfare state what they put
:19:31. > :19:35.in. And they sort of feel that if we just stopped rewarding the
:19:35. > :19:38.people behaving irresponsibly, there would be more money to help
:19:38. > :19:43.those who were responsible and were doing the right thing. It is really
:19:43. > :19:48.important that we face this blunt reality that people don't think
:19:48. > :19:54.that the Labour Party was strong enough on the responsibility to
:19:54. > :19:56.take work if you could. We're not a head-on - ahead on welfare reform
:19:56. > :20:00.now, we have to get back into the lead.
:20:00. > :20:04.Liam is right. We needing to back to that Beveridge idea, of benefit
:20:04. > :20:07.in return for contribution. So what I would love is to see
:20:07. > :20:11.Britain fall in love with welfare again, for people to love the
:20:11. > :20:17.welfare state as much as they do the NHS, and I think for us to do
:20:17. > :20:21.that we will have to show everybody that people had to contribute to
:20:21. > :20:25.the welfare state. What we really need to do now is show people that
:20:25. > :20:29.the welfare state protects people. It is too late for people to fall
:20:29. > :20:34.in love with something called the welfare state, they might fall in
:20:34. > :20:39.love with something called the protection state.
:20:39. > :20:43.James Purnell joins us in the studio. We're also joined by
:20:43. > :20:47.Elizabeth Truss, who is the Conservative MP for South-West
:20:47. > :20:51.Norfolk, and Vidhya Alakeson, the research direction for the
:20:51. > :20:55.Resolution Foundation think-tank. I will talk to you a minute or two
:20:55. > :20:59.before we have the discussion. The Government would guarantee everyone
:20:59. > :21:03.a job. How would they do that? were doing that before the last
:21:03. > :21:07.election. So when you get to, the ideal scheme would be after a year
:21:07. > :21:10.if you haven't found a job, would you get one from a local authority
:21:10. > :21:14.or charity, but you would have to take it. Job seekers' allowance
:21:14. > :21:18.would be limited to one year, after that you get a proper minimum wage
:21:18. > :21:23.job, that is more likely to get you there. But the state pays for that?
:21:23. > :21:28.It doesn't cost that much. There are 2.5 million people unemployed,
:21:28. > :21:32.the state would employ every one of them? 85% of people find employment
:21:32. > :21:37.for a year, at the moment we pay for them to stay on benefits for a
:21:37. > :21:40.long time. By having that you save lots of money because people
:21:40. > :21:43.cheating the system come off the benefit, if you are a taxi driver
:21:43. > :21:47.claiming and working you have to give up your benefit, because
:21:47. > :21:50.people say here is a job you can't continue with the other job. It is
:21:50. > :21:54.fairer to people, it creates a proper way for them to get a
:21:54. > :21:58.minimum wage and get a proper skill and job. You have costed that?
:21:58. > :22:02.did it in Government and the Tories abolished it. You didn't guarantee
:22:02. > :22:07.everyone a job, there were over two million unemployed by the time you
:22:07. > :22:12.left office. We said we would guarantee a job for anyone who
:22:12. > :22:17.couldn't find one under their own scheme. Other place who is do it is
:22:17. > :22:20.not massively expensive, it plaix the welfare state tougher but
:22:20. > :22:23.fairer. You are saying we should have zero unemployment? Nobody
:22:23. > :22:27.should be out of work for more than a year, it is a real protection.
:22:27. > :22:31.I'm saying in the film we need to look at what people are frightened
:22:31. > :22:36.of and genuinely protect them. At the moment we give them a bit of
:22:36. > :22:40.money and it doesn't take the fear away. You particularly dislike
:22:41. > :22:44.various targeted benefit, you mentioned free bus travel, free
:22:44. > :22:50.television licenses for older people and one or two other things,
:22:50. > :22:55.higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and so on. How much
:22:55. > :23:00.would getting rid of all of those save? Billions. The things we
:23:00. > :23:03.mention, �30 billion depending on getting rid of them or targeting
:23:03. > :23:08.them. I'm saying the goi., no Government ever really since
:23:08. > :23:12.Beveridge asked what do we want to do with the system. Let me finish
:23:12. > :23:16.the point. You look at where to save money and add incrementally on
:23:16. > :23:19.the welfare state. Start with a clean state, what are the things we
:23:20. > :23:23.want to do and get rid of the things we can't afford. Much better
:23:23. > :23:26.to have a job guarantee and free childcare, if that means we can't
:23:26. > :23:31.afford some other things, fine, that doesn't necessarily mean
:23:31. > :23:33.having higher taxes. If you want much more protections you have to
:23:33. > :23:36.be tougher. The reason I don't think they are worth keeping, some
:23:36. > :23:40.of them, you are taking money away from people in taxes, and then
:23:40. > :23:43.giving it back in benefit, you would bind people in by giving them
:23:43. > :23:48.real protection that is they would know it is worth paying their taxes
:23:48. > :23:51.for. Let's explore all of these ideas, he sounds like a Tory in
:23:51. > :23:56.some respects? I don't think he is, he started his film saying I want
:23:56. > :24:01.to help people to love the welfare state. You don't, you hate it?
:24:01. > :24:04.is wrong with it? We want to help people to love working and get
:24:04. > :24:07.people back into work. He says he will do that? We want to make
:24:07. > :24:10.people capable so they don't have to rely on the Government to bail
:24:11. > :24:14.them out. That should be the aim of what things we are doing, like the
:24:14. > :24:18.work programme, the Universal Creditor, to give people that
:24:18. > :24:22.capability to make their own decisions. And the idea that the
:24:22. > :24:25.Government is going to recreate Beveridge, and have a whole new
:24:25. > :24:28.insurance scheme provided by the Government, strikes me as
:24:28. > :24:31.unworkable. Explain to her why it might work? Your Government is
:24:31. > :24:34.continuing something which we have done in this area, we are bring
:24:34. > :24:37.anything a company pension for everyone, Nest from every year,
:24:37. > :24:40.that will organise a pension for five to ten million people,
:24:40. > :24:44.delivered by the private sector but organised by the state. That is a
:24:44. > :24:47.big extension in the welfare state, your Government is continuing it.
:24:47. > :24:50.It is different when it is delivered by the private sector.
:24:50. > :24:53.The NHS is delivered by the state and more efficient than privately.
:24:53. > :24:56.The problem with social insurance is the people who need it can't
:24:56. > :25:00.afford to pay for it, because the insurance companies don't want to
:25:00. > :25:05.protect them, the people who don't need it don't pay for it. By
:25:05. > :25:10.pooling our risk together we can protect ourselves better. Do you
:25:10. > :25:16.think the proposal, as outlined by James Purnell is fair? I want to
:25:16. > :25:22.take issue with a central premise that seems to underpin the
:25:22. > :25:25.proposals, that people love the NHS because they get out what they put
:25:25. > :25:30.in. People love the NHS because it comes to their rescue when they get
:25:30. > :25:34.ill, what they get out is based on how ill they are, not at all how
:25:34. > :25:39.much they have contributed. So there seems to be two ideas mixed
:25:39. > :25:41.up, one about contribution. Don't explain to me, but him? One about
:25:41. > :25:46.contribution, and one about providing a smaller number of
:25:47. > :25:50.benefits but making them richer and deeper. They seem to be at odds to
:25:50. > :25:55.me. I totally agree there is two different ideas. One is that we
:25:55. > :26:00.would make people love the welfare state because it really proed them
:26:00. > :26:04.so it was there when - protected them when they needed it, like the
:26:04. > :26:09.NHS, extending to long-term care, child cautious and how you pay for
:26:09. > :26:14.it. We don't - childcare and also how you pay for it all. We don't
:26:14. > :26:17.say to people who smoke we won't cure your cancer, but if someone
:26:17. > :26:21.has worked hard and saved more we want them to get more out of the
:26:21. > :26:25.system. A lot of women take time out of work, a lot of people with
:26:25. > :26:31.long-term health conditions fall in and out of work, they are not
:26:31. > :26:35.irresponsible because that is, it is a luck question, fate deals them
:26:35. > :26:39.card. It is not a hypothetical question, I brought in a reform
:26:39. > :26:42.that women who stay at home you pay their National Insurance
:26:42. > :26:48.contribution, and the same with disabled people, if you are
:26:48. > :26:51.contributinging to society and you are disabled we pay your National
:26:51. > :26:55.Insurance contribution. Won't it increase cost, some of the things
:26:55. > :26:58.you mentioned like the TV license, that would save half a billion, if
:26:58. > :27:02.you compare the cost of providing universal childcare, that is
:27:02. > :27:07.estimated to be �20 billion, that would be an extra 2p on income tax,
:27:07. > :27:11.we are talking about a huge increase in taxation to pay for
:27:11. > :27:15.these universal benefits, people already feel they are paying too
:27:15. > :27:19.much, they are paying �3,000 on average for welfare payment t will
:27:19. > :27:24.increase the cost hugely. Child benefit, for example, is �12
:27:24. > :27:32.billion, more money you can get from that. You would abolish it.
:27:32. > :27:37.The tax relief people get on higher rate tax contributions, �7 billion,
:27:37. > :27:40.there are �30 billion of middle- class benefits found by you. We
:27:40. > :27:43.never get into the discussion about the kind of welfare state we want,
:27:43. > :27:48.the only amount we can allocate is the little bit of savings. We
:27:48. > :27:52.should start with a clean sheet of paper and ask what do we want it to
:27:52. > :27:58.look like. What is the welfare state for? To protect people.
:27:58. > :28:02.they lose their job? Yes. From poverty in old age. What else?
:28:02. > :28:05.Beveridge had his five evils to be protected from, they are still
:28:05. > :28:09.pretty good. At the moment we don't. Before the credit crunch we had
:28:09. > :28:12.gone to the idea that everybody would look after themselves and
:28:12. > :28:15.markets would always work, it wasn't true. We need to protect
:28:15. > :28:19.people against the things they are really scared about, losing their
:28:19. > :28:22.home, their job, being ill for a long time in old age f there are
:28:22. > :28:27.other benefit that is people don't value as much, I would put them
:28:27. > :28:30.down the list of priorities. I'm not saying get rid of child benefit,
:28:30. > :28:34.let's order the things we worry about. What do we care least about
:28:34. > :28:38.that we currently pay? Winter fuel allowances. You wouldn't say that
:28:38. > :28:41.if you were an old person who wouldn't afford their fuel bill?
:28:41. > :28:48.talk today a lot of people about free bus pass, saying I should get
:28:48. > :28:51.it when I'm 70 or 80. It is better to have one pension rather than all
:28:51. > :28:55.the freebies. Would you be prepared to see something like child poverty
:28:55. > :28:58.rise if you were redirecting your spending towards richer protection
:28:58. > :29:03.that is are more universal around childcare and a job guarantee,
:29:03. > :29:09.something has to give. If the pie is limited, if you are not going to
:29:09. > :29:16.poke tus on child poverty, which was overly focused on - focus on
:29:16. > :29:21.child poverty which was overly focused on the last Government,
:29:21. > :29:24.what about child poverty. You end up rewarding people doing the wrong
:29:24. > :29:28.thing and punishing those doing the right thing, giving them money
:29:28. > :29:31.whether they are work organise not or not working or not. We should
:29:31. > :29:37.have a child poverty goal, if you are working and your child won't be
:29:37. > :29:42.poor, if your child is young your child be poor. This lifting the
:29:42. > :29:46.child out of poverty regardless of what parents do, encourages
:29:46. > :29:50.behaviour of parents, not going out to work, which ends up penalising
:29:50. > :29:55.the child. I would reframe the child poverty goals. What we are
:29:55. > :29:58.talking about is giving childcare to very rich people, and at the
:29:58. > :30:02.same time cutting child benefit. do that for primary schools,
:30:02. > :30:06.secondary schools, if you say to mums would you rather have good
:30:06. > :30:10.free childcare can he start or child benefit all the way through,
:30:10. > :30:13.most would like free childcare at the beginning. As you are here I
:30:13. > :30:17.would like to ask you a couple of other questions, notably about your
:30:17. > :30:21.leader at present, Ed Miliband, your leader of your former party,
:30:21. > :30:26.you are still a member. He is my leader. Does he buy any of these
:30:26. > :30:29.ideas? He's interested in the idea of contribution. He made a speech
:30:29. > :30:32.recently about responsibility where he spoke about some of it. It is
:30:32. > :30:36.early days for the Labour Party. you look at him in opposition, and
:30:36. > :30:39.you look at where you were as an elected MP, you don't think with
:30:39. > :30:43.all these ideas it would be fun to get back into mainstream politics
:30:43. > :30:47.and try to put them into effect? You can do lots of politics outside
:30:47. > :30:50.parliament, that is what I'm doing. You have no desire to go back into
:30:50. > :30:53.parliament? One thing about Ed, before the recent News
:30:53. > :30:56.International spat, there was a real danger that people were
:30:56. > :30:59.writing him off as not having a chance, the election was being
:30:59. > :31:03.fought through the press in advance of that, people should go treating
:31:03. > :31:08.him as someone who has a good chance of being the next Prime
:31:08. > :31:11.Minister. Why did you turn down the opportunity for being his Chief-of-
:31:11. > :31:15.Staff? Because I had left politics two weeks previously and it would
:31:15. > :31:19.be odd to go back. He has good ideas on responsibility, and
:31:20. > :31:24.interested in the ideas on contribution. Compared to 1994, it
:31:24. > :31:28.is a much more complicated task. When Gordon and Tony and Peter went
:31:28. > :31:33.in, it was clear what not to do, it was 15 years of wrong answers, Ed
:31:33. > :31:38.and his team have to think it over from scratch, he's taking steps
:31:38. > :31:42.before that. You have ruled out the idea of joining his crusade as an
:31:42. > :31:46.elected MP? I'm a big part of his crusade without being an elected MP.
:31:46. > :31:53.Around one in ten of academic research programmes on monkeys in
:31:53. > :31:59.the UK produces no clear scientific, medical or social benefit, that is
:31:59. > :32:03.how much of the news media reported the results of a highly respective
:32:03. > :32:08.research today. One could say it vindicates nine out of ten
:32:08. > :32:14.experiments. Animal rights activists say none at all can be
:32:14. > :32:18.justified. How do you side what is legitimate and not. Meet chimp nine,
:32:18. > :32:24.we gave him a gene therapy that allows the brain to create its own
:32:24. > :32:28.cells in order to repair itself. We call it the cure to Alzheimer's.
:32:28. > :32:34.is a Hollywood interpretation, and pretty far from reality,
:32:34. > :32:37.nevertheless, rise of the planet - Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes,
:32:37. > :32:43.explores a long standing relationship with other primate,
:32:43. > :32:50.not least as subjects of research. In the US scientists still use
:32:50. > :32:54.chimps in research, it is banned in the UK. Every year some 3,000 or so
:32:54. > :32:58.monkeys are still used. The organisations that fund this kind
:32:59. > :33:03.of research commissioned today's review. Which looks back over the
:33:03. > :33:09.last ten years, specifically at research in acedemia, rather than
:33:10. > :33:13.in industry. The review was led by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson,
:33:13. > :33:18.President of the Zoological Society of London. Who said while the
:33:18. > :33:22.subject is largely controversial and raises strong emotions, an all-
:33:22. > :33:27.or-nothing approach to research on non-human primates would have been
:33:27. > :33:32.stupid. We do reckon research on non-human primates should continue,
:33:32. > :33:34.but subject to stringent safeguards and it should involve not only an
:33:34. > :33:38.assessment of the quality of the science, but also whether or not
:33:38. > :33:42.the animals are going to suffer, at all, and whether there is likely to
:33:42. > :33:46.be medical benefit or public good benefit. What they found was that
:33:46. > :33:50.much of the research was outstanding in quality. In its care
:33:50. > :33:54.for animals and in its likely benefits to medicine, but not all
:33:54. > :33:58.of it. The thought behind this review is that scientists
:33:58. > :34:04.conducting research on primates have an almost unwritten contract
:34:04. > :34:08.with the public, that re that research should have a tangible
:34:08. > :34:12.medical benefit. The panel was concerned about approximately 9% of
:34:12. > :34:17.research programmes from which no clear scientific, medical or social
:34:17. > :34:23.benefit had emerged. Panel member, Mark Prescott, works for the
:34:23. > :34:33.National Centre for The Final Testament Of The Holy Bible, an
:34:33. > :34:37.
:34:37. > :34:43.The 9% yielded no fine bet at all. Any exploration in any scientific -
:34:43. > :34:47.no benefit at all. Any exploration in any scientific research
:34:47. > :34:54.discovers what you are expected recover. If 9% was not up to
:34:54. > :34:58.scratch, it implies 91% was. A department in king college London
:34:58. > :35:02.heads up research, and it is said that some studies have no
:35:02. > :35:08.alternatives and may take many years to show benefits. I have just
:35:08. > :35:13.come back from a meeting in Florence about the International
:35:13. > :35:19.Brain Research Authority, I saw a video of a monkey with a robotic
:35:19. > :35:22.arm directing the arm by his thoughts. Scientists are now using
:35:22. > :35:26.implants of electrodes in the brains of people without the use of
:35:26. > :35:31.arms and legs to give them movement and perhaps one day getting them
:35:31. > :35:35.walking. We scientists are very reluctant to do work on primates,
:35:35. > :35:39.except where we need to, if the justification is not there, it
:35:39. > :35:44.should not be done. The panel made 15 recommendations,
:35:44. > :35:49.among them, that scientists seeking funding for primate testing should
:35:49. > :35:53.show they have considered alternatives such as studying cells
:35:53. > :35:57.or computer simulations, and whether in some cases humans could
:35:57. > :36:00.be used in research instead. Those using primates should publish
:36:00. > :36:04.negative results to prevent the repeating of unnecessary work.
:36:04. > :36:09.Those funding and carrying out the work should state clearly when they
:36:09. > :36:14.expect a medical benefit. The panel says it is not ruling out research
:36:14. > :36:18.with no obvious medical benefit, they say superlative science should
:36:18. > :36:25.still go ahead the, but the scientists need to be clearer about
:36:25. > :36:28.why they want to do research and careful not to hype the potential.
:36:28. > :36:32.Organisations campaigning for an outright ban on all primate
:36:32. > :36:36.research, say the report was written for those who fund the work,
:36:36. > :36:40.and scientists who have a vested interest in keeping it, but still
:36:40. > :36:43.proved a chilling insight. This report is anything but good news,
:36:43. > :36:48.it is illustrating the use of primates, as far as we are
:36:48. > :36:52.concerned, is failing as a model, we want to see modern humane
:36:52. > :36:55.research techniques that moves away from the use of primate, let's look
:36:55. > :37:00.at the recommendations. 25 years after we had a law on research in
:37:00. > :37:03.this country, we are still having to say to researchers, please only
:37:03. > :37:08.use primates where it is absolutely necessary, don't use them where
:37:08. > :37:17.there is an alternative. That is already the law. In recent weeks we
:37:17. > :37:24.have seen a monkey creating a tool to deal with his toenails and
:37:24. > :37:30.another monkey taking a photograph of him selves, the discussion about
:37:30. > :37:37.whether or not toe use primates for human benefit is far from over.
:37:37. > :37:42.My guests are we with me now, the Professor who has used monkeys in
:37:42. > :37:49.research for Parkinson disease. And Professor Paul Matthews, a panel
:37:49. > :37:52.member of today's Bates report, and a specialist in human brain images.
:37:52. > :37:57.- brain imaging. The interesting question here is
:37:57. > :38:03.how could you get, given the sensitivities in this area, from
:38:03. > :38:07.91% to 100%, which is where it ought to be? That would be
:38:07. > :38:13.preaching an impossibility. We're scientists because we are exploring
:38:13. > :38:17.the unknown. Therefore, there will always be projects that may not
:38:17. > :38:22.reach the conclusion that they wanted. From your perspective, can
:38:22. > :38:27.we ever get to 100%? It is a very important question. I think the
:38:27. > :38:31.first thing that is important to point out is this was a
:38:31. > :38:35.retrospective review, with observations going back as far as
:38:35. > :38:40.1997. A number of processes have been put into place, since then,
:38:40. > :38:46.following the Weatherall report five years ago, which have
:38:46. > :38:50.substantially changed the standard of proof that is needed, of the
:38:50. > :38:56.need for scientific research in primates, and more over for
:38:56. > :39:01.painting the trail between research and outcome. So can we move closer
:39:01. > :39:10.to 100%. I think the committee felt that we must rigorously try to do
:39:10. > :39:15.so. Important ideas that came forward were to help provide the
:39:15. > :39:19.infrastructure for academic scientists, to be able to more
:39:19. > :39:25.effectively translate their work into a medical or other broad
:39:25. > :39:30.social environment. Now, you say there is always going to be a
:39:30. > :39:34.percentage that you don't know how they are going to turn out. Is that
:39:34. > :39:38.desirable thing in itself, or just the natural consequence of the way
:39:38. > :39:42.that science operates? It is a natural consequence of science.
:39:42. > :39:49.Because if we knew all the answers we wouldn't be doing the
:39:49. > :39:56.experiments, and sometimes. Is it possible some could subsequently be
:39:56. > :40:02.vindicated? Yes, as that chap just said on your programme, that
:40:02. > :40:08.studying how the monkey controls a movement of an extraneous device by
:40:08. > :40:10.thinking about it, is possibly, after 20 years, conceptually a
:40:10. > :40:15.clinical possibility. You don't seem necessarily to admit, that you
:40:15. > :40:20.say at one point in this report, the panels' assessment of medical
:40:20. > :40:24.and other benefits were made with difficulty, and could often be no
:40:24. > :40:28.more than informed guesses. Is that adequate? That is a statement of
:40:28. > :40:30.the information that was available on many of the studies. Now there
:40:30. > :40:35.were some outstanding example where is the translation was very clear.
:40:35. > :40:39.There were many example where is the translation needed, or the
:40:39. > :40:43.translatability needed to be inferred. This gets back to the
:40:43. > :40:47.recommendation that scientist, and the funding agencies, be helped to
:40:47. > :40:50.establish the infrastructure, to make the scientific information
:40:50. > :40:56.available from these studies, rapidly moving to the important
:40:56. > :41:04.impact that is are needed. There is one other point, that perhaps comes,
:41:04. > :41:10.and is important to bear in mind. Negative results are not results of
:41:10. > :41:13.no value. If a question is...They Are results of no value if no-one
:41:13. > :41:18.knows about them? That is the key point. That was the most
:41:18. > :41:23.disappointing and disturbing thing about that 9%, that was the 9% were
:41:23. > :41:28.studies for which there had not been an outcome that had appeared,
:41:28. > :41:31.positive or negative, and this is what the committee felt very
:41:32. > :41:36.strongly needed to be part of the change that we helped to drive
:41:36. > :41:41.forward from now on. What you are saying is if you don't get the
:41:41. > :41:45.result that you are looking for or consider any use, you should
:41:45. > :41:50.publish it so others know? If you ask a good question a positive
:41:50. > :41:55.result is of value, and a negative result is of value. Why doesn't
:41:55. > :41:59.that happen now? For several reasons, if one achieves a negative
:41:59. > :42:03.result very few journals will publish it. Surely on the web
:42:04. > :42:08.anyone can publish anything? Yes, but perhaps not in the most
:42:08. > :42:14.respected journals, one that would bring impact or cite your work. The
:42:14. > :42:19.other thing is publishing negative work also distracts from your
:42:19. > :42:24.chances of getting further research funding. If you admit it didn't
:42:24. > :42:28.work out, you might not get funded to do it again? Not the same
:42:28. > :42:34.experiment again but further research. That is nuts isn't it?
:42:34. > :42:40.think you have expressed a very common view. But I think that if,
:42:40. > :42:44.again, let me go back to the point, that for good scientist, for
:42:44. > :42:49.excellent scientists, who ask cheer questions for which positive and
:42:49. > :42:53.negative results are equally valuable, achieving a negative
:42:53. > :42:57.result need not mean that further funding is not necessary. It is
:42:57. > :43:01.also true, as you know in the context of human clinical trials,
:43:01. > :43:07.that there are mechanisms by which negative results can be published
:43:07. > :43:12.to provide a record for the community, so that no-one else
:43:12. > :43:17.tries to do the same experiment. That would be the good thing?
:43:17. > :43:23.agree, nowadays on the web it is much more possible than in the past.
:43:23. > :43:26.Just on the broader point, the report recommends that as much as
:43:26. > :43:31.possible there should be further research into other ways of
:43:31. > :43:35.conducting experiments than on non- human primates. Why is it that we
:43:36. > :43:42.are so sensitive about experiments upon these, research with these
:43:42. > :43:46.kinds of animals as opposed to mice or rats or anything else.
:43:46. > :43:51.I guess people feel it is a humanisation is easier with a
:43:51. > :43:56.primate. Because they look like us? Vaguely,
:43:56. > :44:03.and afterall we are primates too. So I guess people...As A scientist
:44:03. > :44:09.does it make sense to you? No. not? Because there are certain
:44:09. > :44:18.disease that is you cannot study to the same effect in non-human
:44:18. > :44:23.primates. Certainly my research over the last 20 years on
:44:23. > :44:28.Parkinson's diseases, that work evolved from that work would not be
:44:28. > :44:35.used if I did the work on rats, they are wired differently, they
:44:35. > :44:39.have four legs rather than an arms and leg, if I wanted to look at
:44:39. > :44:49.that treatment I need to look at a close model.
:44:49. > :45:07.
:45:07. > :45:11.The front pages, Tom Daley diving Lots of BBC people at the year to
:45:11. > :45:16.the Olympics and the cost of keeping those very attractive Civil
:45:16. > :45:21.Service pensions have gone up by 3,000 a year. The police are
:45:21. > :45:27.looking into Harvey Weinstein's death, according to the Mirror, and
:45:27. > :45:35.the Independent has news of rationing within the NHS.
:45:35. > :45:39.Now on tomorrow's programme, we look at why America's economic
:45:39. > :45:43.recovery has stalled. The new Mrs Miliband is looking forward to a
:45:43. > :45:48.decent night's sleep soon, her husband had an operation on his
:45:48. > :45:53.nose to correct his sleep apnia, he didn't do it to improve his voice.
:45:53. > :46:00.If the operation has worked and he no longer snores, he is leaving
:46:00. > :46:04.some politically very powerful company, we leave you with
:46:04. > :46:14.distinguished snorers! Goodnight.
:46:14. > :46:41.
:46:41. > :46:44.Getting the detail right over the next few days will not be easy, the
:46:45. > :46:48.bottom line is many of us will stay dry, despite the fact we have rain
:46:48. > :46:51.on the chart, early on Thursday, crossing out of Scotland, into the
:46:51. > :46:55.far North West of England and Wales. It is fragmenting all the while.
:46:55. > :46:59.Just dribs and drabs left by the afternoon, across parts of northern
:46:59. > :47:03.England. The south of that, the Midlands looks like a fine day.
:47:03. > :47:06.Eastern England compared to Wednesday, warmer, 25 degrees in
:47:06. > :47:10.London, very nice indeed. Across the south west some increase in
:47:10. > :47:13.cloud, maybe the odd spot of drizzle, that will be it. You might
:47:13. > :47:17.hang on to brightness, Wales too, that weather front will bring an
:47:18. > :47:21.increase in cloud, and the odd spot of rain. Some brightness possible
:47:21. > :47:24.in one or two places. For Northern Ireland after a wet night in some
:47:24. > :47:28.place, things brightening up through the course of the day,
:47:28. > :47:31.temperatures not as high as they were on Wednesday, pleasant in the
:47:31. > :47:35.sunshine. That goes for the Highlands in Scotland, reaching 25
:47:35. > :47:40.today, not as warm tomorrow, dry with brightness. Improving stories
:47:40. > :47:44.as we end the week across northern parts of the UK, the sunshine
:47:44. > :47:51.returning by Friday, pleasant with light winds, simply ayes cross the
:47:51. > :47:54.south. Patchy cloud, sun shy, light wind. - sunshine, light winds.