27/07/2011 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/07/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It may not give him sleepless nights, well not as much as NATO


bombs do, but the British have decided to chuck out Colonel


Gaddafi's representatives in London, and to recognise the rebel National


Transitional Council in Benghazi as the voice of the country. About


time too, you might think, but what does it mean? Supporters of the


rebels can't even get into the building. This is for us, this is


for the Libyan people. Gaddafi this is for Libya.


The new ambassador, who yesterday was just another London exile, is


here with us. The man who was Gordon Brown's


secretary for Work and Pensions has been looking for new ways to reform


the welfare system. Could it reconnect his party with the voters.


What I would love is to see Britain fall in love with welfare again,


for people to love the welfare state as much as they do the NHS.


He's here to explain his ideas to a couple of sceptics.


And nine out of ten scientific experiments on monkeys are deemed


necessary, high quality and useful. But why isn't it ten out of ten.


Only a few weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary was telling us it was


quite impossible for the British Government to give diplomatic


recognition to the rebels trying to topple Colonel Gaddafi. Today,


finally he changed his mind, and booted the remaining Gaddafi


diplomats out of Britain. Apparently it was possible afterall,


not least because the Americans had decided it was. The dictator,


meanwhile, survives in Tripoli, after months of NATO bombing.


You know what you did Gaddafi, you are killers, we will not forget


what you did. Today they were outside the London embassy, by the


end of the week, it will be their's. Supporters of the Libyan opposition


were delighted that Britain has given Gaddafi's diplomats 24 hours


to leave. The policy has shifted, the opposition are deemed Libya's


authority. We have been waiting for this time and moment for five


months now. We are very, very happy. Remember diplomacy, well to reverse


the normal formula, it is war by other means. For months we have had


the curious situation where Britain's bombing Gaddafi in his


stronghold in Libya, while allowing his tkpwhats to remain here in the


embassy in - diplomats to remain here in London. Suddenly that is


changing, Britain is tightening the diplomating squeeze, why now?


The Foreign Secretary was in Benghazi last month, now he says


his status at the whole of Libya is unique, it warrants recognition of


the National Transitional Council. Libya's assets will be unfrozen for


their benefit. The Libyan people will be assured we will remain on


their side for as long as it takes. I'm making the announcement today


to reflect the facts on the ground and increase our support for those


fighting and working for a better future in Libya. On the ground n


Lybia, the effects of British and French bombs continue to be felt


with the reported 40 strikes a day. Gaddafi's forces, skon scripts and


mercenaries, are said to be near breaking point. In a way the


bombing campaign is part of the generalised pressure, it is not a


silver bullet by any stretch, it is part of a generalised pressure to


create an uprising in Tripoli. As and when that happens, then I think


you will find opposition forces moving into the city pretty quickly.


Do you think that will happen? convinced myself there will be an


uprising in Tripoli, whether it will happen soon as opposed to a


couple of months time, we just don't know. But it has dragged on,


and if Gaddafi holds on much longer, into August and Ramadan, NATO's


ultimate success, always deemed inevitable, will ring hollow. The


Libyan opposition TV channel, out of Doha, announced that the


National Transitional Council had already appoint add London


ambassador. But who are - appointed a London ambassador, but who are


they themselves? It is an arrangement to bring into coalition


a group of opposition supporters. Some of them are pretty Islamic


fundamentalist, some are very secular, some are on the buy sis of


tribal loyalties, a mixed - basis of tribal loyalties a mixed bunch.


On Monday William Hague revealed that Gaddafi could remain in Libya,


as long as he relinguished power, this confounded the advice of


before. Our message to Colonel Gaddafi is to go now. He must go.


It now transpires they merely need him to leave the presidential tent.


Britain has thus fallen into line with the French policy. As for


recognising the transitional council, that too is a policy


already adopted elsewhere, by the international Contact Group, two


weeks ago. But Gaddafi, remember, is facing an international arrest


warrant for war crimes. So could he legally remain in internal exile.


If privately Gaddafi, or those speaking for him, are sending


signals to the British and the French, this would be a face-saving


way out, then I can understand. makes sense? It makes sense, I can


understand why the British Government would be publicly


assuring him that this could be a way forward. But if they are not


getting those signals, then the British Government is itself


sending mixed signals and that is going to tend to undermine the


effectiveness of the arrest warrant and the strategy that has been put


in place so far. Isn't any Government compelled to arrest him,


because the International Criminal Court have warrant out for him?


Under the statute of the International Criminal Court, there


is a rule in one of the little known provision that is allows the


Security Council, to revisit the situation where it has instigated


the investigation, which it did in this case and pass a new resolution,


in effect, suspending the investigation and possibly also the


arrest warrant. So there are possibilities in


what's unchartered legal territory. The Libyan opposition will feel


politically they are closer tonight to achieving their target. In


London, at least, they are about to take possession. In Libya,


Gaddafi's days may be numbered but he still has support. Here at rally


last night, is Abdel Baser al- Megrahi, the man convicted of the


Libyan bombing, defying medical prognosis, still alive.


Our diplomatic editor is in Cairo, from where he joins us now. How


does this look from Cairo, Mark? don't think it will surprise you if


I tell you that Britain is kicking out eight Libyan diplomats has


hardly stopped the traffic here at night. There is more interest in


local media in the idea that the transitional council will take over


the embassy, that certain funds may be freed up. But overall, the tone


in the region seems to have been set in recent days by some quite


pessimist be comments from the UN envoy, who is supposedly looking at


way it find a way out of the Libyan embroilment. He's talked about the


two sides not having moved at all in their position since the bombing


started. That leaves a lot of people, I think, feeling this is


just going to have to go on. I was speaking to a former senior


Egyptian Air Force officer this evening, he basically said NATO has


to carry on, we understand that, he described it as a relatively cheap


operation in terms of the number of aircraft, and he said it could have


a very cheap outcome with the death of one man and drew his finger


across his throat. I think there is understanding here, that it may


well carry on, and that the diplomatic situation may be pretty


much deadlocked. What about the suggestion that it could end with


Colonel Gaddafi still in Libya in some form? This is a really


interesting area, in terms of diplomacy, the man I referred to,


the official UN envoy, is not rated particularly by the British and


French Governments. They have been exploring through other


intermediaries various possible ways out of this. We know the


African Union has been involved, the South Africans, we also know


the Russians have been involved. I think it is really on the Russians


that they pin their hopes. Now, we were hearing in the report just


then, from the profess yo, that things could be done by the


security d professor, that things could be done by the security


powers to lift that arrest warrant if that was part of a package. If


that situation was reached, and there is no indication tonight that


they are that close to a solution, then you would have US, UK, France


and, of course, Russia, as the brokers of such a deal, stepping


forward. China wouldn't block it. You can see how it might just work.


Most people seem to think we are still some way from that.


We are joined now by the representative of the National


Transitional Council, he was made effectively Libyan ambassador to


London today. When did you learn? This morning. Were you surprised?


Yes, a bit surprised. Have you any experience as a diplomat? No, I


haven't any experience. But I'm a political fighter for more than 30


years, I live in exile, and I am happy to serve my country and the


relations between the UK and the new Libya. We appreciate very much


the decision of the British Government, from the beginning of


the crisis until now. But it is 30 years since you have been in Libya?


33 years I'm away from Libya. that going to make it difficult to


represent Libya here in Britain? live with Libyan problems, the


Libyan life all my life. I'm in touch with my relations, with my


friend, and I know what is going on in Libya every day. You're a


journalist aren't you? Yes. I was reading something you wrote in


February this year, I was rather astonished by it, you said, that


despite the heavy sacrifice they are suffering every day, Libyans


reject any foreign intervention even for their defence and


protection s that still your position? At that time because


there was no bombing and no atrocities. You didn't want any


bombing? No atrocities from Gaddafi, but when he used his own weapons


against the civilians, we have to ask for help. So we are


appreciating the help of the international community, of the


Arabic world, and everyone who helps us. There is also confusion


about what is going to be the end game here. The British and various


others were saying very early on that Gaddafi had to leave Libya, do


you think he can stay there and this crisis be solved? No, it is


impossible. So he has to quit the country? Either he stays in power,


or he quits. And disappears from the stage in Libya. He can quit


power, quit the Presidential Palace and stay in Libya do you think?


I think it is impossible also. He will be taken to the courts, even


to the criminal courts, or to the Libyan courts. That is what is


being suggested by the British Government, that he might some how


manage to stay living in Libya? think they will change finally


their view, and many countries I think they got a lot of information


now that Gaddafi and his soldiers, in the weakest position, at this


time. Where would you like him to go?


soon as possible. Where would you like him to go? He can decide, he


can go to ...Should He be put on trial at the International Criminal


Court? Yes, if they got him. They asked us in the last you know ...As


Far as the people you represent are concerned, we heard in that report


from Peter Marshall, that they are a broad coalition, some are


secularist, some Islamic fundamentalist, what do you stand


for apart from getting rid of Gaddafi? I think the moderate


Libyan is the mainstream. When you look for the people who are


fighting now on the ground, they are not elite, they are not


fundamentalists, they are from the mainstream of Libyan people. And I


think also the future will be controlled by the mainstream who


look for work, or look for a good standard of life, who look for good


hospitals, good schools, that is what they look for.


When do you get possession of the embassy? Maybe next week. You hope?


Yes. Have they told you how soon the current people will leave?


think very soon they will leave. Thank you very much indeed.


What's to be done about the welfare system in this country? As they


looked around at the wreckage of the last Government in the


aftermath of last year's election wipout, many senior Labour figures


realised that many people had lost faith in them because they lost


faith in the way the welfare system works. Now those Labour figures see


reforming the system as a vital thing to reconnect with the voters.


We asked James Purnell, secretary for Work and Pensions in Gordon


Brown's Government, what he thought When I was a cabinet minister, we


spent more money on welfare, because we wanted to reduce poverty,


it was one of the things that everybody in the Labour Government


agreed about. But when it came to the last election, one of the


reasons that we lost was that traditional Labour supporters no


longer backed the welfare state. When he was in his teens...Remember


This famous encounter, everyone focused on the discussion about


immigration, it was what came before that is to revealing. Three


main things I was drummed in when I was a child, was education, health


service and looking after people who are vulnerable. But there is


too many people now who aren't vulnerable, but they can claim and


people who are vulnerable can't get claims can't get it. They shouldn't


be doing that. So that's Mrs Duffy, one of the really interesting


things about her is that she's born in 1945 she's a Beveridge baby,


part of the generation that grew up with new council estates and who


love the welfare state as much as the NHS. But not any more.


The pollster, Peter Kellner, says there is plenty of evidence that


welfare supporters have lost faith in the welfare state. Great many of


the people who one would have thought would be natural Labour


voters came to think, by the end of Labour's time in power, that Labour


reflected special groups. Immigrant, public sector workers, the poorest,


single mothers. It was not seen as a party for the generality of white


working-class Britain. And I think Gillian Duffy represented a


widespread feeling that people paying their taxes and National


Insurance, they thought it was a contributory system that would work


fairly over their lifetime to their benefit, and they came to feel they


weren't getting it back. As the as a result of much


intensive study into questions of social security, Sir we have


Beveridge is the recognised authority on present day and post-


war problems. Voters loved Beveridge's welfare state, because


it was based on a clear principle. In his words, benefit in return for


contribution, rather than free allowances from the state was what


the people of Britain require. extra you pay is your contribution


towards the pension you will get when the time comes. This young


fella can look forward to a secure old age.


Jon Cruddas is the MP for Dagenham, he and I were elected at the same


time. He believes that there is still a


lot we can learn from that idea of social solidarity, that came out of


Second World War. I think there was a new covenant


between the people and the Government, at local level as well


as national level, that you had good quality housing, you had good


quality secure jobs for you and your family. You had pensions that


went along with that, and you had public service, health and


education that were developing and you could rely on it. It is about


the essential character of the community and the country actually,


it is a distinct Hallmark in terms of our sense of duty and obligation


to others, beyond an individual economic transfer. Actually people


were buying into it emotionally weren't they, it was deaf nigs of


who they were and what society was - definition of who they were and


what society was like? I like it, it resonates today as well as 1945.


The reason Britain has fallen out of love with welfare is the


covenant has broken down. We have a welfare state that isn't demanding


enough of people and doesn't protect them enough. There are


dozens of benefits in this country, they offer something to people that


they don't value enough when times are good, but don't protect them


enough when times are bad. We should have a smaller number of


protection, but ones people would really value. Things of which


people would say, that's why I pay my taxes. A bit like they do for


the NHS. So there would be a right to work,


but also an obligation to work. The Government would guarantee you


a job, but if you didn't take it up, you would lose your benefit, you


would get more if you paid in, perhaps some sort of wage


protection, while you looked for another job. Free childcare would


enable more parents to work. If you contributed all your life, it would


be clear you would get a higher pension than those who hadn't paid


in. To fund all that we might have to look to cut somewhere else,


higher rate tax relief on pensions, free bus basss and free TV license,


even some parts of child benefit, perhaps.


Liam Byrne represents one of the poorest constituencies in the


country, but that makes him more in favour of reforming welfare rather


than less. Right now the problem I think we have got in Britain is


that people don't feel they get out of the welfare state what they put


in. And they sort of feel that if we just stopped rewarding the


people behaving irresponsibly, there would be more money to help


those who were responsible and were doing the right thing. It is really


important that we face this blunt reality that people don't think


that the Labour Party was strong enough on the responsibility to


take work if you could. We're not a head-on - ahead on welfare reform


now, we have to get back into the lead.


Liam is right. We needing to back to that Beveridge idea, of benefit


in return for contribution. So what I would love is to see


Britain fall in love with welfare again, for people to love the


welfare state as much as they do the NHS, and I think for us to do


that we will have to show everybody that people had to contribute to


the welfare state. What we really need to do now is show people that


the welfare state protects people. It is too late for people to fall


in love with something called the welfare state, they might fall in


love with something called the protection state.


James Purnell joins us in the studio. We're also joined by


Elizabeth Truss, who is the Conservative MP for South-West


Norfolk, and Vidhya Alakeson, the research direction for the


Resolution Foundation think-tank. I will talk to you a minute or two


before we have the discussion. The Government would guarantee everyone


a job. How would they do that? were doing that before the last


election. So when you get to, the ideal scheme would be after a year


if you haven't found a job, would you get one from a local authority


or charity, but you would have to take it. Job seekers' allowance


would be limited to one year, after that you get a proper minimum wage


job, that is more likely to get you there. But the state pays for that?


It doesn't cost that much. There are 2.5 million people unemployed,


the state would employ every one of them? 85% of people find employment


for a year, at the moment we pay for them to stay on benefits for a


long time. By having that you save lots of money because people


cheating the system come off the benefit, if you are a taxi driver


claiming and working you have to give up your benefit, because


people say here is a job you can't continue with the other job. It is


fairer to people, it creates a proper way for them to get a


minimum wage and get a proper skill and job. You have costed that?


did it in Government and the Tories abolished it. You didn't guarantee


everyone a job, there were over two million unemployed by the time you


left office. We said we would guarantee a job for anyone who


couldn't find one under their own scheme. Other place who is do it is


not massively expensive, it plaix the welfare state tougher but


fairer. You are saying we should have zero unemployment? Nobody


should be out of work for more than a year, it is a real protection.


I'm saying in the film we need to look at what people are frightened


of and genuinely protect them. At the moment we give them a bit of


money and it doesn't take the fear away. You particularly dislike


various targeted benefit, you mentioned free bus travel, free


television licenses for older people and one or two other things,


higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and so on. How much


would getting rid of all of those save? Billions. The things we


mention, �30 billion depending on getting rid of them or targeting


them. I'm saying the goi., no Government ever really since


Beveridge asked what do we want to do with the system. Let me finish


the point. You look at where to save money and add incrementally on


the welfare state. Start with a clean state, what are the things we


want to do and get rid of the things we can't afford. Much better


to have a job guarantee and free childcare, if that means we can't


afford some other things, fine, that doesn't necessarily mean


having higher taxes. If you want much more protections you have to


be tougher. The reason I don't think they are worth keeping, some


of them, you are taking money away from people in taxes, and then


giving it back in benefit, you would bind people in by giving them


real protection that is they would know it is worth paying their taxes


for. Let's explore all of these ideas, he sounds like a Tory in


some respects? I don't think he is, he started his film saying I want


to help people to love the welfare state. You don't, you hate it?


is wrong with it? We want to help people to love working and get


people back into work. He says he will do that? We want to make


people capable so they don't have to rely on the Government to bail


them out. That should be the aim of what things we are doing, like the


work programme, the Universal Creditor, to give people that


capability to make their own decisions. And the idea that the


Government is going to recreate Beveridge, and have a whole new


insurance scheme provided by the Government, strikes me as


unworkable. Explain to her why it might work? Your Government is


continuing something which we have done in this area, we are bring


anything a company pension for everyone, Nest from every year,


that will organise a pension for five to ten million people,


delivered by the private sector but organised by the state. That is a


big extension in the welfare state, your Government is continuing it.


It is different when it is delivered by the private sector.


The NHS is delivered by the state and more efficient than privately.


The problem with social insurance is the people who need it can't


afford to pay for it, because the insurance companies don't want to


protect them, the people who don't need it don't pay for it. By


pooling our risk together we can protect ourselves better. Do you


think the proposal, as outlined by James Purnell is fair? I want to


take issue with a central premise that seems to underpin the


proposals, that people love the NHS because they get out what they put


in. People love the NHS because it comes to their rescue when they get


ill, what they get out is based on how ill they are, not at all how


much they have contributed. So there seems to be two ideas mixed


up, one about contribution. Don't explain to me, but him? One about


contribution, and one about providing a smaller number of


benefits but making them richer and deeper. They seem to be at odds to


me. I totally agree there is two different ideas. One is that we


would make people love the welfare state because it really proed them


so it was there when - protected them when they needed it, like the


NHS, extending to long-term care, child cautious and how you pay for


it. We don't - childcare and also how you pay for it all. We don't


say to people who smoke we won't cure your cancer, but if someone


has worked hard and saved more we want them to get more out of the


system. A lot of women take time out of work, a lot of people with


long-term health conditions fall in and out of work, they are not


irresponsible because that is, it is a luck question, fate deals them


card. It is not a hypothetical question, I brought in a reform


that women who stay at home you pay their National Insurance


contribution, and the same with disabled people, if you are


contributinging to society and you are disabled we pay your National


Insurance contribution. Won't it increase cost, some of the things


you mentioned like the TV license, that would save half a billion, if


you compare the cost of providing universal childcare, that is


estimated to be �20 billion, that would be an extra 2p on income tax,


we are talking about a huge increase in taxation to pay for


these universal benefits, people already feel they are paying too


much, they are paying �3,000 on average for welfare payment t will


increase the cost hugely. Child benefit, for example, is �12


billion, more money you can get from that. You would abolish it.


The tax relief people get on higher rate tax contributions, �7 billion,


there are �30 billion of middle- class benefits found by you. We


never get into the discussion about the kind of welfare state we want,


the only amount we can allocate is the little bit of savings. We


should start with a clean sheet of paper and ask what do we want it to


look like. What is the welfare state for? To protect people.


they lose their job? Yes. From poverty in old age. What else?


Beveridge had his five evils to be protected from, they are still


pretty good. At the moment we don't. Before the credit crunch we had


gone to the idea that everybody would look after themselves and


markets would always work, it wasn't true. We need to protect


people against the things they are really scared about, losing their


home, their job, being ill for a long time in old age f there are


other benefit that is people don't value as much, I would put them


down the list of priorities. I'm not saying get rid of child benefit,


let's order the things we worry about. What do we care least about


that we currently pay? Winter fuel allowances. You wouldn't say that


if you were an old person who wouldn't afford their fuel bill?


talk today a lot of people about free bus pass, saying I should get


it when I'm 70 or 80. It is better to have one pension rather than all


the freebies. Would you be prepared to see something like child poverty


rise if you were redirecting your spending towards richer protection


that is are more universal around childcare and a job guarantee,


something has to give. If the pie is limited, if you are not going to


poke tus on child poverty, which was overly focused on - focus on


child poverty which was overly focused on the last Government,


what about child poverty. You end up rewarding people doing the wrong


thing and punishing those doing the right thing, giving them money


whether they are work organise not or not working or not. We should


have a child poverty goal, if you are working and your child won't be


poor, if your child is young your child be poor. This lifting the


child out of poverty regardless of what parents do, encourages


behaviour of parents, not going out to work, which ends up penalising


the child. I would reframe the child poverty goals. What we are


talking about is giving childcare to very rich people, and at the


same time cutting child benefit. do that for primary schools,


secondary schools, if you say to mums would you rather have good


free childcare can he start or child benefit all the way through,


most would like free childcare at the beginning. As you are here I


would like to ask you a couple of other questions, notably about your


leader at present, Ed Miliband, your leader of your former party,


you are still a member. He is my leader. Does he buy any of these


ideas? He's interested in the idea of contribution. He made a speech


recently about responsibility where he spoke about some of it. It is


early days for the Labour Party. you look at him in opposition, and


you look at where you were as an elected MP, you don't think with


all these ideas it would be fun to get back into mainstream politics


and try to put them into effect? You can do lots of politics outside


parliament, that is what I'm doing. You have no desire to go back into


parliament? One thing about Ed, before the recent News


International spat, there was a real danger that people were


writing him off as not having a chance, the election was being


fought through the press in advance of that, people should go treating


him as someone who has a good chance of being the next Prime


Minister. Why did you turn down the opportunity for being his Chief-of-


Staff? Because I had left politics two weeks previously and it would


be odd to go back. He has good ideas on responsibility, and


interested in the ideas on contribution. Compared to 1994, it


is a much more complicated task. When Gordon and Tony and Peter went


in, it was clear what not to do, it was 15 years of wrong answers, Ed


and his team have to think it over from scratch, he's taking steps


before that. You have ruled out the idea of joining his crusade as an


elected MP? I'm a big part of his crusade without being an elected MP.


Around one in ten of academic research programmes on monkeys in


the UK produces no clear scientific, medical or social benefit, that is


how much of the news media reported the results of a highly respective


research today. One could say it vindicates nine out of ten


experiments. Animal rights activists say none at all can be


justified. How do you side what is legitimate and not. Meet chimp nine,


we gave him a gene therapy that allows the brain to create its own


cells in order to repair itself. We call it the cure to Alzheimer's.


is a Hollywood interpretation, and pretty far from reality,


nevertheless, rise of the planet - Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes,


explores a long standing relationship with other primate,


not least as subjects of research. In the US scientists still use


chimps in research, it is banned in the UK. Every year some 3,000 or so


monkeys are still used. The organisations that fund this kind


of research commissioned today's review. Which looks back over the


last ten years, specifically at research in acedemia, rather than


in industry. The review was led by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson,


President of the Zoological Society of London. Who said while the


subject is largely controversial and raises strong emotions, an all-


or-nothing approach to research on non-human primates would have been


stupid. We do reckon research on non-human primates should continue,


but subject to stringent safeguards and it should involve not only an


assessment of the quality of the science, but also whether or not


the animals are going to suffer, at all, and whether there is likely to


be medical benefit or public good benefit. What they found was that


much of the research was outstanding in quality. In its care


for animals and in its likely benefits to medicine, but not all


of it. The thought behind this review is that scientists


conducting research on primates have an almost unwritten contract


with the public, that re that research should have a tangible


medical benefit. The panel was concerned about approximately 9% of


research programmes from which no clear scientific, medical or social


benefit had emerged. Panel member, Mark Prescott, works for the


National Centre for The Final Testament Of The Holy Bible, an


The 9% yielded no fine bet at all. Any exploration in any scientific -


no benefit at all. Any exploration in any scientific research


discovers what you are expected recover. If 9% was not up to


scratch, it implies 91% was. A department in king college London


heads up research, and it is said that some studies have no


alternatives and may take many years to show benefits. I have just


come back from a meeting in Florence about the International


Brain Research Authority, I saw a video of a monkey with a robotic


arm directing the arm by his thoughts. Scientists are now using


implants of electrodes in the brains of people without the use of


arms and legs to give them movement and perhaps one day getting them


walking. We scientists are very reluctant to do work on primates,


except where we need to, if the justification is not there, it


should not be done. The panel made 15 recommendations,


among them, that scientists seeking funding for primate testing should


show they have considered alternatives such as studying cells


or computer simulations, and whether in some cases humans could


be used in research instead. Those using primates should publish


negative results to prevent the repeating of unnecessary work.


Those funding and carrying out the work should state clearly when they


expect a medical benefit. The panel says it is not ruling out research


with no obvious medical benefit, they say superlative science should


still go ahead the, but the scientists need to be clearer about


why they want to do research and careful not to hype the potential.


Organisations campaigning for an outright ban on all primate


research, say the report was written for those who fund the work,


and scientists who have a vested interest in keeping it, but still


proved a chilling insight. This report is anything but good news,


it is illustrating the use of primates, as far as we are


concerned, is failing as a model, we want to see modern humane


research techniques that moves away from the use of primate, let's look


at the recommendations. 25 years after we had a law on research in


this country, we are still having to say to researchers, please only


use primates where it is absolutely necessary, don't use them where


there is an alternative. That is already the law. In recent weeks we


have seen a monkey creating a tool to deal with his toenails and


another monkey taking a photograph of him selves, the discussion about


whether or not toe use primates for human benefit is far from over.


My guests are we with me now, the Professor who has used monkeys in


research for Parkinson disease. And Professor Paul Matthews, a panel


member of today's Bates report, and a specialist in human brain images.


- brain imaging. The interesting question here is


how could you get, given the sensitivities in this area, from


91% to 100%, which is where it ought to be? That would be


preaching an impossibility. We're scientists because we are exploring


the unknown. Therefore, there will always be projects that may not


reach the conclusion that they wanted. From your perspective, can


we ever get to 100%? It is a very important question. I think the


first thing that is important to point out is this was a


retrospective review, with observations going back as far as


1997. A number of processes have been put into place, since then,


following the Weatherall report five years ago, which have


substantially changed the standard of proof that is needed, of the


need for scientific research in primates, and more over for


painting the trail between research and outcome. So can we move closer


to 100%. I think the committee felt that we must rigorously try to do


so. Important ideas that came forward were to help provide the


infrastructure for academic scientists, to be able to more


effectively translate their work into a medical or other broad


social environment. Now, you say there is always going to be a


percentage that you don't know how they are going to turn out. Is that


desirable thing in itself, or just the natural consequence of the way


that science operates? It is a natural consequence of science.


Because if we knew all the answers we wouldn't be doing the


experiments, and sometimes. Is it possible some could subsequently be


vindicated? Yes, as that chap just said on your programme, that


studying how the monkey controls a movement of an extraneous device by


thinking about it, is possibly, after 20 years, conceptually a


clinical possibility. You don't seem necessarily to admit, that you


say at one point in this report, the panels' assessment of medical


and other benefits were made with difficulty, and could often be no


more than informed guesses. Is that adequate? That is a statement of


the information that was available on many of the studies. Now there


were some outstanding example where is the translation was very clear.


There were many example where is the translation needed, or the


translatability needed to be inferred. This gets back to the


recommendation that scientist, and the funding agencies, be helped to


establish the infrastructure, to make the scientific information


available from these studies, rapidly moving to the important


impact that is are needed. There is one other point, that perhaps comes,


and is important to bear in mind. Negative results are not results of


no value. If a question is...They Are results of no value if no-one


knows about them? That is the key point. That was the most


disappointing and disturbing thing about that 9%, that was the 9% were


studies for which there had not been an outcome that had appeared,


positive or negative, and this is what the committee felt very


strongly needed to be part of the change that we helped to drive


forward from now on. What you are saying is if you don't get the


result that you are looking for or consider any use, you should


publish it so others know? If you ask a good question a positive


result is of value, and a negative result is of value. Why doesn't


that happen now? For several reasons, if one achieves a negative


result very few journals will publish it. Surely on the web


anyone can publish anything? Yes, but perhaps not in the most


respected journals, one that would bring impact or cite your work. The


other thing is publishing negative work also distracts from your


chances of getting further research funding. If you admit it didn't


work out, you might not get funded to do it again? Not the same


experiment again but further research. That is nuts isn't it?


think you have expressed a very common view. But I think that if,


again, let me go back to the point, that for good scientist, for


excellent scientists, who ask cheer questions for which positive and


negative results are equally valuable, achieving a negative


result need not mean that further funding is not necessary. It is


also true, as you know in the context of human clinical trials,


that there are mechanisms by which negative results can be published


to provide a record for the community, so that no-one else


tries to do the same experiment. That would be the good thing?


agree, nowadays on the web it is much more possible than in the past.


Just on the broader point, the report recommends that as much as


possible there should be further research into other ways of


conducting experiments than on non- human primates. Why is it that we


are so sensitive about experiments upon these, research with these


kinds of animals as opposed to mice or rats or anything else.


I guess people feel it is a humanisation is easier with a


primate. Because they look like us? Vaguely,


and afterall we are primates too. So I guess people...As A scientist


does it make sense to you? No. not? Because there are certain


disease that is you cannot study to the same effect in non-human


primates. Certainly my research over the last 20 years on


Parkinson's diseases, that work evolved from that work would not be


used if I did the work on rats, they are wired differently, they


have four legs rather than an arms and leg, if I wanted to look at


that treatment I need to look at a close model.


The front pages, Tom Daley diving Lots of BBC people at the year to


the Olympics and the cost of keeping those very attractive Civil


Service pensions have gone up by 3,000 a year. The police are


looking into Harvey Weinstein's death, according to the Mirror, and


the Independent has news of rationing within the NHS.


Now on tomorrow's programme, we look at why America's economic


recovery has stalled. The new Mrs Miliband is looking forward to a


decent night's sleep soon, her husband had an operation on his


nose to correct his sleep apnia, he didn't do it to improve his voice.


If the operation has worked and he no longer snores, he is leaving


some politically very powerful company, we leave you with


distinguished snorers! Goodnight.


Getting the detail right over the next few days will not be easy, the


bottom line is many of us will stay dry, despite the fact we have rain


on the chart, early on Thursday, crossing out of Scotland, into the


far North West of England and Wales. It is fragmenting all the while.


Just dribs and drabs left by the afternoon, across parts of northern


England. The south of that, the Midlands looks like a fine day.


Eastern England compared to Wednesday, warmer, 25 degrees in


London, very nice indeed. Across the south west some increase in


cloud, maybe the odd spot of drizzle, that will be it. You might


hang on to brightness, Wales too, that weather front will bring an


increase in cloud, and the odd spot of rain. Some brightness possible


in one or two places. For Northern Ireland after a wet night in some


place, things brightening up through the course of the day,


temperatures not as high as they were on Wednesday, pleasant in the


sunshine. That goes for the Highlands in Scotland, reaching 25


today, not as warm tomorrow, dry with brightness. Improving stories


as we end the week across northern parts of the UK, the sunshine


returning by Friday, pleasant with light winds, simply ayes cross the


south. Patchy cloud, sun shy, light wind. - sunshine, light winds.


Download Subtitles