27/07/2011 Newsnight

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.