:00:12. > :00:17.Security, what security? As athletes from all over the world
:00:17. > :00:23.arrive in the UK, police and troops have to cover for missing security
:00:23. > :00:27.guards, as G4S fails to deliver its multimillion pound security
:00:27. > :00:34.contract. I will be asking the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, if
:00:34. > :00:38.this is in danger of sending this into an Olympic shambles and who is
:00:38. > :00:42.to blame. Now is not the time for a witch-hunt, we want G4S to deliver
:00:42. > :00:45.on what they say they can deliver on. A former Security Minister and
:00:45. > :00:52.the chair of the Public Accounts Committee will be telling us who
:00:52. > :00:56.should be for the high jump. A summer of religionship
:00:56. > :01:00.counselling lies ahead for the coalition, but will the angry Lib
:01:00. > :01:07.Dem Lords tear them away. Newsnight investigates research
:01:07. > :01:17.that simply seems to say that a yes about cancer.
:01:17. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:24.We will speak to our guests. Good evening, it is going to be a
:01:24. > :01:26.great winter Olympics, one athlete was reported to have said upon
:01:26. > :01:30.arriving at Heathrow this morning. But the great British summer
:01:30. > :01:32.problems. Despite another appearance in the Commons by the
:01:32. > :01:38.Home Secretary, we still don't know how many security staff the private
:01:38. > :01:43.contractor, G4S will be able to provide. And today, there were more
:01:43. > :01:47.Tories that sounded like plot lines from the supposedly fictional
:01:47. > :01:49.sitcom 2012. Buses containing athletes getting lost, and police
:01:49. > :01:58.being called in to cover for security guards that just didn't
:01:58. > :02:01.show up. The writers of 2012 the parody of
:02:01. > :02:09.the Olympics, couldn't have written the script for this very real
:02:09. > :02:12.security nightmare any better. Last week's episode saw them discussing
:02:12. > :02:16.catastropheisation. I know you are taking us through that feedback
:02:16. > :02:23.later. Ironically Lord Coe, who is Mr
:02:23. > :02:33.Olympics, plays himself in the BBC comedy. His quotes on this actual
:02:33. > :02:33.
:02:33. > :02:37.crisis were not unlike the show. London's mayor, who many feel is
:02:37. > :02:42.beyond parody, was dismissing some of the negativity surrounding the
:02:42. > :02:51.build-up to the games. When people in this city see the torch relay,
:02:51. > :02:59.any remaining Olympo-sceptisp. We will want the souffle to collapse
:02:59. > :03:03.when this goes home in September. Filling the shortfall left by G4S,
:03:03. > :03:07.which the Defence Secretary described it as a deb backle.
:03:07. > :03:16.Nobody will remain longer on operations in Afghanistan because
:03:16. > :03:22.of the deb backle on the G4S issue. G4S had been advising Theresa May
:03:22. > :03:27.up to last week that they would have more than enough staff.
:03:27. > :03:32.repeatedly assured us they would overshoot their targets. Shift of
:03:32. > :03:36.blame towards G4S seemed to clash with the Culture Secretary, Jeremy
:03:36. > :03:43.Hunt, whose department runs the Olympics, he was playing it down
:03:43. > :03:51.yesterday. This isn't a moment to get into the blame game, G4S have
:03:51. > :03:56.put their hands up. Contractors on a project of this size will
:03:56. > :03:59.This was another shambles in the makes. How on earth could a
:03:59. > :04:02.minister delivering Olympic security be the only person who
:04:02. > :04:07.didn't know. On top of the army being drafted in, today it was
:04:07. > :04:11.revealed that the police had to step in, and Olympic locations all
:04:11. > :04:21.over Britain, where G4S security staff had failed to turn up. So,
:04:21. > :04:24.for example, in Northumbria, an expected 58 staff, only 10 put on
:04:24. > :04:29.their jackets, the picture the same across the country.
:04:29. > :04:35.Even the athletes themselves didn't have a great start to their
:04:35. > :04:39.Olympiad. The American sprinter, Kerron Clement, tweeted after a
:04:40. > :04:45.four-hour odyssey from Heathrow to Stratford, that athletes were tired,
:04:45. > :04:49.hungry and needed a pee, could they get to the Olympic village. Tonight
:04:49. > :04:54.the spotlight turned on the Olympic organisers themselves, LOCOG. We
:04:54. > :04:59.have spoken to a senior insider at LOCOG, working for years at the top
:04:59. > :05:03.level, he described the management as amateurish and unable to deal
:05:03. > :05:07.with contractor, and they couldn't spot where contractors were cutting
:05:07. > :05:11.corners. Crucially, the source said it was the wrong strategy to use
:05:11. > :05:15.only one provider for all Olympic security needs. Other parts of the
:05:15. > :05:18.Olympics use multiple providers, they haven't had as many problems.
:05:18. > :05:23.Having had seven years to prepare for the event, the last thing
:05:23. > :05:26.either this or the previous Government would want now would be
:05:26. > :05:31.galvanised troublemakers, yet that might be the prospect. It could
:05:31. > :05:35.involve anybody who wanted to cause a bit of a problem if they thought
:05:35. > :05:39.the system wasn't working properly you are talking about 20,000 people
:05:39. > :05:42.all across the country, mainly in London, providing a visible sign of
:05:42. > :05:45.security. If somebody believes that security operation is being
:05:45. > :05:50.compromised, of course they might try something. It looks like a
:05:50. > :05:53.shamble and sounds like a shambles and feels like a shambles, it is
:05:53. > :05:57.definitely shambles. The big problem here is about monitoring,
:05:57. > :06:01.it is attention, there is always the tension between the private
:06:01. > :06:11.sector who want to make their contracts as economically tight as
:06:11. > :06:15.possible. This is the official 2012 version,
:06:15. > :06:18.Corinthian Mark III. Even though all events have scares before the
:06:18. > :06:22.starting pistol is fired, few have the capacity to embarrass the
:06:22. > :06:26.government in such a global way. If the games are a success, we will
:06:26. > :06:29.have forgotten G4S's role in September, if there is a security
:06:29. > :06:39.lapse, the Government will have politically shot itself in the
:06:39. > :06:43.
:06:43. > :06:46.proverbial foot. A little earlier I went to the
:06:46. > :06:51.Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to interview Jeremy Hunt.
:06:51. > :06:55.G4S said they would come up with 10,000 security personnel,
:06:55. > :07:00.originally, now they are saying 6,500. Is there any guarantee they
:07:00. > :07:04.will turn up? We have been following it very closely, and we
:07:04. > :07:11.have had contingency plans in place, we have been in constant touch with
:07:11. > :07:15.G4S management. We hope they will play a very important role, but we
:07:15. > :07:19.have had some problems. guarantees? We can guarantee the
:07:19. > :07:22.Olympics will be safe and secure, and we will have plans in place to
:07:22. > :07:25.make sure whatever happens, if this company isn't able to deliver
:07:25. > :07:28.everything they promised, we will make sure we have plans in place to
:07:28. > :07:31.make sure the public are safe, that is our job.
:07:31. > :07:38.They have made very big promises and haven't delivered right now,
:07:38. > :07:40.today, Manchester, 17 out of 56 workers, Tyneside 10 out of 58. You
:07:40. > :07:45.can understand for security for athlete, how concerned people are.
:07:45. > :07:51.Nine police forces have had to pitch up. If they can't do this in
:07:51. > :07:54.other areas, presumably then the police will have to step?
:07:54. > :07:58.compleed ly -- I completely understand and I am concerned, and
:07:58. > :08:02.that is why we took the measures we did to bring in 3,500 troops, and
:08:02. > :08:06.the police are helping out. That was a step in at the last minute
:08:06. > :08:11.today, it wasn't planned that the police would turn up, the police
:08:11. > :08:14.had to step in, there was not enough security for athletes?
:08:14. > :08:17.is absolutely not the case. What we had was very clear contingency
:08:17. > :08:21.plans, we had a contract with the biggest private security provider
:08:21. > :08:24.in the world. We had constant assurances from them that they
:08:24. > :08:29.would deliver. But we also thought, what happens if they don't? And
:08:29. > :08:35.even several months ago, we were always thinking, what happens if by
:08:35. > :08:39.any reason, even at the last minute, there is a hitch. So you were
:08:39. > :08:45.considering it, even though Theresa May said it would be constantly
:08:45. > :08:48.reassured by G4S that they would easily, and be able to overprovide,
:08:48. > :08:51.so they were deceiving you? I think what was happening is the
:08:51. > :08:54.management didn't know how difficult it was on the ground. The
:08:54. > :08:59.management I don't think were deceiving us, they thought they
:08:59. > :09:05.were going to meet the targets. they are incompetent, it is one or
:09:05. > :09:10.the other? We will obviously have a very thorough postmortem. With 11
:09:10. > :09:14.days to go to the opening ceremony, we want to make sure we pull
:09:14. > :09:19.together. That is quite scary isn't it, when you have this level of
:09:19. > :09:24.problems for a company of this size, with a multimillion pound contract,
:09:24. > :09:28.it is very bad? It would only be scary if we hadn't been doing our
:09:28. > :09:33.job as ministers and made sure we had good contingency plans.
:09:34. > :09:36.course, you had already planned for some military personnel, and now
:09:37. > :09:42.another 3,500. Presumably you will put in as many troops as necessary,
:09:42. > :09:46.if you find that G4S lifts the phone tomorrow and says we can't
:09:46. > :09:51.provide the 6,500 we have said we can provide? Of course if they
:09:51. > :09:54.can't deliver, we have contingency plans. When you have someone like
:09:54. > :09:59.Boris Johnson, and his deputy, talking before the beginning of
:09:59. > :10:03.this year, that there were problems, and issues ahead, were these just
:10:03. > :10:06.being ignored? They weren't being ignored, what we had was a very
:10:06. > :10:11.solid plan, so we weren't actually going to be dependant on this
:10:11. > :10:15.company, and we hope not to have to activate those plans, but in the
:10:15. > :10:19.eventuality that something went wrong, as it did, we moved very
:10:19. > :10:23.quickly. We have talked to senior security sources inside LOCOG, one
:10:23. > :10:27.side the job was too big to be given to one company, that was a
:10:27. > :10:32.mistake, wasn't it? We will look at those issues, and I don't want to
:10:32. > :10:39.prejudge what conclusions we may. The only thing I would say is G4S
:10:39. > :10:46.is the biggest security company in the world, it is ten-times bigger
:10:46. > :10:53.than the competitor down. Big isn't always better? Self-evidently as
:10:53. > :10:56.they haven't delivered on this very important krlt. This same LOCOG
:10:56. > :11:00.insider said that the management couldn't spot contractors cutting
:11:00. > :11:04.corners? I will look very closely at what happened, I don't think
:11:04. > :11:08.this is about cutting corners, I don't want to prejudge, we will
:11:08. > :11:14.look into it very thoroughly. It is more about what seemed to happen is
:11:14. > :11:18.G4S trained a lot of people, then a lot of people were accredited, but,
:11:18. > :11:21.it seems like those people weren't kept in touch with. So then when
:11:21. > :11:26.they needed to report for duty and commit to coming at particular
:11:26. > :11:29.times, they then said that they weren't available to do that.
:11:30. > :11:34.is incompetence? Clearly it wasn't run as successfully as it could
:11:34. > :11:38.have been, that is why we are in this position. That is why we have
:11:38. > :11:45.very robust contingency plans in place. Your defence minister said
:11:45. > :11:48.today this was a complete debacle, is it, is it a normal debacle, what
:11:48. > :11:55.is it? Clearly an important contract has not been delivered on,
:11:55. > :12:00.that is why we have put in place the contingency plans we worked out.
:12:00. > :12:03.We can have this debate, can I make this point. Do you apologise to any
:12:03. > :12:07.athlete who feels their security has been compromised? We would be
:12:07. > :12:11.failing in our job as ministers if a contract had gone wrong and we
:12:11. > :12:16.didn't have a back-up plan that worked. Woe do have a back-up plan,
:12:16. > :12:20.that is what we have put in place. -- we do have a back-up plan and we
:12:20. > :12:25.have put that in place, we will monitor it, and if anything else
:12:25. > :12:30.goes wrong we will bring in further back-up plans. In the future do you
:12:30. > :12:36.think that G4S will not be allowed, for a while, to bid for public
:12:36. > :12:40.contracts? I think now, with 11 days to go to the opening ceremony,
:12:40. > :12:44.with G4S as an organisation that is already providing 3,500 security
:12:44. > :12:47.guards, I don't think anything has been said so far that questions the
:12:47. > :12:52.professionalism of the people they are currently providing. But the
:12:52. > :12:55.shed loads of public money, huge amounts of public money? If can I
:12:55. > :13:01.finish. I don't think now is the time for going on a big witch-hunt.
:13:01. > :13:04.What we actually want is for G4S to deliver on what they say they can
:13:04. > :13:07.deliver. Then we will look at it. They have put their hands up, they
:13:07. > :13:11.have said they got it wrong, they said they will finance all the
:13:11. > :13:15.additional costs of bringing in additional troops, it won't cost
:13:15. > :13:19.the taxpayer any extra money. Now I think what we want to do is pull
:13:19. > :13:25.together, on both the private sector providers, the volunteers,
:13:25. > :13:29.the armed services and the police. And do what I know we will, which
:13:29. > :13:33.is to provide a safe and secure olympics, which is the number one
:13:33. > :13:40.priority. We need to remind people that this is one contract thatover
:13:40. > :13:44.all this is a contract that is extremely successful. That overall
:13:44. > :13:47.this has been a contract that is extremely successful. Will this be
:13:47. > :13:52.a safe and secure Olympics? believe it will be, we are doing
:13:52. > :13:58.everything we can to make sure it will be. Is this all a storm in a
:13:58. > :14:00.high-performance sports drink, or are there bigger issues here. We
:14:00. > :14:04.have Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister last year, and
:14:04. > :14:09.Margaret Hodge, who chairs the Public Accounts Select Committee.
:14:09. > :14:15.First of all, Baroness Neville- Jones, you looked at all security
:14:15. > :14:19.arrangements, how on earth did G4S slip into pole position?
:14:19. > :14:23.contract that they got was let by LOCOG.
:14:23. > :14:30.They are a very extensive contractor, with Government, they
:14:30. > :14:33.do a vast range of security jobs. They are a very experienced
:14:33. > :14:38.security company. Do you think LOCOG as contractors weren't as
:14:38. > :14:41.experienced, and thought they should go for G4S because they have
:14:41. > :14:44.all the contracts? They would have taken advice, and it was very
:14:44. > :14:47.important for them to have specified the contract and the duty
:14:47. > :14:51.that is in that contract. I haven't seen that contract, so I don't know
:14:51. > :14:57.the detail of that. But, do you feel that they should have used
:14:57. > :15:01.more than one contractor, that is one of the big criticisms, that by
:15:01. > :15:05.having a single contractor, LOCOG laid themselves wide open to this
:15:05. > :15:08.stuff? You can also argue it the other way round, if you have
:15:08. > :15:14.multiple contracts you wouldn't have the problem of co-ordination
:15:14. > :15:18.between them. Having said, LOCOG have done exactly that, their
:15:18. > :15:24.events and other parts of it did have problems? There were clearly
:15:24. > :15:28.choices, this was the choice that was made. Where I would point the
:15:28. > :15:36.finger, is not so much on the original arrangement It is the
:15:36. > :15:40.implementation, and the ability and seriousness which LOCOG has, sorry
:15:41. > :15:44.G4S has fulfilled that contract. Margaret Hodge, the Public Accounts
:15:44. > :15:47.Committee has appointed you, have you concerns about the way the
:15:47. > :15:52.contract was handed out in the first place? Yes, my first concern
:15:52. > :15:57.is that the whole issue of security was left too late. We knew in 2005
:15:57. > :16:02.it was going to be a key challenge, yet it was only in 2007 we let the
:16:02. > :16:07.first contract. When the contract was let in 2010, a few months later
:16:07. > :16:12.they renegotiated it, and decided to add a further 10,000 security
:16:12. > :16:17.staffing. That is dreadful planning. The second thing is, I think this
:16:17. > :16:22."who was to blame" I think everybody is to blame. Jeremy Hunt
:16:22. > :16:27.said it would not be a witch-hunt, but it will have to be a huge
:16:28. > :16:31.postmortem because of public money. Theresa May was very clear until
:16:31. > :16:36.last Wednesday she had no idea, it had not been flagged up to her. Not
:16:36. > :16:39.necessarily flagged up to her, but Boris Johnson made it clear he knew
:16:39. > :16:42.there were problems at the beginning of the year? We looked at
:16:42. > :16:47.the contract last December, just before Christmas, just before they
:16:48. > :16:51.had taken the position to increase by 10,000, which we thought was
:16:51. > :16:55.unachievable. At that time the permanent secretary, in the Home
:16:55. > :16:58.Office, said, he would just like to say, that of course, that is
:16:58. > :17:02.something that ministers have looked at extremely carefully. And
:17:02. > :17:07.it is completely clear, from all the monitoring that we have done,
:17:07. > :17:14.that this whole implementation, that ministers, the senior civil
:17:14. > :17:16.servants at LOCOG and G4S, were all involved. If you say, as you have,
:17:16. > :17:25.it was too late to have let that contract, your Government ought to
:17:25. > :17:30.have let it. So this Government. So this Government has let that
:17:30. > :17:37.contract. Let me just say. Let me just say, I think, it is all very
:17:37. > :17:41.well to say it is too late. One of the problems of an event of this
:17:41. > :17:46.kind, it isn't a fully fledged event straight away, you have to
:17:46. > :17:50.decide on the sides and the security needs, and all the
:17:50. > :17:54.cultural stuff, then you get a view of the overall Securitask. Isn't
:17:54. > :17:59.the problem that we are holding an Olympic Games at a time when there
:17:59. > :18:02.is so much insecurity in the world, that security is a very emotive and
:18:03. > :18:07.emotional issue. People want to feel they are coming to take part,
:18:07. > :18:12.and also to view in total security. This does not give the impression
:18:12. > :18:15.that is under control? Can I just say, it is silly to make a
:18:15. > :18:19.political partisan point on it. This should have been planned much
:18:19. > :18:24.earlier. Let me say something about the Olympics. The Olympic delivery
:18:24. > :18:28.authority is a public body, totally transparent and delivered
:18:28. > :18:32.brilliantly, so all the facilities on the site are there. LOCOG is a
:18:32. > :18:36.private body, G4S is a private contractor, there is no
:18:36. > :18:39.transparency at all, and the thing goes wrong. There is something
:18:39. > :18:48.about transparency and our ability to see what happens that is hugely
:18:48. > :18:54.important. What Jeremy Hunt said there cleeerm, there is a huge
:18:54. > :18:59.troop -- clearly, there is a huge troop presence, there will be
:18:59. > :19:03.something 7,000 military personnel, not all visible. He did say that
:19:03. > :19:06.G4S can't deliver, more troops will be brought in. So people should
:19:06. > :19:10.have confidence, because the soldiers will deliver? That is the
:19:10. > :19:14.point that is really important. I have no doubt at all that the, our
:19:15. > :19:19.Armed Forces will fill the gap. If, indeed, there is still a gap, even
:19:19. > :19:23.after the 3,500, I'm sure that gap will be filled too. We don't
:19:23. > :19:27.actually know at the moment how many people. We don't know ten days
:19:27. > :19:31.from the games, and we actually don't know? This is not a brilliant
:19:32. > :19:37.story. No it is not. But I don't think the general public, or our
:19:37. > :19:41.visitors, or the competitors, do need to be worried. On the wider
:19:41. > :19:48.point, if police officers are being deployed, who could be doing other
:19:48. > :19:52.things, on the beats on the streets? One of the reasons why a
:19:52. > :19:56.company like G4S was brought in, is because we have a limited number of
:19:56. > :19:58.policemen, and they have other things to do, as you rightly say.
:19:58. > :20:03.There is public order policing, there is crime prevention, a whole
:20:03. > :20:06.lot of other things, they will have to be done alongside this. This is
:20:06. > :20:10.all part of both safety and security. Thank you very much.
:20:10. > :20:13.There was a train platform, there were two people bucking social
:20:13. > :20:17.conventions, but this morning David Cameron and Nick Clegg were
:20:17. > :20:20.determined to show that the coalition wouldn't just be a brief
:20:20. > :20:23.encounter. With an announcement on rail infrastructure, and a joint
:20:23. > :20:27.press conference, they tried to show the Government still has
:20:27. > :20:30.purpose and unity after the rebellions of last week and
:20:30. > :20:36.mutterings off-age. With more gloomy predictions for the economy
:20:36. > :20:40.from the IMF, is it a love affair that can endure. We assess whether
:20:40. > :20:44.two hearts are beating still as one. This is a story of different
:20:44. > :20:50.backdrops, it was all gently perfumed back in the garden back in
:20:50. > :20:54.2010. There was still plenty of idealism, at the Olympic Park one
:20:54. > :21:00.year later. By May this year, there was more of an industrial feel to
:21:00. > :21:03.the coalition. The tractor factory backdrop said, it may not be pretty
:21:04. > :21:09.or glamorous, it is necessary. Then today it was trains that said, why
:21:09. > :21:13.don't I let the Prime Minister explain. We are not here to help
:21:13. > :21:18.the headline writers, sharing platforms and minding gaps, trains
:21:18. > :21:23.on track, and I'm sure you will think of some others. It is the
:21:23. > :21:27.rose garden part II, whether it will work or not is a big question,
:21:27. > :21:31.it remains to be seen. It is OK for the two principals involved that
:21:31. > :21:35.want to keep things going, I'm sure they will for their own sakes as
:21:35. > :21:39.well as others, and the country's. They only speak for themselves, it
:21:39. > :21:43.is the members of each party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories,
:21:43. > :21:48.who will finally decide the fate of the coalition. The point of today
:21:48. > :21:51.was to announce funding for a huge amount of rail improvements, over
:21:51. > :21:55.�9 billion. But the subtext was all about the state of the coalition,
:21:55. > :21:58.following last week's row about House of Lords reform. Of course
:21:58. > :22:02.the coalition has come into question, some asking whether it
:22:02. > :22:07.has real momentum for the rest of this parliament. Others even asking
:22:07. > :22:13.whether it should end. I just want to say I'm even more committed to
:22:13. > :22:18.coalition Government, to making this coalition today, than I was in
:22:18. > :22:22.May 2010, when Nick Clegg and I formed this Government. Sure, we're
:22:22. > :22:26.two different parties, he doesn't agree with all my opinions, and I
:22:26. > :22:29.don't agree with all his opinions. That is coalition Government. It is
:22:29. > :22:35.tough, also, of course, to be in Government in difficult times, it
:22:35. > :22:38.is not always a walk in the park, or in the rose garden. And of
:22:38. > :22:44.course you also get some bumps on the road in the Westminster village,
:22:44. > :22:47.as we did last week on House of Lords reform. This backdrop, and
:22:47. > :22:52.announcement today, is designed to send a message that the coalition
:22:52. > :22:57.is doing what is needed to get the economy moving. But, as critics
:22:57. > :23:02.have pointed out all day, much of the money is not strictly new, and
:23:02. > :23:07.in any case, won't start being spent until 2014, as Labour puts it,
:23:07. > :23:10.this recovery is on pause. The Prime Minister and his deputy
:23:10. > :23:15.know that this coalition was sold to the public as being all about
:23:15. > :23:18.just one thing, sorting out the economy. That hasn't happened yet.
:23:18. > :23:22.It may be there are all sorts of reasons why it hasn't happened, it
:23:22. > :23:25.may be all the fault of the eurozone, perhaps no set of
:23:25. > :23:28.policies would have made the slightest bit of difference,
:23:28. > :23:32.politically they know that doesn't seem to matter. Most of their
:23:32. > :23:37.problems stem from this weaker than expected economy.
:23:37. > :23:44.The shine come off the coalition is almost exactly tracked by the IMF's
:23:44. > :23:52.growth forecast for the UK in 2012. Way back in May 2010, it was a
:23:52. > :24:01.blooming 12.9%. One year later, the IM -- 1.2%, one year later the IMF
:24:01. > :24:06.was predicting 1.3%, but in 2012 it was now saying that growth in 2012
:24:06. > :24:11.would be just 0.8%, not great, unless you compare it to today's
:24:11. > :24:16.predictions from the IMF, just 20.2%. There are domestic policies
:24:16. > :24:19.we could be pursuing that would help our economy grow and create
:24:19. > :24:23.jobs. So a VAT reduction and national insurance holiday for
:24:23. > :24:27.small businesss and we would be taxing bank bonuses for 50%, and
:24:27. > :24:30.using that money to fund a job creation scheme for those million
:24:30. > :24:33.young people who are out of work right now. There are things the
:24:33. > :24:43.Government could do. But this Government is sitting back, and not
:24:43. > :24:44.
:24:44. > :24:49.taking the action that is required. And of today's big announcement, is
:24:49. > :24:54.building big ticket railways the answer. All over Europe there are
:24:54. > :24:58.these kinds of railways, like this one in Greece, if this was the
:24:58. > :25:04.answer to growth, you would expect Greece to be bailing out others
:25:04. > :25:07.rather than Germany. Government's investment in
:25:07. > :25:12.infrastructure will not create growth in the UK. If you look at
:25:12. > :25:15.the �9 billion announced today, it is tax-payers picking up the bill
:25:15. > :25:19.for that. Growth won't come from that. If the Government wants to
:25:19. > :25:24.create growth from infrastructure, the best thing to do is allow
:25:24. > :25:29.things like the third runway. It looks -- it needs to look at
:25:29. > :25:36.letting the private sector take the lead on building infrastructure.
:25:36. > :25:42.Where are they for the next act of unity, what they could really do
:25:42. > :25:47.with is a better economic backdrop. Can the Liberal Democrats and
:25:47. > :25:49.Conservatives agree on new policies, Tim Montgomerie, the editor of
:25:49. > :25:52.ConservativeHome website, and Evan Harris, a member of the party as
:25:52. > :25:56.policy committee. The important thing for it
:25:56. > :25:59.Government, as far as the population is concerned, is a
:25:59. > :26:02.strong, decisive Government, it is a Government that can't even get
:26:02. > :26:07.business through? It can't get its business through in some key
:26:07. > :26:11.respect that is we have focused on a lot recently. On deficit
:26:11. > :26:16.reduction, in the spirit of coalition relationship would pay
:26:16. > :26:20.tribute to the Lib Dems on this, the central mission of deficit
:26:20. > :26:23.reduction, the two parties have been completely united on that
:26:23. > :26:27.issue. It was central to the coalition agreement, and there is
:26:27. > :26:31.no wavering from it. This is the mid-term of a parliament. David
:26:31. > :26:36.Cameron says it is important for the population a strong, decisive
:26:36. > :26:40.Government, the Lords last week was yet another debacle? It was, and
:26:40. > :26:44.neither of us will deny T the central mission of this coalition
:26:44. > :26:48.isn't Lords reform or boundary changing, or other headlines
:26:48. > :26:52.grabbing the headlines, it is education reform, and most
:26:52. > :26:56.importantly, getting the deficit under control. There the parties
:26:56. > :27:00.are as united. Welfare reform, you need to get away from a situation
:27:00. > :27:03.where people are better off not working. In that respect there is
:27:03. > :27:07.agreement on that. Of course difficult decisions need to be
:27:07. > :27:10.taken to get the deficit right. That is and always of the reason
:27:10. > :27:16.why two parties, neither of whom won the election themselves, are
:27:16. > :27:20.working together, at some cost, especially for the lads. The IMF is
:27:20. > :27:26.saying it is going the other way at the moment? Just as we are together
:27:26. > :27:28.to deal with the deficit it has to be done. You can only do it with a
:27:28. > :27:31.stable Government not a minority Government. We will fall together
:27:31. > :27:35.if the economy does not turn by the next general election. That is
:27:36. > :27:38.clear as well. Everyone knows that. What I'm pleased about, is that
:27:38. > :27:42.finally today, they are saying what I think they should have been
:27:42. > :27:45.saying at least a year ago, if not from the very beginning. That these
:27:45. > :27:50.are two different parties, who don't actually rejoice in a huge
:27:50. > :27:55.amount of things. Don't you think the population knows that? They
:27:55. > :27:58.know it now. There is this idea, you can understand where it came
:27:58. > :28:02.from. Nick Clegg was clear, you couldn't see when you are forming
:28:02. > :28:05.the coalition it was important not to be seen as cats fight anything
:28:05. > :28:08.sack. What was more important, everyone will see the parties
:28:08. > :28:11.working together, it was to demonstrate the independence of
:28:11. > :28:15.both those parties, and the fact they didn't agree as much as where
:28:15. > :28:21.they aed greed. It is all very well, David Cameron and Nick Clegg
:28:21. > :28:25.standing in front of us, all with this big rail infrastructure and
:28:25. > :28:28.looking incredibly happy with each other, that doesn't mean the
:28:28. > :28:31.backbench Liberal Democrats or Tories are happy about this at all?
:28:31. > :28:33.That is the problem with the coalition. If you look at the
:28:33. > :28:37.people at the heart of the arrangement, Nick Clegg and David
:28:37. > :28:43.Cameron, they are not that dissimilar, but Evan and I are
:28:43. > :28:47.quite far apart. It is the in-laws in the relationship who have always
:28:47. > :28:52.been the trouble. The Tory backbenchers were happy with the
:28:52. > :28:55.Government programme, then I would be appalled. I guess that Tim and
:28:55. > :28:58.right-wing Conservatives would be appalled if we were happy with the
:28:58. > :29:04.Government's programme. That is the nature of coalition. In every other
:29:04. > :29:10.country in Europe where it takes place, it is just the media here,
:29:10. > :29:14.as your demonstrating, cannot get their mind around two parties
:29:14. > :29:19.getting together, who disagree with much. It is not so much getting our
:29:19. > :29:25.heads around it, but where is the radical agenda that you two will
:29:25. > :29:32.agree on for the next two years, is it Europe? On the Lib Dem Voice
:29:32. > :29:36.website, a partner website, yet there were quotes on there about
:29:36. > :29:43.reforming capitalism, and breaking up the banks and a much more
:29:43. > :29:47.competitive economic system. I think that is perfect consistent of
:29:47. > :29:51.the classical Lib Dem traditions, and these are the capitalistic
:29:51. > :29:56.traditions of Conservatism. separation of retail and investment
:29:56. > :30:01.banks isn't that radical. Rebalancing the economy away from
:30:01. > :30:08.financial services has to begin. It has to begin. And I suspect there
:30:08. > :30:12.is unity on that project. We cannot be so reliant on one aspect of the
:30:12. > :30:17.economy, as we have been in the past, that is a shared programme.
:30:17. > :30:22.You say we want to make sure that people out of work are not better
:30:22. > :30:27.off than people in work. Not better off by being out of work. That is
:30:27. > :30:30.different from signing up to a cuts agenda that we have here?
:30:30. > :30:36.recognise, all Liberal Democrats recognise that if you have to take
:30:36. > :30:42.20%, 30%, on average, out of public spending, there is no way the
:30:42. > :30:47.welfare budget can remain intact. That is just simply unIsrael yiesic.
:30:47. > :30:49.-- realistic, as it would be under Labour, they have plans for-to-
:30:49. > :30:55.reduce welfare spending. I'm concerned that the rich, in terms
:30:55. > :30:58.of tax rises, pay their fair shai share, that is why I was very
:30:58. > :31:02.disappointed, and many Liberal Democrats were, with the crazy
:31:02. > :31:06.politically and dubious economic decision to cut the 50p tax rate.
:31:06. > :31:09.Bad idea? It wasn't the most popular idea, but there were also
:31:09. > :31:13.many other things the Chancellor introduced, not least the taking
:31:13. > :31:16.the low paid out of the income system, which were much more
:31:16. > :31:20.powerful and benefited many more people than have been affected by
:31:21. > :31:25.the 50p tax rate. Glad to have brought you two together. It costs
:31:25. > :31:30.pennies and everybody can get hold of it, now in the face of an of a
:31:30. > :31:37.large of cumulative research, it can be described as "preventing
:31:37. > :31:40.cancer", it is the humble aspirin. A cheap generic drug, used as a
:31:40. > :31:50.shield against heart attacks and strokes, and now described as a
:31:50. > :31:54.
:31:54. > :32:00.wonder drug. Should we all be taking it? The struggle toe stay
:32:00. > :32:04.fit and well gets tougher for everyone as we get older. These
:32:04. > :32:10.subscribers to fitness sessions run by the ex-military, each have their
:32:10. > :32:15.own recipe for good health. I take vitamins and protein shakes.
:32:16. > :32:21.liver oil. Vitamin C. Fresh fruit and vegtables. Nothing. I look
:32:21. > :32:24.after my body as much as I can. But as they strive to stay well, is
:32:24. > :32:30.their one -- is there one more potentially powerful weapon they
:32:30. > :32:34.should be adding to that list, aspirin, to ward off cancer.
:32:34. > :32:39.Aspirin has been an essential part of modern medicine in synthetic
:32:39. > :32:47.form for at least 100 years. Not only as a painkiller, but more
:32:47. > :32:51.recently, at low dose, to ward off heart attacks and stroke.
:32:51. > :32:59.But it was a close chemical relative, found in the leaves and
:32:59. > :33:09.bark of the willow tree, that first drew people to its potential power.
:33:09. > :33:09.
:33:09. > :33:15.Centuries ago, around 400 BC, Hypocraties, is said to have said
:33:15. > :33:19.that people should chew the bark of the willow tree to ward off
:33:19. > :33:24.inflamation. Its modern day cousin has so many uses, it is said by
:33:24. > :33:28.some to be something of a wonder drug.
:33:28. > :33:32.Cancer studies by Peter Rothwell have sparked global interest in the
:33:32. > :33:37.protective powers of aspirin. Results in colon cancer, published
:33:37. > :33:41.back in 2010, got everyone talking. They showed that after five years
:33:41. > :33:46.on low-dose aspirin, people had had halved their risk of developing or
:33:46. > :33:53.dying from kollan cancer. Then last year, the team showed that for two
:33:53. > :34:00.more cancers, daily, low-dose aspirin cut the risk of dying by
:34:00. > :34:05.66% for lung and ossof gall cancer. When they looked at the two
:34:05. > :34:09.together, the risk fell by 25%. This year the team looked at
:34:09. > :34:13.aspirin's effect on the spread of cancer, and found it reduced the
:34:13. > :34:23.risk of secondary spread to the lungs, liver and brain, by about
:34:23. > :34:25.
:34:25. > :34:30.half. How important is the secondary effect? Very important as
:34:30. > :34:33.an additional treatment for those with cancer, if it hasn't spread
:34:33. > :34:36.already. We found those who developed cancer on aspirin, were
:34:36. > :34:41.about 40% less likely to have that cancer spread to different parts of
:34:41. > :34:44.the body. It is the spread of the cancer that often kills patients,
:34:44. > :34:52.rather than the primary cancer itself. So trials are now on going
:34:53. > :35:02.to see whether that should be used more widely.
:35:02. > :35:06.Angus dag illusion is a clinical study, his work on HIV showed it
:35:06. > :35:11.causes -- he believes it could be aspirin's powerful anti-
:35:11. > :35:17.inflammatory action that might help to explain its anti-cancer effect.
:35:17. > :35:22.Many of the cancers occur only after decades of inflame racial,
:35:22. > :35:27.for instance liver cancer, which we know is associated with two viruses
:35:27. > :35:32.hepatitis B and C, it only occurs if the viruses produce chronic
:35:32. > :35:38.inflamation of the liver for two or three decades, it doesn't occur
:35:38. > :35:44.without the background inflamation. It is the same for lung cancer, it
:35:44. > :35:49.comes out of chronic bronchitis, same with bowel cancer, these are
:35:49. > :35:52.inflammatory leisons. Having something to turn off the
:35:52. > :35:58.inflamation makes perfect sense, that is why aspirin is so important,
:35:58. > :36:04.it is such an effective anti- inflamery agent. Everyone over 40
:36:04. > :36:12.should consider taking 75 Milly grams a day, and everyone over 50,
:36:12. > :36:16.300 mg a day, the dose for a headache. If an aspirin a day can
:36:16. > :36:20.have a real impact on cancer, and some medicating, some say it is
:36:20. > :36:24.time for the Government to step in with clear guidelines on who should
:36:24. > :36:28.be taking aspirin and how much. Many people have heard about the
:36:28. > :36:33.possible benefits of aspirin and are taking it any way. There are
:36:33. > :36:38.risks. Some people are allergic to aspirin, and it can cause stomach
:36:38. > :36:42.bleeds, sometimes serious. There is no doubt aspirin does reduce
:36:42. > :36:46.cancers, but it will cause death in a small number of patients, very
:36:46. > :36:52.small. But a preventive has to be given to a large number of people.
:36:52. > :36:57.You will have a significant number of deaths that is stalling proper
:36:57. > :37:03.guidance from politicians all over the world. But the scientists most
:37:03. > :37:09.closely linked to aspirin research, say the downsides shouldn't be
:37:09. > :37:16.overplayed. The risk of a bleed sufficiently serious to take you to
:37:16. > :37:19.hospital is less than one per 1,000 people per year taking aspirin. The
:37:19. > :37:26.benefits of preventing heart attack and strokes already outweighs that
:37:26. > :37:32.risk. If you add in the cancer risk it does further outweigh the risk.
:37:32. > :37:36.What's more, an influential study, run by the International Society of
:37:36. > :37:39.cancer prevention, believes that downside could be dealt with by a
:37:39. > :37:43.simple test. That expert group believes the Government should
:37:43. > :37:48.consider a mass screening programme. To test and identify people at
:37:48. > :37:55.higher risk of stomach bleeds. And in a few weeks time, they will
:37:55. > :37:59.issue advice saying just that. We all make decisions every day
:37:59. > :38:03.that will affect our risk of developing cancer. Choices about
:38:03. > :38:08.the food we eat, or alcohol, or exercise. But on aspirin, we're all
:38:09. > :38:12.in the dark about whether we should be taking aspirin, and how much.
:38:12. > :38:16.With the evidence we now have, the need for clear advice is
:38:16. > :38:23.overwhelming. Here to discuss the imI politician
:38:23. > :38:32.kas of the latest findings is Dr -- implication of the latest findings
:38:32. > :38:37.is I our guests. Julian Peto, on your assessment,
:38:37. > :38:41.how good is the evidence on taking aspirin? The evidence is good, I
:38:41. > :38:44.think Peter Rothwell presents a care case, and the evidence is very
:38:44. > :38:48.strong. The question isn't whether the evidence is good, it is whether
:38:48. > :38:52.it is good enough to justify the Government recommending that
:38:52. > :38:55.everyone should take it. What is your view of that? My personal view
:38:55. > :39:01.is it would need to be stronger. To recommend that everybody take
:39:01. > :39:06.something for the rest of their lives is very different from
:39:06. > :39:14.limited numbers of people taking it for five years, or ten or 15 years.
:39:14. > :39:19.What do you see as the problems of a universal aspirin intake?
:39:19. > :39:26.would be one thing having a few thousand people taking it, but when
:39:26. > :39:31.you are talking about 20 million people taking it with with clear
:39:31. > :39:38.risks in it. Not that much risk. There are 20 common medicines that
:39:38. > :39:44.interact with medicines. What is that? Warfarin, a blood-thinner,
:39:44. > :39:49.but also medicines used for glaucoma, that interferes with
:39:49. > :39:53.aspirin. What about lifestyle with aspirin? I'm struck by your film,
:39:53. > :39:57.you had two clear patients, one smoking and the other one drinking.
:39:57. > :40:01.Taking aspirin are not protect you against the harps of drinking or
:40:02. > :40:06.smoking. Also, the idea that you can take something that is going to
:40:06. > :40:12.offset those risks, I think, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
:40:12. > :40:15.Never the less, the body of evidence seems to go going in a
:40:15. > :40:21.positive direction, there is clearly an effect. Do you want
:40:21. > :40:25.clear guidelines from the Government w what will help?
:40:26. > :40:30.What will help? My sense is we don't get clear guidelines. The
:40:30. > :40:34.idea of doing another full scale, randomised controlled trial,
:40:34. > :40:39.probably isn't going to happen. I think, like many things in medicine,
:40:39. > :40:44.we have to weigh up, at an individual level, theks and
:40:44. > :40:49.benefits. If a patient came -- risks and benefits. If a patient
:40:49. > :40:54.came to you and said I'm 40, what dose should I take, or I'm 55?
:40:54. > :40:59.a patient not a doctor. I think if somebody said should I take it, it
:40:59. > :41:07.looks to me as if it does more good than harm, I would agree with them.
:41:07. > :41:11.I think that is true. The evidence has to be very strong, there is a
:41:11. > :41:15.70-80% it will do more good than harm, it is a good enough reason to
:41:15. > :41:20.take it yourself or advise your friends or patients to take it, if
:41:20. > :41:24.they want. To you would need very strong evidence before something
:41:24. > :41:29.becomes a Government-recommended medication. What about the idea of
:41:29. > :41:31.isolating people to test them to make sure they would not fall into
:41:31. > :41:36.that category? What they are talking about is a simple test, it
:41:36. > :41:41.is a simple test we use on symptomatic people, not mass
:41:41. > :41:46.screening. If we do mass screening we will pick up an awful lot of
:41:46. > :41:51.false positives, and treat those people with high-dose antibiotics,
:41:51. > :41:56.and that will create antibiotic resistance. It isn't as simple as
:41:56. > :42:01.it seems to be testing people for this bug in the stomach. On the
:42:01. > :42:06.other hand, if something like this will make a radical difference,
:42:06. > :42:10.especially when the NHS is strapped, particularly when it is saying it
:42:10. > :42:14.is reducing spread by 50%, that has moved things on? It won't make it
:42:14. > :42:19.radical, we have to die from something. The studies show that
:42:19. > :42:26.though it might reduce your death rate from cancers, particular ones,
:42:26. > :42:30.we are all going to face mortality. You are probably going to die at
:42:30. > :42:34.the same age of something else. We have to be really careful about
:42:34. > :42:39.this, yet it appears to reduce your risk of bowel and other cancers,
:42:39. > :42:43.but it won't stop you dying. There is more evidence, a lot of large
:42:43. > :42:47.studies, some large studies weren't included in the review, and whether
:42:47. > :42:52.it was appropriate to exclude people is arguable. There is a
:42:52. > :43:00.cheap generic drug? There is no question, it is effectively free.
:43:00. > :43:09.The question is the benefits clearly outweigh the issues. Would
:43:09. > :43:12.you take it? I'm not a health freak. So you don't take it? No. Would you
:43:12. > :43:16.take it? I think I would need to see a little more evidence about it.
:43:16. > :43:20.Again, I'm not a particular health freak, he gave up smoking a number
:43:20. > :43:24.of years ago. I try -- I gave up smoking a number of years ago. I
:43:24. > :43:28.drink in moderation. The fact that you are a doctor and not a health
:43:28. > :43:33.freak is disconcerting? I think there are much more boring things
:43:33. > :43:37.to do to improve our lives, such as giving up smoking and reducing
:43:37. > :43:42.alcohol intake and keeping your weight under control and exercising.
:43:42. > :43:46.All those will do far for more your risk of cancer and getting heart
:43:46. > :43:51.disease than taking a low dose of aspirin for five or ten years.
:43:51. > :43:54.Thank you very much, may you both live a long and happy life.
:43:54. > :44:04.Tomorrow morning's front pages beginning with the Guardian. Ten
:44:04. > :44:05.
:44:05. > :45:02.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 57 seconds
:45:02. > :45:07.days to the games, what could go That's just about all from
:45:07. > :45:13.Newsnight tonight. We leave you with a very unrock 'n' roll moment,
:45:13. > :45:17.10.30 on Saturday night, that is when the concert organisers pulled
:45:17. > :45:20.the plug on bruise Springsteen and Paul McCartney together, on their
:45:20. > :45:28.first performance ever together, on the grounds of health and safety.
:45:28. > :45:38.It is not exactly the Promised Land. # Won't you work it on out
:45:38. > :45:53.
:45:53. > :46:03.(no sound coming out of the microphone.
:46:03. > :46:04.
:46:05. > :46:08.Good evening, after wet weather today, a dryer spell into the night
:46:08. > :46:13.and the first part of Tuesday morning. Morning brightness through
:46:13. > :46:17.eastern areas as well. To the west grey skies, patchy light rain or
:46:17. > :46:21.drizzle. Across Wales and Northern Ireland, central and southern
:46:21. > :46:25.Scotland and northern England, turning heavier in places in the
:46:25. > :46:28.afternoon. Increasing humidity, increasingly muddy in the afternoon.
:46:28. > :46:34.With dry conditions in the south- east. A little bit of sunshine here
:46:34. > :46:37.and there. It will boost the temperatures, 23, 24 possible.
:46:37. > :46:42.Drizzle easing a little in the south west. Around the coast, the
:46:42. > :46:46.low cloud will still be there and there abouts, rain on and off
:46:46. > :46:49.through much of the day across the mountains. A bit dry to the east.
:46:49. > :46:53.In Northern Ireland the rain coming and going through the day, the
:46:53. > :46:59.heavy burst in the morning and into the afternoon. Turning increasingly
:47:00. > :47:03.wet. To the north and east of Scotland, dry, fairly bright, same
:47:03. > :47:07.too on Wednesday. Noticing the difference from Tuesday into
:47:07. > :47:11.Wednesday, the rain gets that bit heavier and more expensive. More in
:47:11. > :47:16.the way of showers developing further south. Even the areas