17/07/2012 Newsnight


The police fill in as Olympic security. Central bankers of UK and US on who said what on Barclays. Who will pay for new cancer treatments? With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, they want to work for G4S, but they can't. Can't you see they


are doing their job, they are not. Done the training and everything,


and then it is a joke. There is nowhere to go for the boss. This is


a humiliating shambles for the company, yes or no? I cannot


disagree with you. That will be a yes then. Now we learn that not


just the army, but more police are being drafted in to fill the hole.


The chairman of the Police Federation is none too pleased. Is


there too much security any way? Ken Livingston thinks so.


More Barclays shockwaves, Mervyn King said he knew nothing about


their LIBOR manipulation until two weeks ago. We informed all the


relevant authorities in both the UK and the United States. This is an


immune system cell killing a cancer cell. This is yielding amazing


results in some cancer patients. only know that the treatment is


working, but to actually see it on the screen is very, very


encouraging. The science minister is here to explain why we are not


throwing Government money into immunotherapy. Good evening, the


chief executive G4S told MPs today that he wished he had never taken


on the Olympic security contract. Nick Buckles will not be alone in


that view. But it is cold comfort to his bewildered workers, and to


police forces around the country who are having to plug a big black


hole. Today it was revealed that nearly 400 extra police officers a


day will be needed to secure Olympic venues in the West Midlands,


until August 9th. But despite the shambles, Mr Buckles said G4S will


still be taking its �57 million management fee from the games.


There was one part of Stratford that G4S had under control today,


their training centre. Hundreds of would-be security guards had turned


up here today in the hope of a job. While eight miles away in


Westminster, the chief executive was getting a frisking of his own


from MPs. Many would take the view that the reputation of the company


is now in tatters, you wouldn't agree? I think at the moment I


would have to agree with you. We have had fantastic track record of


service delivery in many years in many countries, but clearly this is


not a good position to be in. We feel we have to make every


endeavour to deliver as well as we can on this contract. It is a step


backwards and a humiliating shambles? It is not where we would


want to be, that is certain. It is a humiliating shambles for the


company, yes or no? I can't disagree with you. Behind these


green bars is where they are trying to sort out that shambles. The


irony is there is no shortage of people who want to pitch in. Today


people were flocking to the training centre, want to go find


out when they could start, in what they describe as a "job of the


lifetime", many were leaving disappointed. We didn't have to try


very hard to find them. Come to see that they are doing their job. They


are not. They are not? No, they are not doing their job. In what way?


Because I'm supposed to be working with them. I want to find out a


simple bit of information and no- one is helping me. What did you


need to find out? They sent me away, I took down two guys' names, I


don't want to follow it up, I want my job. I done the training and


everything. It is a joke. I came down here today. What made


you come down? I heard the news that they needed people, I have


been applying for other jobs as well, and it is part-time position,


so I will be waiting for them. they say you have a chance, or is


it too late? No, they said training is going on in around about three


weeks, hopefully I will get a position.


This man says he was wrongly accused of missing training, which


he had actually turned up for yesterday? This morning someone


called me, what happened to you, you didn't come to the training


yesterday, and today. I said, no, I was there yesterday, but they


changed my appointment to different training, I didn't know what to do.


Some workers said they wished they had never bothered signing up for


the job. Nick Buckles told the Select Committee, he felt the same


way. Do you regret signing the contract saying you would agree to


provide these people, Mr Buckles? Clearly we regret signing the


contract, now we have to get on and deliver. Are you telling the


committee that real serious consideration was given that the


company could deliver before that contract was signed, or was it so


lucrative that you decided it was such a marvellous contract you


would sign? No, careful consideration went in from the team


in the UK, looking at this contract. There was a number of work streams


to see if they could deliver it, it was signed later than we would have


liked but we still signed the contract. It is not a question of


being lucrative. As I said earlier, we did this purely because we


wanted to have a successful security operation at this Olympics.


It is not particularly financially lucrative for us. It was much more


about, ironically, reputation and building reputation for the future.


The problem is s even today staff were telling us that they turned up


for work, here at the Olympic Park because their rota had changed and


they weren't told. One senior member of staff, who wouldn't go on


camera, described the scene here as being in complete meltdown, saying


the system failed his workers, and he was so embarrassed he didn't


wafrpbt to be seen in public in his green - want to be seen in public


in his green uniform. There were few signs of embarrassment from his


chief executive. With all this going on, are you still going to


pay your management fee. Yes. Because why? You haven't managed


the contract. We will have management on the ground. Even with


all that happened you still want to claim the management fee? Yes.


Eventually an answer came. total management fee on current


budgets with our client is in the order of �57 million.


Nick Buckles has admitted G4S can only really confirm personnel on a


day-to-day basis. But with more reports of staff not turning up


today, it looked very much like a numbers game they were losing. I'm


joined by the chairman of the Police Federation, which represents


officers in England and Wales. We know that 380 officers were


called on today in the West Midlands to go through the night.


Do the requests keep coming? They are coming from across the country,


north, south, east and west. The staff just aren't turning up from


G4S. Police officers are having to fill these gaps that are appearing


around the country. We don't know the staff aren't turning up for


anything other than scheduling, they usually want to turn up, I


understand? Some appear to want to turn up, but the thing is staff


aren't there to perform their functions. Clearly there is a limit


to which you can go? Of course, police officers are resilient and


flexible, and we have a duty to protect the public, that is what we


will try to do to deal with this debacle that is taking place. But


we are hugely stretched with the Olympic itself, we had a huge


commitment to supply officers across the UK not just East London,


but we have ordinary operational duties to continue with too, plus


all the other events in the country at the same time. Can you guarantee


normal levels of street staffing and specialist police work and so


forth? We are going to do our absolute best. We have to focus on


what is important for the country. This is national reputational issue


that we have to deal with. We have to ensure the games are safe, and


people can come to London and the other sites, and be secure when


they go there. That is what we will do as police officers, with the


resilience we show, normally in our every day axiveties. There will


come a point when you can't guarantee normal day-to-day police


work, if you are having to lend so many to the Olympics? We are not


there yet. Officers are finding their own time much more stretched.


They are having to have fewer days off, very few days at all during


the Olympic period. But we are trying to manage what is before us.


If you were asked for another 1,000, could you do it, and guarantee


normal levels of policing on the street? We would have to do it, we


have to find the numbers if they are necessary. Goodness me, this


time last year you were dealing with the riots? That is a sillent


point, if you look, we have lost -- salient point, if you look we have


lost 7,000 officers in the last Government, and policing is a lower


priority for this Government, we are less resilient than last year.


You don't know the breaking point until you get to it. It is hard to


say when that point will come. There will come a point where you


can't provide officers to the Olympics? There is not a limitless


box of police officers for the country. I speak to police officers


right across the country at open meetings, they are saying already


that they are feeling very stretched, and the public safety is


put at risk and their own safety. The other argument would be that


this, in a sense, plays into the agenda that you are promoting, that


we don't have enough police officers, and we are facing


cutbacks in the force with the changes of duty. The Four


Musketeers crisis plays into the whole thing, -- G4S crisis plays


into the hands of it. Cynics might say this suits you. The first job


is people are safe, the other come later.


There is stretching over in Northern Ireland, with the PSNI,


for marching season? There is a possibility there.


I'm joined by Ken Livingston, along with Matthew Side, who competed in


the bars lone fla and Sydney -- Barcelona and Sydney Olympics, and


a representative of LOCOG. Craig Oliver, what would you have


done differently? -- Ken Livingston, what would you have done


differently? The big mistake was take control away from the police


and dump it into the Home Office. The police should have run this,


they have the indepth knowledge, they could have made the decision


about the augmented police. In the last two years we have had 2,000


police posts cut in London, with the Olympics coming, this was


madness. No commissioner would have done that, the Home Office was


happy to see it. Is it right that you feel security is overegged?


think there is a real problem here, both ministers want to come on to


the TV and say we are doing everything to protect people, Group


4 got in contact and ramping up the contract. The simple fact is you


have two ways in which a terrorist can strike, you have the lone


psychopath like we had at Atlanta, or the organised attack like Al-


Qaeda. You don't catch Al-Qaeda by frisking people looking at their


Lieutenant-General books, you do it by doubt agents and electronic


surveillance. I have a horrible feeling this is about throwing


money at it, because they are terrified they will come on


Newsnight after a bombing and say why didn't you do more. I think


they are making a miscalculation. Reputationally there is a risk, you


can't be seen to be doing everything other than the utmost?


You have to do the utmost, whether flowing money at a private sector


organisation, with no real experience of counter terrorism is


a good use of money in my opinion. You heard Nick Buckles saying he


wished he hadn't gone for the contract? That is not a surprise


after the Select Committee. Picking up on what Ken said, it is an


extraordinarily difficult balance to strike, these global sporting


events are the perfect platform for terrorists to secure publicity for


their causes. We have seen that in football, we have seen it in


cricket, we have seen it at the previous Olympic Games. On the


other hand, this is supposed to be a celebration of human endeavour,


and the human spirit. At my first Olympics in Barcelona, it was truly


terrifying to see the apparatus that surrounded the venues. The X-


ray machines you had to go through, the checking of the bags. It has to


be the same for journalists and individuals. I agree with Ken, the


downsize to risk-averse politicians is considerable, they may have jofr


egged the pudding. On the simple point of the management see --


Overegged the pudding. On the simple point of the management fee,


Nick Buckles was clear, that the management fee will be taken by G4S.


Is that correct, even if they are contractually allowed it, is it


correct that they take it if their security operation is a fiasco?


is not speculation to say it is a fiasco, it is already there. In


terms of should they take it? No, I don't think they should. However,


this should come as no surprise to anybody, this is another dot on a


trend line of large organisations making massive promises that they


either cannot or did not have any intention of fulfiling. So it


shouldn't be a surprise that at the end of this, when there has been a


massive meltdown, a sequence of mistakes that has led to other


people's lives being disrupted, whether it is soldiers returning


from active warzones, now being reactivated domestically, or


policemen now working double and overtime, to make up for those


mistakes. Something in there should spark a conscience in these


organisations, but we have seen, there is no trend of that happening.


It is not a great start, and just putting that point that Ken made,


that actually the Met should have been doing this, and not a private


organisation, that is very much your political view, that it should


be the police service that provides Security Services? You could have


given the police half this money, they would have done a damn sight


better job than G4S. Let's put it in perspective, the �300 million we


are talking about, if you want to put the figure on the new recruits


coming into the service, you could have employed 15,000 police


officers for a year. That is the sort of service you would have got,


not a few thousand guards at the Olympics.


In terms of how the Olympics will proceed, you talk about being


shocked at Barcelona looking at the apparatus of security. But the


athletes themselves will be so focused and honed on this, that


what is happening for people trying to get to the games will not be in


their peripheral vision even? could almost describe the


distinctive psychology of the sports person is to have tunnel


vision, and to focus on only those variables that are controllable.


Security is not one of those things. If there was a direct and credible


threat, as there was, for example, in the World Badminton Championship,


it would register, and certain athletes flew home from India.


Until that happens they will not be concerned at all. It will barely


register that certain state employees are taking over from


private sector employees to protect their security. I think something


we have to point out as well is, when I spoke to Steve Redgrave


about his five Olympics that he went to, he said he was surprised


how much they grew during that time, the number of people involved both


with athletes and also the press and media who were there as well.


The whole focus of the world is on London.


Let's say the Olympics can grow a bit more. Today it has been


announced that almost half the tickets for football, 1.1 million


are not sold, and other non- football tickets. What,


realistically do you do with them? I'm not surprised that football


tickets have not sold. Because the British footballing public is


sophisticated. They understand that the Olympic Games is not the


pinnacle of the football calendar. What would you do with them, and


the non-football ones. Sebastian Coe says there is ten days until


the games start. You don't want to be left with 250,000 non-football


tickets, do you? No, I don't think you do. The fact is, I'm sure that


there is plenty of logistical things being put in place. I have


heard about top teirs of arenas being blocked off and such like.


Personally I think there is a legacy opportunity here. There is


an opportunity for people who have not, and I'm talking about young


people, people from disenfranchised communities, who have not had an


opportunity. There is an opportunity here to bring them into


the fold of the Olympic Games. Perhaps not on the site, but at


these regional venues, there is a real opportunity there. There is a


lot of people on the site who don't have tickets for a particular event.


When I was mayor I talked to Sebastian Coe, I said look, he was


of the same opinion, if people aren't turning up, or there is


empty seat, form a queue, let people just come in and see it.


of the things we were told by the Government in the police service


and elsewhere in the public sector, is we can learn from the private


sector, this is a lesson we have learned a very salient lesson, and


one the Government should learn about safety and security. On the


wider context, is once Team GB starts winning gold medal, these


stories over ticketing problems and over security will pale, even over


security, will pale. The fundamental issue of security


will remain. Thank you very much. Of course while the head of G4S was


being grilled by one parliamentary committee, another had in front of


it the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. The Treasury


Select Committee gave him no easier ride. Under repeated questioning,


certificate Mervyn insisted the first he knew about the


manipulation of LIBOR was two weeks ago, and the US authorities hadn't


shown him any evidence of wrongdoing when they raised


concerns in 2008. At a Senate hearing across the pond, they said


the Bank of England had been told of LIBOR issues earlier that year.


This LIBOR banking scandal is increasingly resembling a Mexican


shootout, except, unlike spaghetti westerns, the goodies are shooting


each other. Bob Diamond was gunned down last week, and the deputy,


Jerry Del Missier, bit the bullet. Ironically the Barclays' chairman,


Marcus Agius, was fatally shot, only to rise from the dead, for now


at least. With the main people out of the head the Sheriffs are aiming


for each other. They want to know why Bob Diamond


was forced out. You were handing the chairman of Barclays a resolver


and you were telling him to go and shoot his chief executive?


thought the most likely result would be that Bob Diamond would


resign. In fact what he did, is he did take the resolver and he


decided to shoot himself? Yes, and as I said last night, I think that


was an honourable thing to do, I think Mr Agius thought it was the


right thing to do, it was not what I was expecting him to do.


But while the Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, didn't like


using weapons, he was sticking to his guns on circumstances of Mr


Diamond's departure, after the LIBOR scandal had broken cover.


don't like these firearms analogies, and they are false. The question


that was left absolutely with them, I made it very clear, I finished


the meeting by saying, I would like you to make clear to the board,


that the regulators have expressed these concerns, and the board as a


whole needs to know them. They are very concerned and have lost


confidence in the executive management. I did not know what the


outcome of that meeting would be. It was left to them to discuss it


with their board. But when it came to when the


governor first knew that LIBOR had been systematically rigged.


first I knew was any alleged wrongdoing was when the reports


came out two weeks ago. That seemed to clash markedly with a different


Sheriff, who was giving evidence to a different set of elected


officials. Carl Bernstein said his team had been tipped off about --


Mr Bernanke said he had known about 2008. It was tipped off about it


when it received information about LIBOR submissions, a phone call in


2008, in which a trader in Barclays New York told an employee of the


Federal Reserve that he thought that Barclays was under --


underreporting its rate. The reserve communicated with the FSA


and Bank of England in England. The Governor of the Bank of England


concedes he was aware with problems in the rate setting four years ago.


He denies he knew of any willful corruption of the rate until a


month ago, when all the rest of us were made aware of it. The problem


for the governor is, at the very least, he looks niave for not, at


least, expecting fraud four years ago, when the governor from across


the water was tipping him off. we look at a famous court case


coming up again and again, and getting let off by the same judge


again and again, would you not question the judge remaining in


office. Should there not be questions, given the testimony we


have seen by the FSA and the Bank of England, that something just


does not stack up. The regulation has not worked. The system has


clearly failed, and something needs to be done, and it needs to be done


now. When you see the regulation and action in the US, things seem


to happen and quickly. We saw another example of that today, yet


another British bank accused of willfuling ignoring the rules for


gain. HSBC was in the dock, for aiding America's enemies, by


allowing ill gotten gains fundamental through their accounts.


At HSBC we uncovered troubling examples in which weak system may


have allowed criminal or terror funds pass through. The ent the


regulatory entities have concluded that because of the volume of money,


it probably came from the proceeds of ill gotten drug deeds. They were


coached on how to get the funds through the US without information.


Unlike the man at Barclays, the man responsible from HSBC fell quickly


on his sword. As I have thought about the transmission of the bank,


I recommended it was time for me and the bank for someone to head as


head of group compliance. I have agreed to work with the senior


management towards an orderly transition of this important role.


Right now there are eight separate investigations on both sides of the


Atlantic, either suspected fraud or illegal banking activety. So many


it will appear like the bolt on the stable door has been polished, long


after the stallion has run off into the sunset.


Brilliant at ideas, rubbish at making money out of them. For years


Britain has tried to shake off that image, but the financial strictures


of the last couple of years have made the problem worse, just as


fashioning a knowledge-based economy is paramount. In cancer


therapy that is acute. One of the most exciting new treatments,


immunotherapy, is beginning to show promise, just as funding for


crucial research is drying up. Philanthropy has come to the rescue,


with a massive donation of �20 million. Are such acts the way


ahead. One of the beneficiaries of the funds and the science minister


will be with us, but first this. Most of us know someone who has


been there. Waiting, to see if it is cancer.


Waiting to see if the cancer is gone. Waiting to see if it has come


back. Even the best treatments can buy only a few months of extra time.


Now, scientists think one approach could lead us to our best hope of a


cure. But the money, to make that leap, is drying up. Ben Perdriau


and his wife have thrown in from Austrailia he was diagnosed with


melanoma, there was news last year it spread to the brain. His body


has shown resistance to conventional drugs. Two or three


hours after the treatment you get a temperature, 39-40, you start to


shiver and shake. He's about to start a new approach, one that


enlists the power of his own immune system to fight the cancer. He's


only the third person to try this pioneering treatment in the UK.


goal is to look for something with a more promise and durable response,


hopefully in a complete response that can last for several years, if


not indefinitely. So, the therapy that's being developed and been


administered here is something that does hold that promise. So I'm here


putting my hand up for it. This is a melanoma cell, being


attacked by two killer T-cells. Killer T-cells are in the body's


frontline of immune defence, scientists want to use their power


to fight cancer. They have already found they can do this by


stimulating their production with drugs. Now, they are working on a


new approach. Taking killer T-cells out of the patient, and growing


more of them. Creating an attacking army that can be safely reinjected.


This whole approach is called immunotherapy.


Tonight there is some good news to report in the fight against cancer.


An experimental treatment... America last year, a team in the


university of Pennsylvania reported a major breakthrough in


immunotherapy. I am Full health with no cancer. There was dramatic


improvemented in three leukaemia patients, two were in full


remission within the year. News greeted with excitement throughout


the world. Here in the UK there have been simply dramatic results.


Stan was diagnosed with gastric cancer in 2004 chemotherapy reduced


the size of the tumour, but it had grown again two years later.


Professor Hawkins of the Christie Hospital in man chest, began


treating him five years ago, - Manchester, began treating him five


years ago with a drug taken out of his own immune system, a drug that


shows remarkable promise. This is the scan from five years ago, that


is the tumour in the liver there, this is the one a few weeks ago.


Now we can hardly see, hardly anything abnormal there. Sustained


for a long period of time. Very encouraging. This is extremely


encouraging. It is quite remarkable as a response, there is no doubt it


is due to the effects of T-cells in his body. I think what it shows us


is if we get this type of T-cells right we should be able to get that


on a reproducable, probably not in every patient, but in a high


proportion of patients I think we do need to do more trials to test


that, and probably to improve the process further.


How do you feel after seeing Professor Hawkins today? Very good,


actually. Very good. It was enlightning to see the cells, and


for him to explain, the way he did. It has given me bait of a boost,


really. I know now -- me a bit of a boost. I now know, I have always


known the treatment is working, but to actually see it on the screen is


very, very encouraging. His tumour hasn't gone, but Stan is now in


long-term remission. Ben's on his way to undergo the


first part of his treatment. This goes one step beyond Stan's. He's


having a melanoma tumour on his shoulder removed, the team will


search inside the tumour itself for killer T-cells, tell tale signs of


Ben's body fighting back. The idea is to multiply up these cells


outside his body, then reinject them to do their job. These new


immunotherapies over the last couple of years, have given us


great cause for excitement, especially the patients with more


advanced diseases. The options for them are some what limited. Some of


the effects we have been seeing with these new therapies have been


really quite encouraging, I'm sure they will only get better over the


course of the next few years. is one of the UK's leading experts


in clinical immunology, his ground- breaking work on HIV helped uncover


important clues to the way the immune system works. He has been


applying those clues to the fight against cancer. One vital clue was


that tumours themselves cleverly dampen down our immune systems.


we can reconstruct the immune system that is being attacked in


patients that we can't take them out of hospital because it is too


much. That is the first of the building blocks, you bring the


immune system back to normal before you do anything else. Because then


if you give chemotherapy or radiotherapy that treatment is more


likely to work. It has recently been reported that some of these


these new treatment that is takes the brakes of the immune system and


allows it to be functional again, when you radiate a tumour, because


it is a little bit too big, the other tumours will disagree as well.


The treatment matters so much for Ben, because his tumour has


developed resistance to the best that chemotherapy can offer. The


question is whether the team can retrieve enough tumour material


from his shoulder to work with in the laboratory. Then, they have to


hope that any killer T shells they will find in that material will


grow, to form an economy -- T-cells they will find in that material


will grow to form an army to fight for Ben. The UK really has a chance


to lead the world in immunotherapy, but they face a hurdle to get to


the next stage. This time it is not about science, but money.


It has revolutionised what we do we use this all the time. We have a


group of chemists interacting with the structure in 3-D, designing and


making molecules. This is the head of the Institute of Cancer Research,


scientists here use the latest in 3-D visualisation technology to


design new drugs against cancer. Working out the best structure,


atom-by at tomorrow. You can be knee deep with the design team and


group of biologists, saying here is a cavity and a pocket in the


protein we are trying to hit, how can we design a molecule and


capture its 3-D structure. science is exciting, but struggling


to get beyond the lab. Right now we have the combination of the mos


exciting science, and the most frustrating financial situation. We


have the cancer genome, and immune approaches, and incredible science


and ideas, and we can't fund it. We have to come up with creative


approaches. It has to be some kind of partnership between industry,


between Government and from non- profit organisations, charities,


philanthropy, that will fill this prij of the valley of death,


between excellent basic science, and -- bridge between the valley of


death, between excellent basic science and the financial issues.


Since the financial crash, money for new research has been trying up.


Cancer research would normally look to Government, charities or


business to take the work forward. Britain's largest cancer charity


has found it so hard to secure money and partners, it has set up


its own cancer investment fund. Cancer research UK's commercial arm


is spending �25 million, with equal funding from Europe, on this new


investment strategy. In the last five to ten years there have been


far fewer new small companies that we historically have used as our


development partners formed, because of what has happened in


venture capital. Secondly, the industry has migrated away from


early stage research, we really found it difficult to find places


to partner the projects. We have needed to do it ourselves, and the


fund is a mechanism to do that. Scientists at the institute


recently published exciting work on one form of inmuen know therapy,


using a virus that -- immunotherapy, using a virus that hitch as ride on


T-cells. It trigger the immune system to attack, a bit like a


vaccine. Is there more politicians should be doing to make sure the UK


stays at the cutting edge? Government can facilitate many


different aspects of this. It can help with the funding of basic


science and universities and research institutes, it can make it


easier for industries to operate and be successful. It can act as a


catalyst for bringing all these things together in a consortium,


for the good of cancer patients around the world. Is that happening


to best effect at the moment? think good efforts are being made,


more can be done. Ben's tumour sample, and hopefully


the killer T-cells it contains are ready to travel. From the hospital,


straight to the team's cell laboratory some miles away. Here


they will be carefully nutured over the next few weeks. The best hope


is an immediate response, even if that doesn't or kur but there is


some shrinkage, that is a major benefit, doin the track something


else might come along and I will have access to that. Four weeks


later and we have an update, the team found relatively few killer T-


cells in the sample, but they have grown well in the lab, and will be


ready to reinject into Ben in early August. Whilst nothing is certain,


he has been told the treatment does have a 50-50 chance of working.


Drug resistence is one of the biggest challenges in the fight


against cancer. Doctors need a new weapon. And many scientists now


believe that answer lies within ourselves, our own immune systems.


But unless we find a way to pay to take the research like this beyond


a handful of patients, and attract in further funding, then however


good the science, other patients, like Ben, will have to carry on


waiting. Watching that was the science


minister, David Willets, a member of the science and technology


policy research unit at Suffolk university, and the chief clinician


at cancer research UK. Lets let lets, we could lead the world in


immunology, we could also, according to David Cameron, have


life sciences as the jewel in the crown of our economy, so why is


there a four-year freeze on the �4.6 billion science project, which


actually, over the time, with inflation, means that actually it


is a 10% cut in our overall science budget? We have protected the


science budget in cash terms, and actually. But there is a cut?


the medical research budget, partly because of the income that it gets


from previous discoveries, as being protected against inflation as well.


That money is going to medical research. Now, then, the medical


researchers are absolutely up for ideas on immunotherapy and other


developments, that is a decision, quite rightly, for the scientific


community, not me as a minister. you look at it in overall terms,


there is a 10% cut in the science budget. You may cut the science


budget in a different way to give more money elsewhere. But, in fact,


the overall impact is a 10% cut, when other countries, coming out of


deficit, looking at China, and looking at Germany, and also at


America, they are making the life sciences budget a priority. They


see the huge returns and benefits to their population of bucking the


trend in cut and investing more? And the science budget has been, we


are making life sciences a priority. Medical research, as it is enjoying


the benefits of previous discoveries, and has been protected


against inflation as well. On top of that, with the life sciences


strategy last December, we have put more money into the correct


challenge that was identified in your package, breaching the valley


of death, from the pure research sponsored by the Medical Research


Council, to commercial businesses. It is not nearly enough. From your


point of view, this gap that is leading to the valley of death, the


basic research in getting the trials complete and out to patients.


It doesn't need to be more money out of the British economy into


life sciences? First of all, I think the latest figures from the


latest campaign from science and engineering is there is a 14.6%


real court in the British science spending when you include capital


spending. This is at the same time when our competitors, Germany, for


example, has increase bid 15%. Innovation is very pack dependant,


it depends on innovation yesterday, if we are not in the game today, we


will not be in the game ten years time. It is better to get rid of


the Bev sit, and get in the game. David Cameron says words like life


sciences being the jewel in the crown, but if you are going to make


a cut of that extent, we will fall exponentially behind? We have a


world class science base, when tough decisions are being taken, we


have provided the cash protection, and including for more life


sciences, and extra initiatives of breaching the valley of death.


Interesting research that shows even in the US Government goes


closer to market in supporting life sciences. We are now doing the same


in Britain with our life sciences strategy. But the figures matter


n2012 the NIH, the National Institute of Health, one of the


main funders for pharmaceutical and biomedical research, spend �31


billion. This �20 million donation is wonderful news, we are talking


about an area where one drug costs �1 billion. �20 million was your


announcement today from a philanthropist, it is a tremendous


and real gf gift, but �20 million is nothing? It is the largest


donation we have had. I think it is a recognition on the part of our


supporters, that this is a really exciting and vibrant area of


science, where the UK does have the potential to lead the world,


because of the partnership between the universities and the health


system, which has been invested in very substantially by Cancer


Research UK. Can philanthropy take the place of Government funding, or,


indeed, venture capital coming in with a lot of money? I think the


things have to work together. One of the things we understand about


inmuenology, is it is extremely complicated, it doesn't -- it


doesn't like being told what to do. We have to understand at a


fundamental level how these things work, that is not just what a


pharmaceutical company will do. It is rich scientific culture


dependant on all different streams of funding. Different streams of


funding? People talk about the ecosystem, and it sounds very


romantic, but when you look at who the different actors are in that


system, venture capital has been extremely problematic in this


industry, it is a high-risk, uncertain industry, where you have


14 years between discovery and commercial realisation, and they


want quick profits in low-risk areas. That is why you have all the


buy metric companies that produce a lot of money but have no results.


If you want patient capital, that should be coming, whether from


public funding n Brazil it comes from state investment bank, also,


it is fascinating, we have been talking about Barclays obviously a


lot in the last two weeks, Barclays and GSK, as well Aslam tro Zenica,


are three of the companies -- astro Zenica, who are three of the


companies who spend most on stock. GSK spends more on R & D than any


private company in Britain. If you look at King's Cross, you will see


Cancer Research UK, and the British Government through Medical Research


Councils and Britain's leading universities, coming together to


put half a million into a new medical research centre. Half a


that is a lot of money, but if you take what is said, �33 billion in


America? We are absolutely aware thater endlessly competing with


other environments, I still think - - that we are endlessly competing


with other environments, I'm still convinced with the life sciences


budget and the excellent universities, and other things,


that Britain is a world class player. We are competing with other


countries trying to raise their game. It is not that we don't have


great scientists who can actually, that can actually work on the


starting blocks, but is this valley of death getting us to a situation


where every NHS patient can get the treatment they want, and that takes


public money? I accept that, that is why, better than I would say


than any previous Government, we are focusing on getting the public


funding closer to market, and the NHS to buy the stuff. That way you


can bridge the gap. Can that happen, when, there is a real cut in the


science budget? We eventually put extra money into the technology


strategy board, which is putting in �90 million, alongside medical


research money, precisely to take ideas closer to market. That is


historically a valley of death in Britain. �90 million as a one-off


or annually or monthly? It is a continuing flow of investment. This


Government, with that life science catalyst fund. It is one �90


million tranche? It is a continuing programme aimed at taking research


closer to commercialisation, because as was correct low argued,


that we need to supply that funding close to market. You said �90


million, is it �90 million, or a year, or a month, or one tranche of


�90 million? It is �180 million over three years that will go into


this programme. Sorry, but at the same time, Pfizer has left, GSK is


leaving, others are leaving, where are they going? One of the


countries in the world that is spending the most public money.


�800 billion in the last 60 years has been spent by the US. Looking


at tomorrow morning's front pages, There is to be no swan upping, the


annual census of swans has been going on since medieval times,


though the Monarch has long stopped eating them. It has been cancelled


because of the floods, if you are desperate to count swans, we can


Hello, before we get any warm sunny weather there is more rain to come.


It stays wet on Wednesday, heavy showers follow the overnight rain


into Northern Ireland, we will see it turning showery across England


and Wales. The showers could be heavy, there will be some sunshine


between them in northern England. A few thundery showers will work


across the Midlands during the afternoon. Very few showers, London


and southwards, it may well stay dry. There will be a noticable


breeze blowing a strong south- westerly wind, it will take the


edge off the temperatures. A wet morning for the south west of


England and Wales, it will be followed by sunshine and showers,


most of the showers will be in the north. Some could be heavy.


Northern Ireland, where we get sunshine and heavy showers, the


rain may come back in the north later on in the day. It is still


there all day, across central, southern Scotland. There could be a


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

Now the police are filling in as Olympic security, what are the consequences? How much worse can it get for G4S?

The chief bankers of Britain and America on who knew what and when on Barclays.

And will the government pay to develop revolutionary cancer treatments?

Download Subtitles