:00:12. > :00:16.Beset on all sides by advice, which way is the Prime Minister going to
:00:16. > :00:19.turn on the economy? Tonight, the Deputy Prime Minister,
:00:19. > :00:22.Nick Clegg, calls for an emergency tax on the rich.
:00:22. > :00:26.While this morning, David Cameron was asked by a senior Tory to
:00:26. > :00:30.prove's a man not a mouse over a third runway at Heathrow.
:00:30. > :00:34.Still in a double-dip recession, we will ask whether all this shows the
:00:34. > :00:37.coalition is increasingly desperate to turn the economy, and its own
:00:37. > :00:42.fortunes around. If you knew for certain your child
:00:42. > :00:47.was to be born with a disability, would you, should you, still have a
:00:47. > :00:52.baby? It is sometimes said that because the Nancys embraced
:00:52. > :00:58.eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at least to take the idea of
:00:58. > :01:02.improving human beings seriously. Now, it seems to me just rather
:01:02. > :01:07.silly to think that things are wrong because bad people do them.
:01:07. > :01:10.We will debate whether eugenics is making a covert come back. The
:01:10. > :01:16.patent wars of the high-tech giants, is there anything in it for the
:01:16. > :01:24.customer, or does it stifle the creativity it seeks to protect. The
:01:24. > :01:33.end of publishing, the Booker Prize-winning novelist, Howard
:01:33. > :01:36.Jacobson and his new novel Zoo Time, and is the reader disappearing.
:01:36. > :01:39.Good evening, the nation's politicians have returning from
:01:39. > :01:43.their summer holidays, mainly with one thought on their minds, what
:01:43. > :01:47.can be done to turn the economy around. The Deputy Prime Minister,
:01:47. > :01:50.Nick Clegg, has joined that debate tonight, in an interview with the
:01:50. > :01:54.Guardian, calling for an emergency wealth tax. And warning that
:01:54. > :01:57.prosperity and social cohesion are at risk, unless the richest make a
:01:57. > :02:00.bigger contribution, to what he calls a long economic war. It was
:02:00. > :02:06.the second bit of uncomfortable advice for the Prime Minister,
:02:06. > :02:11.after one Tory MP called for him to prove his political manhood, rather
:02:11. > :02:14.than mousehood, over the third runway at Heathrow Airport. What do
:02:14. > :02:17.we think Nick Clegg had in mind? Speaking to people tonight who know
:02:17. > :02:21.Nick Clegg's mind, they make it clear we will not get any more
:02:21. > :02:26.detail on what form this tax might be in the very near future. But,
:02:26. > :02:30.they are very clear, if the recent bad economic news means that those
:02:30. > :02:33.further down the economic pecking order are asked to make more of a
:02:33. > :02:37.sacrifice, for example, there are more cuts to come, then those at
:02:37. > :02:41.the very top should be asked to increase the burden on themselves.
:02:41. > :02:45.What form that takes, they are not clear yet on the exact detail. But
:02:45. > :02:49.it would be something like the mansion tax that was in their last
:02:49. > :02:53.manifest at the moment the mansion tax you can't shift your house in
:02:53. > :02:56.west London worth �2 million offshore, you can't pretend it
:02:56. > :02:59.doesn't exist or it is not there or it is a shed. Something like a
:02:59. > :03:02.mansion tax that is on wealth and not income. Now, speaking to
:03:02. > :03:06.Downing Street tonight, they make it very clear, this is not
:03:07. > :03:11.coalition policy S several times during a conversation it was
:03:11. > :03:13.pointed pointed out to me, that this is the head of the Liberal
:03:13. > :03:16.Democrats speaking ahead of the party conference. It won't be
:03:16. > :03:23.necessarily welcomed on Downing Street, coming on day when Mr
:03:23. > :03:30.Cameron was receiving advice on the expansion of Heathrow as well.
:03:30. > :03:33.It is an obvious metaphor, soaring planes leading to, it is argued,
:03:33. > :03:38.soaring growth, or some growth would be nice. Why Heathrow?
:03:38. > :03:41.Because supporters say it would be the quickest and cheapest way of
:03:41. > :03:46.expanding airport xasty. The reason airport capacity is important to
:03:46. > :03:48.all of us, is we are in a recession f we want to build our way out of
:03:48. > :03:53.economic problems wrecks need better links with economies around
:03:53. > :03:57.the world that are growing, Brazil, India, China and others. We can't
:03:57. > :04:02.do that sitting here. We need to fly out as business people making
:04:02. > :04:06.deals, and people flying in to make deals, and be more connected to
:04:06. > :04:11.those parts of the world. But, this is all bound up in politics, down
:04:11. > :04:15.there in west London, or what would be west London f this fpsn't a
:04:15. > :04:19.simulator, are millions of people whose lives are blighted from the
:04:19. > :04:24.noise from Heathrow. Many of the seats down there are marginal. Even
:04:24. > :04:28.the safe ones would probably turn marginal if the incumbent came out
:04:28. > :04:34.in favour of a third runway at Heathrow.
:04:34. > :04:39.Take one MP, for example, Justine Greening, the MP for Putney pro-
:04:39. > :04:44.claimed her opposition 0 to a third runway, from her election leaf --
:04:44. > :04:50.opposition to a third runway from her election leaflet, she even
:04:50. > :04:54.quotes David Cameron saying "no ifs no buts no third runway", as well
:04:54. > :04:59.as an MP, Justine Greening is the Transport Secretary, and not in any
:04:59. > :05:02.mood, clearly, to change her mind. Thepm has been clear cut that we
:05:02. > :05:05.have a coalition agreement not to have a third runway that we are
:05:05. > :05:08.planning to stick to. There is cross-party consensus, even the
:05:08. > :05:13.Labour Party have now accepted their push for a third runway was
:05:13. > :05:17.wrong, and they have dropped that. There will always be people who
:05:17. > :05:20.hold different views in any mind of political debate. There is a broad
:05:20. > :05:25.consensus now. Many think that promise is now out of date. Writing
:05:25. > :05:29.in the Telegraph, the chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select
:05:29. > :05:35.Committee, Tim Yeo, says that he's changed his mind on the issue, and
:05:35. > :05:39.thepm should too. He writes -- PM should too. He writes that the
:05:39. > :05:42.Prime Minister should ask himself if he's a man or a mouse.
:05:42. > :05:46.January this year, greenhouse gas emissions from flying were brought
:05:46. > :05:52.within the EU cap for the first time. Never happened before. And
:05:52. > :05:55.the effect of that is that, however many runways we build, the total
:05:55. > :05:59.greenhouse gas emissions, across the whole of Europe, will not
:05:59. > :06:03.increase by a single kilogram. That very important environmental reason
:06:03. > :06:07.for opposing the third runway, has now been removed. Given that is the
:06:07. > :06:11.situation, we should respond to the business imperative, from the
:06:11. > :06:15.business imperative that clearly is we need more runway capacity at
:06:15. > :06:18.Heathrow. One of David Cameron's problems is he has already made
:06:18. > :06:24.some pretty startling changes of political direction already during
:06:24. > :06:29.his term as PM. Think of the pasty tax, charity tax, and fuel duty. So
:06:29. > :06:33.his MPs know, well, he's open to persuasion. And what's one more U-
:06:33. > :06:37.turn, they argue. As well as upsetting many of his MPs who have
:06:37. > :06:41.seats down there, he would also upset one of the huge political
:06:41. > :06:46.figures of our time, who has grown even bigger in recent months. So
:06:46. > :06:54.big, in fact, you could almost see them from up here. What you can't
:06:54. > :06:57.do is endlessly cram a court into a pintpot at Heathrow, put hundreds
:06:58. > :07:02.of thousands of more flights into London's western suburbs, making
:07:02. > :07:06.sure people in the city have much worse noise and traffic pollution
:07:06. > :07:10.in west London, when that solution, a third runway, won't even deliver
:07:10. > :07:14.what you want in the long-term. And that's why I hope they go for a
:07:14. > :07:18.bigger, bolder, better option. there are those Conservatives who
:07:18. > :07:24.think that, although it would be wrong to go for a third runway now,
:07:24. > :07:28.it shouldn't be ruled out forever. We have to respect the fact that we
:07:28. > :07:33.were elected with a mandate not to put a third runway in. And I would
:07:33. > :07:37.be disappointed to see us go back on that, even though I regard it as
:07:37. > :07:42.absolutely vital we still get the process under way to determine what
:07:42. > :07:47.we want. I think the two can sitcom for theably together. And let it be
:07:47. > :07:54.at the next general election that this issue, hopefully, will form
:07:54. > :07:59.part -- two can sit comfortably together, and let's hope at the
:07:59. > :08:06.next general election it will form part of the mandate. This could all
:08:06. > :08:14.get lift off tomorrow, in the Guardian, there is the Deputy Prime
:08:14. > :08:19.Minister giving his idea of a tax on wealth, might be as nice as
:08:19. > :08:24.sound as a low-flying jumbo. My guests are with me now. Emma
:08:24. > :08:27.Duncan is deputy editor of the economy economy, and joining the
:08:27. > :08:32.anti-Heathrow expansion campaign, but changed her mind, and Ann
:08:32. > :08:36.Pettifor is a fellow of the left- leaning economics foundation. We
:08:36. > :08:40.are joined by Lord Oakeshott, whoa might be able to tell us what Nick
:08:40. > :08:43.Clegg is up to. Is this a bit of cheering up the troops before the
:08:43. > :08:48.party conference, or is this serious business of squeezing the
:08:48. > :08:53.rich until the pips squeak? This is seriously pushing Lib Dem policy.
:08:53. > :08:58.It is well established, it is very popular. The mansion tax is the key.
:08:58. > :09:02.Because, as your int tro said, the key way you make sure the wealthy
:09:02. > :09:07.pay their fair share of tax is by taxing their houses, that is the
:09:07. > :09:13.one thing they can't move to mount Monoco. It is more than that. It is
:09:13. > :09:18.the emergency stealth tax? Nick is saying we will be pushing for the
:09:18. > :09:21.mansion tax, you can do that quickly. Let me just say, I'm
:09:21. > :09:24.delighted Nick has come back radicalised and refreshed from his
:09:24. > :09:28.holiday. There was a serious push inside Government, and outside, to
:09:28. > :09:32.get the mansion tax through in the budget. It made very good progress.
:09:32. > :09:38.So, indeed, some of the things that were done could help lead the way
:09:38. > :09:41.in, there was actually a tax of 15% in, there was actually a tax of 15%
:09:41. > :09:44.on people who keep their houses in companies. This is now the time, as
:09:44. > :09:50.the economy pain has to be shared more, through having a real push
:09:50. > :09:55.next year to get the mansion tax. If he wanted to do that he wouldn't
:09:55. > :10:00.have vote today reduce the top rate of tax to 45%, you are all over tax
:10:00. > :10:04.on the rich? We are not. It is very clear democrat policy, we were
:10:04. > :10:09.pushing very hard inside. Let me say. But not on income tax, that is
:10:09. > :10:13.something collected from the rich. Let me explain it, I'm not the
:10:13. > :10:16.greatest admirer of George Osborne, but he was open minded in the
:10:16. > :10:21.budget. But the problem was David Cameron. We will have a serious
:10:21. > :10:27.push and try to get that. In addition, obviously there are other
:10:27. > :10:33.things you can do to take longer, but we are delighted to hear Nick
:10:33. > :10:36.Clegg coming out strong on tax for Liberal Democrats. It is a bit of
:10:36. > :10:41.cheering? Nick has had a pretty hard year, we are happy to see him
:10:41. > :10:45.coming back and fighting for Lib Dem policies. I don't suppose you
:10:45. > :10:51.are quite as cheered up with the mansion tax return prospect?
:10:52. > :10:54.think this is pre-conference gestureing, in a way. This is not
:10:54. > :11:04.about something that is Government policy. This is Nick Clegg saying
:11:04. > :11:05.
:11:05. > :11:09.let's try out a few ideas before party conference. It is not
:11:09. > :11:12.Government policy. It is Lib Dem policy. We are working in a
:11:12. > :11:16.coalition. There was a serious push for it last year, and a bigger push
:11:16. > :11:21.this year, this is not a vague idea, this is in our policy, central, it
:11:21. > :11:27.is a very popular policy as well. What Conservatives need to learn is
:11:27. > :11:33.they should push popular policies like the mansion tax and the banks.
:11:33. > :11:35.It is not about popular decisions it is about governing. I think this
:11:35. > :11:38.is a discussion pre-conference season to get the debate going in
:11:38. > :11:42.the Liberal Democrats, it is not something the Government are
:11:42. > :11:46.proposing at the moment. It is not something that is part of policy.
:11:46. > :11:49.If Nick Clegg wants it to discuss it at his party conference, that is
:11:49. > :11:55.absolutely fine. Do you think the wealthy pay their fair share of tax
:11:55. > :11:59.in this country, Mrs Macleod? always for reducing. Do you think
:11:59. > :12:05.they pay the fair share or not? have done the right thing. Do you
:12:05. > :12:09.think they pay their stpair share or not? -- fair share or not?
:12:09. > :12:15.Simple question? I'm a Conservative and believe in low taxation. You do
:12:15. > :12:18.then. What do you think of this, and the reintroduction of this
:12:18. > :12:23.Heathrow runway, with people worried about lack of growth and
:12:23. > :12:27.cuts? The word "emergency" is always difficult, anything that
:12:27. > :12:33.creates uncertainty is bad for the economy. Personally, I'm not at all
:12:33. > :12:37.against property taxes, I think they are quite a good idea. Because
:12:37. > :12:41.you can't move property? That's it, and also income is a bad thing to
:12:41. > :12:45.tax, because you shouldn't really go around discouraging people from
:12:45. > :12:53.working. You don't see a conflict in Nick Clegg saying we will sign
:12:53. > :12:57.on to the 45p tax rate as opposed to 50p, but we should have a
:12:57. > :13:00.mansion tax? I don't want to see taxes that, as I think you were
:13:00. > :13:05.saying earlier, might squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, we need
:13:05. > :13:08.the rich, we need their money. Pettifor what do you make of it, do
:13:08. > :13:13.you think it is a good idea to squeeze the rich and it is fairer?
:13:13. > :13:16.It is much fairer to be taxing the rich, and especially their assets,
:13:16. > :13:20.which have grown massively, which have been inflated by the credit
:13:20. > :13:24.boom. They have not been taxed on it. The point is, this is a sign of
:13:24. > :13:29.desperation, because this coalition Government has increased taxes
:13:29. > :13:32.before. They believe that by squeezing the economy and
:13:32. > :13:35.increasing taxes and cutting spending, they will get growth,
:13:35. > :13:39.economic activity, they are not. It is having the reverse result.
:13:39. > :13:44.will come back in a second, I wanted to pursue the point about
:13:44. > :13:48.Heathrow, some people would say that is what is really driving the
:13:48. > :13:52.debate today. Heathrow Airport is important, but it is not as
:13:52. > :13:55.important for the "are you a man or a mouse comment", this is about
:13:55. > :14:00.real worries in your party about not being enough growth in the
:14:00. > :14:05.economy, and things not going well, and you may may have to introduce
:14:05. > :14:07.more harsh cuts? The Heathrow debate was about a few people
:14:07. > :14:11.speaking up about what their concerns are about growth in the
:14:11. > :14:17.economy. I think it is a fair point. The growth in the economy and jobs
:14:17. > :14:20.is a top priority for us right now. And should be, so, therefore, there
:14:20. > :14:24.is no issue with people exploring different options for what might be
:14:24. > :14:29.some of the solution to that. But for me, certainly, a third runway
:14:29. > :14:32.for me is absolutely no solution at all. You changed your mind on it,
:14:32. > :14:37.presumably you find it noisy and irritating, but why did you change
:14:37. > :14:40.your mind? Because I had to do some work looking at London's economy. I
:14:40. > :14:45.came to understand how absolutely crucial international connections
:14:45. > :14:50.are to London. London is the most international, great, global city
:14:50. > :14:56.that there is. New York, essentially, is serving America.
:14:56. > :15:00.London service the world. Companies need to be impecably connected with
:15:00. > :15:04.the rest of the world. The problem is, if you look at the figures on
:15:04. > :15:09.the connectivity of London to the big new, emerging markets, which
:15:09. > :15:14.are the places our businessmen are going to need to get to, and where
:15:14. > :15:19.we need investment from, other European countries are increasingly
:15:19. > :15:23.improving their connectivity. Holland and Germany. This is
:15:23. > :15:28.absolutely no economic case whatsoever for expanding Heathrow,
:15:28. > :15:31.in order to improve the economy. The fact of the matter is, if we
:15:31. > :15:35.want increased connectivity, I'm not against, that then the airlines
:15:35. > :15:39.will simply have to adapt their routes. If they are not going to do
:15:39. > :15:41.that, maybe Governments should regulate them. They may go
:15:41. > :15:44.elsewhere? The airlines could adapt their routes to make the
:15:44. > :15:49.connectivity. You don't need to expand the airport to make that
:15:49. > :15:52.happen. You need to change the airline routes. Can we have a bit
:15:52. > :15:55.of a reality check here. It is an interesting argument about Heathrow,
:15:55. > :15:59.and whether you should have a third runway. I don't think you should.
:15:59. > :16:02.It is completely irrelevant to the current economic crisis. Whatever
:16:03. > :16:06.we do at Heathrow, it is years and years away. This is where I agree
:16:06. > :16:10.with my coalition colleague. It is not irrelevant, it is not
:16:10. > :16:14.irrelevant. We are in a serious recession here, we are going
:16:14. > :16:18.backwards what we have to do is get the banks lending and get houses
:16:18. > :16:22.built. This is long-term. We have to encourage private sector
:16:22. > :16:27.investment in infrastructure, the Government has been saying it wants
:16:27. > :16:30.that, there is a whole lot of money that is sitting there, ready to
:16:30. > :16:40.build, another runway at Heathrow, which we need for our economy in
:16:40. > :16:44.the long-term, and that would do it. Please, please. When you have got
:16:44. > :16:48.quite a senior backbencher talking about a "man or a mouse moment", it
:16:48. > :16:52.suggests it is a policy issue, but masking something deeper in that,
:16:52. > :16:56.which is discontent with David Cameron's leadership. Is this some
:16:56. > :17:00.kind of Westland moment, people saying it is a policy moment, but
:17:00. > :17:03.it is something else, lack of leadership? I don't think it is
:17:03. > :17:07.lack of leadership. I think the Heathrow debate is something today
:17:07. > :17:11.everybody is speaking about. It has been about Heathrow, to a large
:17:11. > :17:14.extent. But largely also about jobs and the economy. It is also about
:17:14. > :17:18.leadership? I don't think so. I think David Cameron has shown
:17:18. > :17:21.really strong leadership, throughout the time in the
:17:21. > :17:25.coalition Government. And prior to that. When you are asked "man or
:17:25. > :17:29.mouse", that suggests a lack of it? That is one person, let's get it
:17:29. > :17:32.into perspective. One person made the comments and I think he was
:17:32. > :17:35.wrong. I think David Cameron has shown strong leadership in trying
:17:35. > :17:39.to take the country forward, putting new initiatives in place to
:17:39. > :17:42.turn the country around. He has said strongly with Nick Clegg, no
:17:42. > :17:46.third runway, and there will be no third runway. On that cross-party
:17:46. > :17:54.agreement we will leave it there. Now, the Olympic motto of higher,
:17:54. > :17:57.faster, stronger, has always had one obvious theme, better. The
:17:57. > :18:01.London Paralympics games are thought to be the best ever and
:18:02. > :18:06.feature the best athletes in the world. Former British table tennis
:18:06. > :18:11.champion reports, there is a new debate about an issue raised in
:18:11. > :18:17.London 100 years ago, what should the role of science be in improving
:18:17. > :18:24.human life. Should it include interfering with the process of
:18:24. > :18:29.evolution itself, the name of it is a dirty word "eugenics". Here is
:18:29. > :18:35.the report. Eugenics.
:18:35. > :18:41.It seeks to apply the known laws of hereditary. Taking control of the
:18:41. > :18:45.evolutionary process to improve the human condition. That is the
:18:45. > :18:50.rational of eugenics. It would have been better by far for them and for
:18:50. > :18:56.the rest of the community if they had never been born. But the most
:18:56. > :19:00.henous crimes of the 20th century, the Holocaust, the mass murder of
:19:00. > :19:10.the disabled, the enforced sterilisation of anyone considered
:19:10. > :19:17.
:19:17. > :19:21.inferior. It all took place in the name of eugenics. But can we
:19:21. > :19:27.embrace the promise of eugenics without its totalitarian
:19:27. > :19:37.conotations. A modern, humane eugenics, driven not by coercion,
:19:37. > :19:41.
:19:41. > :19:48.but by individual choice. The world is about to descend upon London for
:19:48. > :19:53.the Paralympic Games. More than 4,000 athletes will compete in 20
:19:53. > :19:57.different events. These British athletes are preparing for the goal
:19:57. > :20:01.ball competition. The games are a celebration, not merely of sport,
:20:01. > :20:11.but of the human spirit, a celebration of the greatest
:20:11. > :20:12.
:20:12. > :20:16.disabled athletes on the planet. But 100 years ago, London welcomed
:20:16. > :20:22.a rather different gathering. Disability was at the top of the
:20:22. > :20:27.agenda, but with a very different twist. It was here, on the banks of
:20:27. > :20:31.the Thames, in the summer of 1912, that the first international
:20:31. > :20:36.eugenics conference took place. This was no fringe event, many of
:20:36. > :20:40.the world's leading politicians and scientists descended upon London to
:20:40. > :20:48.debate, amongst other things, a very simple issue. How to rid the
:20:48. > :20:52.world of physical and mental disability. The media coverage
:20:52. > :20:57.hinted at a brighter future, taking advances in our understanding of
:20:57. > :21:05.genetics and breeding, to enhance future well being, and reduce
:21:05. > :21:11.disease, and disability. Churchill attended the coverage, as did the
:21:11. > :21:15.former Prime Minister, Lord Balfour, notable advocates included Bernard
:21:15. > :21:25.Shaw, HG Wells, and John Maynard Keynes, a cricketor of the British
:21:25. > :21:28.
:21:28. > :21:34.eugenics society. In many ways, eugenics united left and right.
:21:34. > :21:40.Professor James Moore of the Open University, is an expert on the
:21:40. > :21:46.history of eugenics and its consequences. The professional
:21:46. > :21:52.middle-classes were the interested, with a bee in their bonnets. The
:21:52. > :21:57.interest was future generations, the unborn. Eugenicists devoted
:21:57. > :22:01.themselves to future generations and those who ought not to be born.
:22:01. > :22:06.You are making a constituency of a voiceless unborn future was really
:22:06. > :22:12.quite easy to convince people, that some people would be an infliction
:22:12. > :22:17.on posterity. But from these seeds eugenics grew into something quite
:22:17. > :22:27.different. In the hands of the Nazis, it became a project, not for
:22:27. > :22:28.
:22:28. > :22:33.improving lives, but for destroying them. The effect of the environment
:22:34. > :22:38.on human traits was virtually ignored, eugenics became a pretext
:22:38. > :22:45.for eliminating anyone considered intellectually, physically, or
:22:45. > :22:50.Asianly inferior. Consultants to this German exhibit, were many
:22:50. > :22:54.people who later were honoured by the Nazi, and who wrote the
:22:54. > :22:59.textbooks quoted by Adolf Hitler and the founders of German racial
:22:59. > :23:03.policy in the 1930s, no-one saw that coming then.
:23:03. > :23:07.But eugenics survived the end of the Second World War. Sweden
:23:07. > :23:15.performed more than 6 2,000 sterilisations of the mental low
:23:15. > :23:20.and physically disabled, right into the 1970s, and often, by force.
:23:20. > :23:26.Virginia sterilised 8,000, California 21,000, other programmes
:23:26. > :23:31.existed in Korea, Japan, Canada, and beyond. This is the covert
:23:31. > :23:36.history of 20th century disability, and it hasn't stopped yet. In the
:23:36. > :23:43.last two decades, there have been involuntary sterilisations amongst
:23:43. > :23:49.gypsies in Europe, and the native peoples of Peru. The legacy of
:23:49. > :23:53.London 1912, hoifr unintended, has been hor -- however unintended, has
:23:53. > :23:55.been horrific, not just the eugenics of Nazi Germany, but the
:23:55. > :24:00.programmes of sterilisation that have taken place throughout the
:24:00. > :24:07.world. Perhaps the most shocking thing of all, is that these kinds
:24:07. > :24:13.of programme continue to exist today. Many of the paralympians
:24:13. > :24:18.will be celebrating in London, and have the same disabilities as those
:24:18. > :24:23.whose rights have been violated. Does this mean we should write off
:24:23. > :24:27.eugenics in its totality. We stand at the dawn of a new era, where
:24:27. > :24:30.advances in genetic engineering, and embryo selection, could permit
:24:30. > :24:34.parents to take far more control of the genetic make up of their
:24:34. > :24:43.children. Should the prospect of designer babies be ignored, just
:24:43. > :24:47.because of its associations with Nazisms. It is sometimes said that
:24:48. > :24:52.because the Nazis embraced eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at
:24:52. > :24:58.least, to take the idea of improving human beings seriously.
:24:59. > :25:03.Now, it seems to me just rather silly to think that things are
:25:03. > :25:07.wrong because bad people do them. So, if it is true, which I think it
:25:07. > :25:14.is doubtful, that the Nazis made the trains run on time, it doesn't
:25:14. > :25:18.mean it is wicked to try to have a punctual railway system. There are
:25:18. > :25:23.powerful, moral reasons to enhance human beings. And indeed human
:25:23. > :25:26.beings are inveterate self- improvers.
:25:26. > :25:31.This conception of eugenics has nothing to do with violating the
:25:31. > :25:36.rights of the disabled, it is about allowing parents to do the best for
:25:36. > :25:40.themselves, and their children. But critics see dangers. I think
:25:40. > :25:45.sometimes having a disability can make life harder, but it doesn't
:25:45. > :25:50.necessarily mean it is a bad thing. It just means that some things in
:25:51. > :25:53.life are more of a challenge. Sharky, a British paralympian, has
:25:53. > :26:00.a genetic condition that causes partial sightedness. I wouldn't
:26:00. > :26:03.want a designer baby. I think you then take on the responsibility of
:26:03. > :26:07.how that child is when it is born, if you have made that decision, it
:26:07. > :26:14.is on your head be it. When you start meddling with that and
:26:14. > :26:19.playing God within that situation, you are then responsible. We don't
:26:19. > :26:22.want nature to take its course. Nature is a killer. We could not
:26:22. > :26:26.practice medicine if we believed in letting nature take its course.
:26:26. > :26:36.Because one of the best definitions I know of medicine is the
:26:36. > :26:37.
:26:37. > :26:42.comprehensive attempt to frustrate the course of nature. The debate
:26:42. > :26:50.over eugenics hinges on an even deeper question. Perhaps the
:26:50. > :26:54.deepest question of all. What gives value to human life? Life all ends
:26:54. > :27:04.the same way for everyone. We all finish this life at some point,
:27:04. > :27:08.
:27:08. > :27:13.what did you do with it along the way? Eugenics has taken humanity
:27:13. > :27:20.down many dark roads and caused untold suffering. But could a new
:27:20. > :27:28.eugenics, enlightened by empathy, lefrpbed liberty, finally be about
:27:28. > :27:33.to fulfil its promise. We have our guests here, some of our guests
:27:33. > :27:37.views were in the film. We have a newspaper columnist who has written
:27:37. > :27:45.about the apartheid some people with disabilities face, and cares
:27:45. > :27:48.for his own daughter. And Kerry is a BBC presenter with the lower part
:27:48. > :27:57.of her right arm missing. What do you think of the moral argument
:27:57. > :28:00.that we have the duty to prevent disease and science has a moral
:28:00. > :28:04.responsibility to prevent disability? It is a human
:28:04. > :28:07.responsibility rather than a moral argument, all of us are responsible
:28:07. > :28:11.for the future of the human race, in one sense. If you go down the
:28:11. > :28:16.road and say we can create the perfect person, what you are doing
:28:17. > :28:23.is saying well, unless we match up to this, therefore everyone else is
:28:23. > :28:27.imperfect in some way. It's very foolish to think that we can create
:28:27. > :28:32.an almighty human, because we're human beings, as long as we have
:28:32. > :28:36.war we will have disabilities. People are coming back from
:28:36. > :28:39.Afghanistan maimed in some way or other. It is like saying are they
:28:39. > :28:43.also imperfect, the same way as people born with a disability.
:28:43. > :28:48.Actually, no, none of us are imperfect, we are different from
:28:48. > :28:54.what the suggested norm is. This has a human face, this isn't just
:28:54. > :28:58.an abstract issue. I don't dissent from anything Kerry has just said,
:28:58. > :29:02.of course, she's absolutely right. I have no interest in the idea of
:29:02. > :29:06.perfection, it is a serious question, as to whether we should
:29:06. > :29:11.try to improve the health of human kind, and to improve the health of
:29:11. > :29:15.our children, and if we can do that, at a very early stage, if we can
:29:15. > :29:21.make people more resistant to disease, longer living, healthier,
:29:21. > :29:24.I think that is something that a good person would try to do. I will
:29:24. > :29:29.come back to you Kerry, asking Ian about, that do you think there is
:29:29. > :29:34.something wrong with that vision, that because you can do it you
:29:34. > :29:39.should do it? It is an obscene vision we have seen before in
:29:39. > :29:44.history. On one degree we should give credit to Professor Harris
:29:44. > :29:50.because he's showing science is going faster than society can cope
:29:51. > :29:55.with. And we are seeing grotesque views coming before us. There is
:29:55. > :29:58.this view that disability is a medical issue, and there is a
:29:58. > :30:01.secondary status to disabled people and we should eliminate that. There
:30:01. > :30:06.is a perception that a disabled person has a worse quality of life
:30:06. > :30:11.and should be stopped from living, in every single way it is
:30:11. > :30:15.extraordinarily grotesquely so damning, and horribly superiorism
:30:15. > :30:18.over disabled people. I suspect every parent is watching what would
:30:18. > :30:22.I have done in your position, had I known, if I could have done
:30:22. > :30:26.something about it, would I have chosen another way? Is that
:30:26. > :30:31.something you thought about? There is presumption behind that, that a
:30:31. > :30:34.childlike mine has a worse than inferior way of life. For all her
:30:34. > :30:37.medical problems that bring her pain, she has a very happy life.
:30:37. > :30:43.The problems she has in the main are those put forward by society, a
:30:43. > :30:48.lot of people in society have the views that the professor has, that
:30:48. > :30:53.there is this apartheid that disabled people are exiled to the
:30:53. > :30:56.fringes of society. There is a fear of disabled people, there is an
:30:56. > :30:58.idea they are inferior and we don't want them in society. That is the
:30:58. > :31:02.presumption about the question you are asking and the views put
:31:02. > :31:08.forward by Professor Harris. think you don't know what my views
:31:08. > :31:12.R I do know you have advocated infantiside in the past, that is an
:31:12. > :31:16.interesting thing to advocate. have not advocated that, we are not
:31:16. > :31:20.talking about infantiside. You have been quoted in the past saying you
:31:20. > :31:28.have been in favour of infantiside. I may have been quoted in that way,
:31:28. > :31:32.that is not the subject. Certain low, look, think about, don't think
:31:32. > :31:36.about disability, but inhancement. There is a very thin line. I could
:31:36. > :31:39.be better in all sorts of ways than I am, I would like to be more
:31:39. > :31:43.intelligent and resistant to disease, I would like to have a
:31:43. > :31:48.better life expectancy than I do have. That doesn't mean that I'm
:31:48. > :31:52.unworthy to live now, that doesn't mean that I think people like me
:31:52. > :31:57.are inferior. Of course I don't think any of those things, I don't
:31:57. > :32:01.think your daughter is inferior or I am, but I do see a considerable
:32:01. > :32:04.point in trying to make people healthier, longer lived, so that
:32:04. > :32:08.they can have more productive lives and do more of the things that they
:32:08. > :32:11.would wish to do. Kerry, you have also got a child. Was it something
:32:11. > :32:16.that you thought about, is this going to be a problem for her as
:32:16. > :32:20.well as for you, is that something that even? Would my disability be a
:32:21. > :32:24.problem for her, I don't think about that, if it is, I don't care,
:32:25. > :32:29.she will have to get on with it. There are millions of things life
:32:29. > :32:34.with throw at you, having a mum with one hand is a tiny aspect. My
:32:34. > :32:38.daughter is mixed race, have I made her life harder by having a mixed
:32:38. > :32:41.race child? I don't know, all I can do is support her the best way I
:32:41. > :32:45.can, give her love and all the creativity and imagination I would
:32:45. > :32:50.give to any of my children and see what she does with it. Do you think
:32:50. > :32:53.with the advances in science that this debate is not just inevitable,
:32:53. > :32:57.but we will have more and more about it, and people will think
:32:57. > :33:00.more about it? I think it is sad and unfortunate. Probably you are
:33:00. > :33:04.right. I really hate the way that health and disabled is grouped all
:33:04. > :33:08.into the same thing. You know, we would all like to have a cure for
:33:08. > :33:12.cancer and AIDS, but that is a very different things to say someone who
:33:12. > :33:16.is living with an impairment, that isn't necessarily making their life
:33:17. > :33:21.harder, in a physical sense, perhaps in the sense of how society
:33:21. > :33:24.views them, it is making their life harder. But impairments aren't
:33:24. > :33:28.necessarily something that needs to be challenged or changed, they are
:33:28. > :33:32.something that needs to be worked out. Professor, do you think in
:33:32. > :33:36.that context it is morally wrong for some people to have children,
:33:36. > :33:41.if they know the child will have a particularly severe disability s is
:33:41. > :33:47.that the wrong moral choice for them? It may well be. I think it is
:33:47. > :33:51.something that people ...According To whose morals? If you are using
:33:51. > :33:55.IVF, for example, and you have six fertilised embryos awaiting
:33:55. > :34:00.implantation, the law will only be permit you to implant two of those.
:34:00. > :34:04.You know that half of them will be severely disabled and the other
:34:04. > :34:10.half will be presumed to be healthy. You can't implant them all, you
:34:10. > :34:15.have to make a choice. Would it be right for you to deliberately
:34:15. > :34:18.choose to implant the children who will have disabilities. That is the
:34:18. > :34:23.parents' prerogative. I agree with you about that. I agree absolutely.
:34:23. > :34:27.I'm a strong believer and have advocated all my career, in
:34:28. > :34:32.parental choice about reproduction. But the question is, how should
:34:32. > :34:36.they exercise that. Do you think it would be morally wrong for them to
:34:36. > :34:42.exercise it in favour of a child they knew would be born about
:34:42. > :34:45.disabilities? Yes. Given that the child doesn't exist, they can
:34:45. > :34:48.either create a life which will have difficulties or a life that
:34:48. > :34:52.will have fewer difficulty. I think again that is the same issue, here
:34:52. > :34:55.we are hearing someone who is advocating, essentially, that is it
:34:55. > :34:57.is morally wrong to give life to a child that is different to others.
:34:58. > :35:01.But the problems are not the problems of the disability, it is a
:35:01. > :35:05.problem with society that won't accept disability and is scared of
:35:05. > :35:08.disability, the reality is that a disabled person can have just as
:35:08. > :35:12.good a life and happier life, it is complete luck and circumstances and
:35:13. > :35:16.so many factors come into it. The idea, the arrogance that it is
:35:16. > :35:19.morally wrong to give life to a childlike that is extraordinary. I
:35:19. > :35:23.do agree it is an issue which society needs to handle. Society is
:35:23. > :35:27.running ahead in many ways, science is running ahead of what society
:35:27. > :35:32.can deal with and cope with at the moment. Thank you all very much.
:35:32. > :35:35.Now, the battle of the smartphones between Apple and Samsung reached a
:35:35. > :35:41.climax in a US court yesterday A knockout for Apple. What does it
:35:41. > :35:45.mean for one of the world's most lucrative markets and our choice as
:35:46. > :35:50.consumers. Joe Lynam has been called to the Genius Bar.
:35:50. > :36:00.Within hours of their landmark court patent victory last Friday,
:36:00. > :36:04.
:36:04. > :36:08.Apple's boss, Tim Cook, said the That is a different yd view to
:36:08. > :36:14.originality held by Steve Jobs back in 1995. Picasso had a saying, he
:36:14. > :36:19.said good artists copy, great artists steal. We have always been
:36:19. > :36:24.shameless about stealing great ideas. Speed forward to last year,
:36:24. > :36:28.and the saintly Mr Jobs declared thermonuclear war on other firms
:36:28. > :36:36.who he felt had copied Apple technology. Now Apple appears to
:36:36. > :36:42.have won a decisive battle in that war. A California jury, rather than
:36:42. > :36:49.a patent expert panel, found Samsung had infringed several
:36:49. > :36:55.patents and fined them $1 billion. Although the judge did a great job
:36:55. > :37:00.of controlling the litigants, isn't an expert on patent law. Although
:37:00. > :37:03.some experts might be on the jury, they are not experts, without a
:37:04. > :37:07.significant technical background. There are always strategic issues
:37:07. > :37:11.in looking where and who to sue. What are they squabbling about.
:37:11. > :37:15.Many of the days we use every day in our smartphones, for example,
:37:15. > :37:20.there is this pinch effect where you make pictures bigger or smaller,
:37:20. > :37:26.then there is the elastic band effect, where you go to the top or
:37:26. > :37:31.bottom of the page, it bounces back. Apple says it invented both those
:37:31. > :37:36.technologies and Samsung nicked it and put it into their phones. Can
:37:36. > :37:41.you patent a rectangular shape with a rounded edge? The District Court
:37:41. > :37:44.in California said you could. Apart from Apple who are the winners and
:37:44. > :37:50.losers from the judgment. Samsung is beige loser, we will know if it
:37:50. > :37:55.will have to remove some of its flagship phones and tablets from US
:37:55. > :37:59.shelves. The markets have wiped $12 billion off the company value since
:37:59. > :38:03.the judgment. Samsung are set to appeal, but it might seriously
:38:03. > :38:06.damage it. The real problem for them is how to deal with the
:38:06. > :38:11.logistical fall-out. If appeals fail and they have to withdraw
:38:11. > :38:16.products from the market place. That is a massive logistic kalhood
:38:16. > :38:21.ache, pulling millions of hand sets out of the market. It is unlikely
:38:21. > :38:25.it will happen, but it could happen, they could be forced to pull back
:38:25. > :38:35.handsets already sold. That becomes an incredibly expensive and
:38:35. > :38:40.difficult process. Going after hardware makers like Samsung, Apple
:38:40. > :38:47.side stepped the battle with Google, which owns the software android. If
:38:47. > :38:54.Apple had gone after Google, they could pick on a faux that could
:38:54. > :38:57.bite back. They own MoT role la, and with it key patents d -- MoT at
:38:58. > :39:03.that role la, and with it key patents.
:39:03. > :39:06.What does the inventor of the first mobile phone make of all this?
:39:06. > :39:15.Marty Cooper used to work for moat role la, and made the very first
:39:15. > :39:19.call from a cellphone back in 1973, ironically to his then arch rivals,
:39:19. > :39:25.AT&T. It is not Apple's fault it is the system itself. The patent
:39:25. > :39:29.system was intended to provide a monopoly to make sure we would get
:39:29. > :39:37.more innovation. Some how or other the system has become distorted
:39:37. > :39:42.over a period of time. It is inhibiting us getting new
:39:42. > :39:47.technology. We are still in the toy stage, most people in the world
:39:47. > :39:54.still use phones for talking, and for texting. We have been doing
:39:54. > :39:57.that for many years. The rest of the things we are just starting.
:39:57. > :40:01.Some commentators are already warning consumers that this ruling
:40:01. > :40:06.will create an Apple tax on all of them. As rivals will now have to
:40:06. > :40:09.pay Apple to use its technology. Pushing up the price for many tech
:40:09. > :40:14.products. Innovation may have been rewarded by the court, but
:40:14. > :40:19.consumers may end up paying, once again, for that. They may secretly
:40:19. > :40:22.be banking on Samsung's appeal. In a moment the ping-pong table. First
:40:23. > :40:27.the death of the novel is a story almost as old as the life of the
:40:27. > :40:31.novel. But what of the death of publishing? Or the end of the book?
:40:31. > :40:35.Over the past few years the music industry has been in turmoil,
:40:35. > :40:39.sometimes free or pirateed downloads sur planting CDs, which
:40:39. > :40:44.you have to go out and buy. Could it happen to the book? Howard
:40:44. > :40:49.Jacobson's new novel Zoo Time turns in part about the idea that maybe
:40:49. > :40:53.reading itself is finished. One of the old jokes of literature is more
:40:53. > :40:57.people write poetry than actually read it. So is the same also
:40:57. > :41:00.possible about a generation which tweets and blogs, but may be
:41:00. > :41:05.indifferent to the professional writers, who keep us entertained
:41:05. > :41:09.and informed, and here is the shock, might actually know something.
:41:09. > :41:14.Howard Jacobson's central character in his new novel Zoo Time, is a
:41:14. > :41:24.writer called Guy Ableman, who reflects, on what he calls, the
:41:24. > :41:40.
:41:40. > :41:44.The Finkler Question. Jacobson himself won the Booker Prize in
:41:44. > :41:48.2010 at a point in his career where he was highly regarded, but how
:41:49. > :41:55.well did he sell. Does it take a big prize to turn things around. Or,
:41:55. > :42:02.as one of his characters put it, should he blag and twit, or as some
:42:02. > :42:07.might say, blog and tweet. How much trouble is publishing in now?
:42:08. > :42:12.Independent book shops are closing, and libraries are closing, and
:42:12. > :42:16.publishers are all worrying and wondering how to deal with the
:42:16. > :42:20.phenomenon of the electronic book and so on. My worry is, it is not
:42:20. > :42:24.my worry, this is a novel and it is full of fun, I hope, it is full of
:42:24. > :42:31.exhileration, and it is the story of a man in love with two enwomen,
:42:31. > :42:37.his wife and his mother, that is the meat -- two women, his wife and
:42:37. > :42:42.his her mother. It is full of meat. It is full of agents and literary
:42:42. > :42:46.people in despair of the novel? He's a failed novelist. He isn't me.
:42:46. > :42:51.I have won the Man Booker Prize, I started this before I won the prize,
:42:51. > :42:54.but still, he is a failure. His sense of what is going wrong might
:42:54. > :42:58.be slightly more gloomy than my sense of what is going wrong. I
:42:58. > :43:02.write this as someone who has an inordinate love of the novel. I
:43:02. > :43:07.believe the novel is more important than anything else. So when I see
:43:08. > :43:12.the novel being ill-read, it bothers me, I don't want to go to a
:43:12. > :43:16.reading group, and have people saying to me, as my hero Guy
:43:16. > :43:22.Ableman does, I can't sympathise with your hero, I can't identify
:43:22. > :43:27.with your hero, it is irrelevant. But, if it is the novel being ill-
:43:28. > :43:36.read, there are obviously some great novels being written,
:43:36. > :43:43.including Fifty Shades of Grey? Huge human for, yeah! But to go
:43:43. > :43:51.back to the kind of novel I love, it seems to me a shame when all the
:43:51. > :43:55.things that the novel exists to do, which is to dilute ideology, to
:43:55. > :43:59.refute a political position, the value of the novel exists precisely
:43:59. > :44:03.because it won't allow you to occupy any of those positions. But
:44:03. > :44:07.we are reading novels now as though, if the novel is not politically, as
:44:07. > :44:13.we believe it should be, it is a failed novel. If a novel doesn't
:44:13. > :44:17.say the sorts of things we think it should do. If a offends against
:44:17. > :44:23.gender or race politic, there is something wrong with it. The glory
:44:23. > :44:28.of the novel is it offends. have a lady who gives a degree of
:44:28. > :44:31.hand relief to a tiger in a zoo, which may offend some people, a lot
:44:31. > :44:37.of readers might find it funny? hope they would, but if such a
:44:37. > :44:43.thing happens in life, I'm assured by people who work in a zoo,
:44:43. > :44:48.because I research my novels very carefully, you must write these
:44:48. > :44:51.things. The glory of the novel is it will offend and upset and will
:44:51. > :44:55.allow no political ideology or opinion settle anywhere. If we
:44:55. > :44:58.don't like the characters it doesn't matter. That is what I
:44:58. > :45:01.started this conversation, is it our fault as readers if we don't
:45:01. > :45:09.get it, or identify with the character of something, are we
:45:09. > :45:14.doing something wrong? I -- any reader who thinks he or she doesn't
:45:14. > :45:21.want to go on with a novel because they don't identify with the
:45:21. > :45:26.characters, then yes, there is something wrong with that the
:45:26. > :45:33.reader. I hate the unput downable, put it down. I don't want it on my
:45:33. > :45:36.book, put it down, get angry with it, open the window. You can't
:45:36. > :45:42.breathe with the great books, the relationship you want people to
:45:42. > :45:46.have with the great books can't be defined by nice attitudes, an
:45:46. > :45:50.unwillingness to be upset by anything. The novel can do so much
:45:50. > :45:54.for us, the novel teaches us what it is like not to be ourselves, to
:45:54. > :45:58.read only from our own individual, the selfishness of our own
:45:58. > :46:01.individual position, it is so miss what the novel is for. Sounds to me
:46:01. > :46:05.as if the novel is still alive. What is also happening is there is
:46:05. > :46:09.winners and losers, and some win the Booker Prize, and you have done
:46:09. > :46:13.much better, I suppose, in temples of sales because of it, or there is
:46:13. > :46:19.-- in terms of sales, because of it. Or there is things like Fifty
:46:19. > :46:23.Shades of Grey, which do well, but it is not about whether it is a
:46:23. > :46:28.good literature? My novel will not win the Man Booker Prize, and may
:46:28. > :46:31.never do it, what of him. I see winning it as an extraordinary
:46:31. > :46:35.stroke of good fortune, I had the perfect panel. What happens if you
:46:35. > :46:38.don't. What happens if you are not read by people sympathetic to what
:46:38. > :46:48.you are doing. We will leave it there. A quick read of the front
:46:48. > :47:06.
:47:06. > :47:10.That's all from Newsnight tonight. At a time when despite the weather
:47:10. > :47:14.we are inspired by the Olympic spirit and putting sport into our
:47:14. > :47:21.lives, we notice our Booker Prize winning author, was a keen ping-
:47:21. > :47:24.pong player, and having on the same programme, Matthew Side, former
:47:24. > :47:34.number one, it was too good an opportunity to miss.
:47:34. > :48:13.
:48:13. > :48:17.Hurricane Isaac approaches Louisiana, we have our own weather
:48:17. > :48:21.system coming to the UK. Not on the same scale but making an impact.
:48:21. > :48:25.Rain in the day ahead, following on with heavy showers, this is how it
:48:25. > :48:29.looks like in the afternoon. Torrential downpours in northern
:48:29. > :48:32.England, had heavy in the Midlands. The rain clearing away at this
:48:32. > :48:36.stage. Sunshine will follow. The showers in south-west England and
:48:36. > :48:39.Wales packing quite a punch, hail and thunder is possible. But it is
:48:39. > :48:43.not going to be a constant rain at this stage. There will be spells of
:48:43. > :48:47.sunshine inbetween the heavy downpours. Some of us may just
:48:47. > :48:50.escape them and stay dry. The wind is lighter in Northern Ireland and
:48:50. > :48:55.south-west Scotland. Slow-moving torrential downpours are possible.
:48:55. > :49:00.Hail and thunder, you could get local flooding and possible
:49:00. > :49:05.disruption. More persistent rain for the outer hebties in Shetland.
:49:05. > :49:08.A lot of showers around, following the persistent rain tomorrow. As
:49:08. > :49:12.for Thursday, still some showers around across central and eastern
:49:12. > :49:16.parts of the UK. Particularly in the afternoon in eastern England.
:49:16. > :49:19.It starts to dry up further west, particularly across Scotland and