31/10/2012 Newsnight

The bastards are back. David Cameron proves unable to command

even his own party over the issue of Europe. And the specter which

haunted the major Government, tonight left him without a majority

in the House of Commons. This defeat, Cameron's first major

one as Prime Minister, came from out of the blue, it is a reminder

that the fragile truce over Europe, called by David Cameron, is

probably coming to an end. One of the Tory rebels is here, as

is Labour's shadow Europe Minister, and the hapless minister who found

himself left to do the washing up, while his rebel backbenchers are

celebrating victory. Also tonight, Michael Heseltine

swings in to talk about how to get growth back into the British

economy. Barack Obama sees and is seen seeing the work of Hurricane

Sandy, has the storm blown him back into the White House? How big

western drug companies are using Indians as Guinea pigs on whom to

test new medicines. I have made several requests, can

we talk to you at another time. It's not the reputation he would

have wanted, but tonight David Cameron was humiliated in the House

of Commons for being too soft on the European Union. His idea of

standing up for British interests didn't even convince many of his

own backbenchers. They asked why should British tax-payers be

expected to hand over more of their earnings for the benefit of the

rest of the continent, when they are having to make economies at

home. The Labour Party knows a bandwagon when it sees one, and

leapt aboard. Result? Defeat for the Government by 13 votes. In the

last 48 hours, in a gall lagsy somewhere not too far away, a

Motley Crue of politicians from all sides have co-heard with almost the

speed of light -- co-hereed into something almost the speed of life.

MPs emerged to take on Europe, but also to take on the leadership of

the Conservative Party. The Government has just been defeat, it

was never going to be a binding vote, but it is a pretty good

guiding vote. A reminder that David Cameron can't control his MPs over

Europe. This is even despite some foot work by the Prime Minister.

They are trying to control something I call "veto Viagra",

when they block measures in Europe is popular with their party and the

public. This time round his MPs didn't buy it. You could say, the

drugs didn't work. Here are Stormtroopers,

interspersed with some of the rebel alliance, intent on inflict Ade

feet on their Prime Minister. Earlier in the year when the rebel

leader made clear his Jedis would be joining the ranks, it brought

some out. Ed Miliband had fun at Prime Minister's Questions.

can't convince anyone on Europe. Last year he flounced out of the

December negotiations with a veto, and the agreement went ahead any

way. He has thrown in the towel before these negotiations have

begun. He can't convince European leader, he can't even convince his

own backbenchers. He is weak abroad, he is weak at home, it's John Major

all over again. His position is completely incredible. He says he

wants a cut in the EU budget, but he doesn't sanction a veto. Now we

have made clear we will use the veto, as I have used it before. Let

me ask him, will you use the veto. See what I mean about "veto Viagra".

Things were not breezy on the Labour side of the galaxy. Some

were queasy at his new found euro- sceptic hawkry. They went with him

on the quest, enticed by the option of inflicting a Commons defeat. In

the moment of cross dressing, they had become the ones in favour of a

greater cut to the EU budget than the Tories. Oh how it rankled.

have had a few weeks to immerse myself into the bugetry demands,

made not only by the institutions of the EU, but also the member-

state. I have to say my normally cheerful mood has soured. It is

extraordinary to see the cheer lack of shame displayed by those

demanding more of our money. Tory front bench were trying

puncture an appeal of a vote tabled by Mark Reckless, he wants the cut

to the EU budget, not the freeze his leadership bleefsz to be the

most feasible outcome. Jacob Rees- Mogg tabled a rival amendment on

the Government's behalf. Their defence is this, if the Government

calls for a cut, there would be little European support for that,

then the whole talks would falter, and the budget would roll over at a

higher rate than proposed now. So new money from us to them would

flow. The rebel alliance was worried about something raised on

Newsnight last week, that the budget freeze would be nothing of

the sort, it would see more money flowing to new European countries.

Is it not the case, irrespective of whether the Government is

successful on negotiating a freeze or not, that money, in cash terms,

more money will be given to the European Union. If I'm incorrect,

then I please have the Financial Secretary correct me? The shape of

the budget needs to be negotiated, but it is true to say that the

result of the give Ye of the rebates that the previous

Government -- givaway of the rebates the previous Government

gave out, we lose out on the spending for new member states that

would have been previously abated. The votes were in, 307 in the rebel

alliance, including 53 Tory MPs who had held their nose and voted with

Labour against their party. A big loser was David Cameron's new Chief

Whip, Sir George Young. He was brought in to rally the storm

troops, but displayed little grip. With this shot across David

Cameron's spaceship boughs, it is not sure that David Cameron will

get approval for whatever budget is agreed in upy, given the

displeasure displayed today. The problems for the Prime Minister are

many. Every time he's defeated on Europe he's diminished, in general.

Secondly, he's now under pressure from cuept whyics to set out what

he wants -- euro-sceptics to set out what he wants in terms of a

referendum. Something he has been vague about until now. Something

more longer term too, manage you had a Government governing with a

majority of something like 20, today we have seen how quickly

something like that could be wiped out. This week we Where Are You Now

there are many more Star Wars films on the horizon. There are equally

many more Europe wars coming down the track too. We know that the

value of a veto has fallen faster than a meteor.

We're joined by Greg Clarke, which you saw in the film, first of all

we will talk to my other guests. Bernard Jenkin, given the vote

wasn't binding, what have you achieved, aart from humiliating --

apart from humiliating the Prime Minister? I don't think humiliation

is right, embarrassing, but humiliation is too strong a word.

What have you gained from humiliating the Prime Minister

then? OK, that is 1-0 so far! The British people for a long time have

been way ahead than most politicians on the question of the

European. Much more disillusioned, much more fed-up, and much more

determined to get a new relationship with the European

partners. To put the relationship with the European Union on a

different footing. I think the House of Commons has finally caught

up with public opinion. We have heard, the British public, their

voice has been heard in the House of Commons tonight, in a way that

hasn't been heard for a very long time. As far as the Labour Party is

concerned, we can take it, can we, that you will agree nothing other

than a cut in the EU budget now. Yeah, we are in favour of a real-

terms cut. We think at a time when Governments across the EU, and the

world, are tightening their belts, that the European Union's budget

shouldn't be exempt for those reductions. That is despite the

fact that last time, when it was in your hands, you gave away about

what, �7 billion? In 2005 the economic climate was different.

Still money you were chucking away? We also had a significantly

enlarged European Union. We had ten member states Conservatives and the

Labour Party argued at that time for enlargement. You hadn't

intended to give away the �7 billion, it was a total blunder by

the Prime Minister. �10 billion was it. Over five years. What actually

happened as a result was that the French and the British contribution

are now almost parity because we did achieve reform of the Common

Agricultural Policy. We are now in a position where you

will only agree a cut in the EU cutting. Given the clear will of

parliament has been expressed, what will you do? I think it was a very

passionate debate, what was clear was there was a strong consensus

that we should be seeking a cut in the EU budget. That is always been

our position. Will you listen to that? Of course. Will you act on

it? When you have a debate like that, where everyone was clear, and

the Prime Minister of clear in Prime Minister's Questions earlier,

that, of course, when, not just in this country, where we're cutting

budgets, but it is happening across Europe. As I said, in my clip there,

I think it is essential that the European institutions exercise the

same fiscal discipline that they are urging on everyone else.

didn't you find him plausible? think that, as I say, I think the

British political establishment is just behind the curve here. British

people are much angryier. I'm delighted the Labour Party, they

have been forced to listen. When you go into opposition, you do get

more in touch with public opinion. They knew their old position of

increasing spending in the European Union, come what may, was

completely indefensible. What do you want Cameron to do now? I think

what David Cameron has to do, this is a much bigger issue. What

happened tonight was really incidental to the negotiations.

Though, it might result in paralysis at this summit. But there

will be a multinational financial framework of one sort of another.

This is a much bigger watershed moment in British politic. This is

about, the British people beginning to demand, and beginning to get

through to the politicians at Westminster, that they want this,

whatever Government is in power, to start organising a different

relationship with the European Union. To leave the European Union?

Not necessarily to leave it. If we let this drag on, this paralysis,

where the Government can neither deliver a proper engagment on our

present terms of membership, nor is it negotiating a new relationship,

as things change in Europe. guys all know this stuff. Is it not

the case, if there is no agreement between the member Governments, on

whatever the budget increase is going to be, it will happen any way,

at the rate of inflation, what is it 2%, their budget will go up

whatever happens? You are quite right about that. That just shows

how much power we have given away. How powerless the House of Commons

now is under all these treaties. Why we need a new relationship. So

we can't have our resources simply striped away from us in this way. I

don't think there is very many of your viewers out there, that think

this is a satisfactory position. Are you pleased that you have

alienated your party a little bit from Europe tonight? I don't think

we have. We have made a very common sense argument about reductions in

spending, that are happening here in the UK, and across the EU.

would use the veto, would you? haven't talked about that.

asking you now, would you use the veto if you were in power? I think

it is too early to start talking about exercising a veto. That is

pathetic? We haven't started the negotiations yet. You forced the

Prime Minister into a climb-down tonight, his policy is clearly

articulated, he has said where he stands on the veto, and you won't

tell us? He used the veto in December, and it didn't get him

anywhere. The efficacy isn't here nor there, would you use the veto?

We would prefer that the Prime Minister built bridges rather than

burning them. Would you use the veto in Government? We are not at

the end of the negotiation process. It would depend what comes out of

the negotiation. OK, you are not going to answer the question,

clearly. Greg Clarke, if you do use the veto, as I think you have said

you will, if necessary? You have to be prepared to use the veto.

will make no difference, will it? Of course it will. If you use the

veto the budget can't be approved. As for inflation -- and ask for an

inflation of 2% more of our money? Some of the budgets get rolled

forward on an inflationary basis. The truth is, it becomes very

uncertain, it is much better to sort this thing out once and for

good. My view and the Government's view is we should have a cut in the

budget, just as we are having in other place. You have got the

possibility through using the veto. I think this is a very difficult

question. The Government could have just accepted this amendment and

turned their fire on Labour. that's what you want, Europe won,

he wants a cut, you want a cut? Prime Minister agreed with other

European leaders, with the German, French, Dutch and other leader

around Europe, that we should aim for a cut in the EU budget. And at

the very most, a real terms freeze. Let me tell you, when he goes into

negotiate, this is a very difficult negotiation. 17 of the 27 countries

are net recipients. They all have a veto too. He needs to be able to

get the best deal for Britain. He has to do that. He wants a real

terms cut, but I think it's shepful to build alliances and to --

helpful, but -- helpful to build alliances whatever he does. When

the Prime Minister was trying to persuade you not to acts you have

tonight, what did he say to you? be honest, I never had a

conversation with him about it. But, what I would say, is that this vote

will have a dramatic effect across the whole of the European Union. It

will, in some respects, make the negotiations more difficult. But

you watch, there are going to be other countries saying, why aren't

we demanding a cut. Voters in other countries saying, why aren't we

demanding a cut. And I think, as this argument, that perhaps starts

in Britain and is taken to other countries, I think we will see it

having an electrifying effect on the politics of other countries,

who are wondering why their Governments aren't being as tough

as our's. We don't quite know how you would behave if you were in

Government. You notionally support the idea of a cut, don't you?

have said tonight, we voted quite clearly. We don't know whether you

would put your money where your mouth is, it is not worth very much

is it? We would negotiate in a way that doesn't alienate people, in a

way this Prime Minister did, in December, when he didn't even need

to. The Fiscal Compact treaty he walked out of, that went ahead any

way, didn't apply to the UK. the first time in history, the

European budget has always increased, it is the first time in

the history of Europe that major countries, like France and Germany,

have signed up to. Do you want to see an increase after this one way

or another? Absolutely. One thing about the internal discipline of

your party. Do you think Andrew Mitchell could have made you vote

differently? I will say one very frank thing about the relationship

between the whip's office and the rest of the Government. The

Government needs to listen to the whip's office. Because one senses

that the whip's office does tell the truth to power and sometimes

there is a bit of denial going on in Downing Street. Do you think

there are possibly more rebellions coming up? There is a strong sense

in the Conservative Party if a few Liberal Democrats cause a bit of

trouble in the coalition. They are accommodated. But if there are 50

or 60 Conservatives who are equally unhappy from the other side of the

equation, we are taken for granted. I think there needs to be a bit

more balance in that relationship. The liberals need to understand, if

the coalition is going to operate, they will have to accommodate that

too. Do you think George Young, he's a very nice man. He's well

respected and popular amongst colleagues. As I think Bernard

would acknowledge. Europe is an issue where people rightly have

strong views, strongly held views, across all parties. When you have a

situation in which the European Commission is proposing a 10%

increase in what it wants to take from us. No wonder people's

attention is drawn. No wonder people are aroused to participate

in such a debate. This is about, the debate today was about the

tactical way to achieve what is a common objective to get a cut in

the EU budget, and to make it start going down, rather than being

ratchetted up, as it always did under Labour. The shadow Foreign

Secretary increased it by 8%, it was in perpetuity, you can't say it

was for this environment, it was in perpetuity. Thank you very much.

The British economy can be saved, and this country can reverse

decades of relative decline, the former Deputy Prime Minister,

Michael Heseltine, has emerged from the Oxfordshire wilderness,

promising to lead his people to the Promised Land. He was asked to come

up with ideas for getting some growth back into the economy by the

Prime Minister. And, to no great surprise, the Prime Minister

appears to think that Lord Heseltine has produced an excellent

report. This, despite the fact, that it propose the complete

overhaul of Government policy. His Government's policy. Before I talk

to the biggest Barnet in modern politics, Paul Mason is here.

a zai, the discussion you have just had, the -- day, the discussion you

have just had, the discussion hanging over Britain for decades,

and the other problem, the British disease, the economy. Low

productivity, stagnant regions, trade deficit, low innovation. Here

are two of the graphics that Lord Heseltine threw at us today. GDP

per hour worked in France, in 1990, green bar, German, USA. We have

narrowed the gap. The light blue bar is now. But still, French

workers, German workers and US workers produced more than British

workers. This is a problem that has been with us for a long time,

Heseltine points to it today. tell you the skills gap, that's

really crucial, because you can't spell "relative"! I will only say

somebody in Newsnight can't spell "relative". Let's hope this one

comes out right, "regional", that's spelt right! These green bars show

the relative contributions of the economy to different part of the UK.

In the middle, the pyramid is London and the south-east, with a

third of growth coming from them. These, as we say, are not new

problems. They have been given an urgency by these proposals from

Lord Heseltine today. We are going to see the interview with Lord

Heseltine in a moment or two. Give us your take on the core strategy

here? There are two words in that report that keep reappearing, that

you don't often hear in economic policy discussions in Britain, they

are "strategic" and "plan", quite often they are there together in

the same sentence. He's talking about a strategic plan for British

economic growth. He's talking about not just good ideas to make it

happen, but a radical reform of institutions, which we haven't had,

to make that possible. To even formulate the policy. Now, this, as

you know, maybe we have got 16- year-olds watching this tonight,

who might be surprised there is a debate between industry and finance

about growth policy. But it is going on since we were 16. The

people who advocate what Heseltine advocates have never won the

argument. If they did, it would look like a very different country.

Welcome to Heseltineia. A new Britain with a strategy for growth.

Better productivity, a strategic plan, Government funding a pooled,

civil servants are brigadeed, everything is geared to growth.

Welcome to reality. An economy where productivity is low, growth

support radic, and where the Government has struggled -- support

radic, and where the Government has struing struggled to find strategic

direction. Lord Heseltine famously walked out of the Thatcher cabinet

over industrial strategy, the 89 bullet points he produced today

sing to the same tune, Conservatism, industrialism. All departmental

growth money would be pooled, a National Growth Council led by the

PM, then the money allocated to the region, councils would draw up

strategic plans. Planning objections would be overridden by

strategic considerations, and there would be clear and fixed policy on

the energyics m, and where the next airport -- mix energy mix and where

the next airport is built. Labour thinks it would never happen.

have been advocated an active industrial strategy for a long time,

where you have Government doing things, helping businesses to grow

the economy. That is very different to the "leave it to the market",

laissez faire model propagaged by Margaret Thatcher. The sons of

Thatcher, in Number Ten and number 11, this is not something they

would advocate or take on. So that is Heseltineia, a country where

everything, from the School Curriculum, to the election

timetable, runs to the rhythm of a growth strategy. Where Britain

plays hard ball, like its competitor, and where economic

dynamism does not stop north of Watford.

A little earlier I spoke to Michael Heseltine when he dropped by. I

asked him why the Government needed him to produce a blueprint for

growth, if everything was going so swimmingly. The essence of what

this Government has done, which I find totally impressive, is they

have had the guts to say to someone like me, look, you take an

independent view, that's what the best companies do. They say to

their employees, look, we know we're not perfect, tell us where we

can improve. That is a sign of strength. There an element in this

too, as you say in your report, you are a successful businessman, you

built a business yourself. George Osborne hasn't built any business?

He is actually masterminding the saving of this country's economy,

which is what he's paid to do. He's doing it extremely impressively.

Where is the evidence that your scheme for devolving spending to

local communities, is actually more effective? Oh right, the London

Docklands, if I had told you there would be Canary Wharf, Excel, the

Olympic, an airport, and O2, in 1979, you would have locked me up.

Go to Liverpool, wherein 1981 there were riots, people said don't --

where in 1981 there were riots, people said don't bother with votes

there, said we can save the cities. Go to central Manchester, look at

the Hume Estate and all that happened there. Everything I

propose is based on what has already been achieved. When you

talk about reviving these Great Northern industrial cities,

Manchester? All our cities. Liverpool, or Gateshead, London's -

- none has a single Tory councillor have they? I'm not in the business

of saying, Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, I'm in the business

of saying can we make these cities contribute more to their prosperity

and national prosperity. You have cited examples from recent history,

the argument is, that the modern Conservative Party, the sort of

people who are currently running the Government, have no natural

sympathy or understanding with those great cities? I wholly

disagree with that view. I think that the Government has set up my

inquiry, precisely because they have sympathy with those cities.

the end, what you are proposing is a revival of the old idea of

picking winners. You even mention it in your report? Do you want to

pick losers? Is it the business of Government to be picking, well we

hope they will pick winners, picking winners at all? If you go

to Whitehall, they are spending money on specific grants and

specific companies, and on specific project. They don't know what they

are doing, is that the problem. They are picking losers by default?

They are picking winners, that is what they do. If you move outside

this country, to every equivalent capitalist economy, they have a

machinery of Government to pick winners. I'm unrepentant to say if

you are going to use tax-payers money, to support the capitalist

system it, for God's sake make the right decisions and don't make bad

decisions. Why are they making the wrong and bad decisions now?

didn't say they were. You don't need a change of strategy? We are

on to two different subjects. One is the individual decision, to put

grants in the way of individual projects, and say -- I say you are

picking winners. The he sense of my report is you should do it --

essence of my report is you should do it better across a wider

spectrum, on the other side, you should take money currently spent

in on things like housing, transport, education and training,

and you should say, instead of civil servants in London saying,

what we think Manchester should have is some more transport or

roads. What you do is you go to Manchester and say this is the

money we have got, what would you do if you could design the

solutions. Why have we got a system in which we are spending money

remotely and unprofessionally? have not used your pejorative

language. You said London, as opposed to locally, and you used

the word "professional" as opposed to what we have now? You used the

word "unprofessional", I'm not saying that what we do now when we

back a housing or road scheme is unprofessional or incompetent. I'm

saying it fits a pattern of national and London-based decision

making, I want to see it out in Leeds, Manchester, Plymouth,

wherever it happens to be. Working to a National Council chaired by

the Prime Minister. There is no more centralised figure in the

country? There is no-one else that can make anything happen in this

country. You must have heard, time and again, the Prime Minister

saying we pull the lever, but it is connected with elastic, nothing

happens. And you don't think that is the antithesis of localism?

don't think it is at all. I think that if you are actually sitting

make all of the decisions in London, that is centralism. If you share

the decision-making with the localties, that is localism.

Michael Heseltine, Lord Heseltine, thank you.

What hath God Wrought, was the first telegraph message sent in

1884. They may ask the same thing about the 2012 American

presidential elections, by this time next week Americans will have

cast their vote. Huge numbers of people are still suffering. But

Barack Obama's handling of the crisis has drawn praise from

notional opponent. While his challenger, Mitt Romney, has been

left looking something of an irrelevance.

It's the jersey coast that took the worst battering. Here, the

epicentre of the storm hit on Monday night. Pulling buildings

apart, and sweeping the beach right over the community. The waves were

coming, hitting on an angle from the south, and just breaking over

the sea wall. Pouring into the houses up front here. And then into

the streets. So I stayed up on the top. Watched the incredible power

of the ocean, and the full moon came out for about 15 minutes, it

was surreal. I had an incredible view of the waves crashing over. At

the time I wasn't so ennam moured by it, I was more -- ennam moured

by it, I was more scared. This is one of the jersey shore towns where

their world was turned upside down, but where everyone is now hard at

work trying to make things right. The emphasis now is on getting back

to business as usual, in a political context, that means full

force campaigning for the presidential election. As to who

might have been fitted more from this Hurricane crisis? Those in the

know feel that is pretty clear. Well, this is an incredibly

important moment for President Obama, because it allows him the

opportunity to look and act and be presidential. To fly to the scene

in the presidential helicopter, to stand in the White House and talk

about his concern for Americans. It is an opportunity to be what it is

that the President wants to project himself as being, and what he hopes

that Americans will choose, in the end.

Helen and her husband have lived in this town for 30 years. The news

that President Obama was flying out to visit the disaster zone left her

distinctly underwhelmed. I don't give a shit about the President!

I'm Romney, so the President can stay away from New Jersey as far as

I'm concerned. It is four years of disaster, I don't know! The key

thing though, is at a time when the challenger he might do a better job,

taking a close interest in disaster relief, allows President Obama to

perform. I think it is significant that he comes to where everything

has taken place. I don't think it is a political move. You have to

come in, assess what is going on, talk to the people, let them know

you are behind them and supporting them. It is good. Whatever the

president would be, they should be here.

When he did arrive here, the world's media was in attendance. It

was one more day when Mr Obama could dominate the headlines, aided

by the Republican Governor of New Jersey, who has been lavishing

praise on the President's handling of the crisis. It is all extremely

politically useful. He has worked incredibly closely with me, since

before the storm hit. I think it is our sixth conversation since the

weekend. And it's been a great working relationship to make sure

that we're doing the jobs that people elected us to do. I cannot

thank the President enough for his personal concern and compassion for

our state and for the people of our state We are here for you. And we

will not forget, we will follow up to make sure that you get all the

help that you need until you are rebuilt.

After days in which he has had to yield the stage, Mitt Romney was on

the stump again in Florida he's been doing well in this state, but

with worldwide attention fixed on the Hurricane's aftermath, it is a

question of who is listening? is quite a time for the country, as

you know. We're going through trauma in a major part of the

country. A kind of trauma you have experienced here in Florida more

than once. It is interesting to see how people come together in a

circumstance like this. This is a very difficult moment for Mitt

Romney. For a couple of reasons, he momentum that was clearly going his

way, and now his campaign, and in fact, the entire presidential race

is being knocked off the top headline. It makes it hard for him

to figure out what he can do. This is obviously an issue, not about

politics, but everything that happens has political implications

for him. It is too early to say, perhaps, that it has been here that

the tide was turned. But there is no denying that the Hurricane has

had the impact on lives, on property and on politic.

From a medical point of view, we in the west live in the luckiest time

in his treatment but those medicine, which offer to cure our sicknesses

and relieve our pain, have at some point to be tested on humans, but

where, who wants to be a Guinea pig. Pharmaceutical companies have been

solving that problem, by piling into India. Hundreds of the Indians

who took part have died during trials, and very few autopsies have

been carried out to determine the cause of death. Doctors have been

fined, and now the Indian Government is seriously considering

tightening up the rules. Sue Lloyd Roberts reports from the poverty-

striken state of Madhya Pradesh. Some locals call it neo-colonialism.

Foreign drug companies using poor and illiterate Indians as Guinea

pigs in drug trials. TRANSLATION: Our family has been destroyed by

this. The drug companies should know it. The doctors who carry out

the trials may be in denial. This is an office.

But they are now being disciplined. Lawyers are asking if we can trust

the results of the trials? global implication, potentially

would be, whether those findings can be safely relied upon. India

has obvious attractions for the foreign drug companies. The cost

here can be half that in the west. There are educated, English-

speaking doctors. And a vast population from which to choose

trial subjects. All of whom are required, under Indian law, to give

their informed consent. TRANSLATION: I put my thumb print

on the document, and my daughter- in-law signed in Hindi, the form of

in English, we couldn't understand anything. -- was in English, we

couldn't understand everything. That was enough for a three-year-

old healthy boy to be given a polio vaccine. He had a seizure, that was

recorded as a "severe adverse event", by the hospital. Three

years later the family say he still has breathing and eating difficulty.

This boy is one of more than 80 patients, who the records show,

were severely affected in the trials in the town of Indor, most

of which took place here at the main MY hospital. The families of

the dozens who died, might have never known their loved ones were

ever on a troil, were it not for a doctor -- trial, were it not for a

doctor here at the hospital who turned whizzle blower. They re--

Whistleblower. They recruited the people from the dredges of society

because they didn't know about the clinical trials. The doctors are

making huge amounts from the pharmaceutical companies, they are

interested only in money. Offer challenged colleagues he lost his

job at the hospital. I set out to find some of the families of those

who died. There have been local investigations into the deaths, but

there have been no autopsies, so there can be no certainty that the

drug trials are to blame. There is no compensation for the families.

One thing that awful them are agreed on, none of the trial

subjects knew they were being given experimental drugs. The death of

this woman, during a trial, has, say the family, left them destitute.

When she went into the hospital, with chest pains, the 45-year-old

of the main breadwinner. TRANSLATION: Normally when we go to

the hospital we are given a five rupee voucher. They said they would

give my mother a foreign drug costing 125 rupees, we were

surprised, we are from a low caste. Her mother reacted so badly that

she died a month later. The trial registered in the UK was later

halted, due, say the company, to the number of seizures recorded.

The family blame her death on the doctor who carried out most of the

trials at the hospital. Dr Aneil Barani. As I ited more families, I

found people here have no longer an unquestioning faith in the medical

profession. Ramadar Shrivastav also took her

husband to the hospital with chest pains. She too was pleasantly

surprised by how they were treated by Dr Aneil Barani. TRANSLATION:

said you're poor, that is why I'm paying for your transport costs to

come and collect the medication. I know you can't afford it. But when

her husband died, the doctor blamed her for failing to give him the

correct dose. Which she denies. TRANSLATION: I treated him as a God,

and begged him to look after my husband. I now know my husband died

because of the drug trial, I don't trust him any more. I'm even afraid

of going back to the hospital. doctor refused my request for an

interview, I went to the hospital to find him. The state Government

have charged him with unlawfully accepted money and trips abroad,

from foreign drug companies, and for carrying out trials without

consent. When I arrived at his office,

closelyle followed by security guards, he was not in the mood for

talking. Can we talk to you at another time? This is an offence,

you are shooting me with a camera. This is an offence.

That was my attempt to talk to Dr Barani, who has been top of the

list as far as allegations over the drugs trials are concerned. Little

wonder he's a little media shy. So who is in charge of the doctors?

Dr Bahgit is head of the Ethics Committee, whose job it is to

approve and supervise drug trials at MY hospital. How did it all go

wrong? We never say we are infallible, our lemtations are

known to us and everyone around. Certainly because there is a lot of

money being poured out. Do you think you are losing control?

from what is coming up and what is expected, we may have lost control.

But it is not just the hospital here, a recent parliamentary report

suggests that the entire country could be losing control over drug

trials. Not least because India has only half the number of qualified

drug inspectors, needed to cope with demand.

Still in state of Madhya Pradesh, I left Indore, to find more

irregularities in the conduct of trials in the town of Bhopal. A

town linked to the world's worst industrial action. When an

explosion at the Union Carbide plant caused some 25,000 deaths.

The only good thing to come out of the disaster was this. A state-of-

the-art hospital, built as part of a compensation agreement. The

Bhopal Memorial Hospital was built, to treat those still suffering from

the disaster. Some half a million locals were affected. Little did

they know, when they came to the hospital, some of them would be

used for India's clinical drug troils.

-- trials. This man told me his sight was

damaged in the accident. Five years ago he suffered a heart attack and

went to the memorial hospital. His discharge papers show he was part

of a trial by a British company. AstraZeneca admit that routine

monitoring revealed a few of the trial subjects had not given proper

consent. But say that this man was not one of them. He says he was not

told about the trial, and it affected him badly.

TRANSLATION: No, I haven't heard of AstraZeneca. I want to say this to

them, please don't do these trials on poor people. Rich people can

overcome problem. If I can't work, the whole family suffers. Why did

they choose us? Why indeed? Professor Mishra helped set up the

memorial hospital and served on the Ethics Committee. These trials are

carried out for the benefit of those individuals who are suffering

from particular disease, and there is a drug which can give them

relief. But haven't these people suffered enough already, they have

survived one of the worst industrial accidents in history,

and now they are being put at risk in a drug trial? The way you are

talking you would block the development of medicines for the

rest of time. Why choose these people? Can you find out that this

drug is likely to produce such a side effect, without using it?

choose gas disaster survivors? question I cannot answer, that was

not my job to find out. This man's father was also a gas

victim, who was given drugs by the hospital after a heart attack. When

his father ran out of the drug, he tried to buy some more.

TRANSLATION: I went to the market to buy them. I was told they were

only available from the hospital. Only then did I realise he was on a

drug trial. I feel very bad that my dad died because of those drugs..

This claim is impossible to verify, again, there was no autopsy. On the

trial development it says the British company, GlaxoSmithKline,

are the sponsor, are responsible and are the investigators for trial.

But GSK told us they bought the rights to the drug while the trial

was carried out by a French company called Sanofi, named as

collaborators on the document. They told us that it was conducted but

an Indian research association. The drug trial set up can be

complicated. Drug companies might team up with medical research

bodies. And they will delegate the work to what in India are called,

clinical, research, outsourcing companies. When there have been

allegation of malpractice in the past, the drug companies have

tended to put the blame on those local companies.

It is well nigh impossible for the subjects of drug trials across

India to seek compensation. Lawyers are now talking about vicarious

liability. I met a British barrister, here to look into it. He

had had just got hold of a damning parliamentary report, that claims

that some doctors, carrying out drug trials, the called experts,

had simply signed the opinion, written by the invisible hand of

drug manufacturers. There are rule concerns about, at the very least,

collision between experts and -- collusion between experts and the

drug manufacturers, and at Washington Post it is suggesting a

fraud is taking place, that the reports are being signed off

without any independent, clinical scrutiny of their findings, and the

way in which conclusions have been expressed. The drug companies

organise that they carry out many trials in different countries

concurrently. But, by the end of this year, thousands of people in

India will have taken part in trials and their reaction, real or

otherwise, would have been taken into account. Two days after my

encounter with the doctor, I read that he had been transferred from N

MY hospital. Nearly every day the papers expose more of the scandal,

which does little to comfort those who may never know why their loved

ones died, and for whom compensation is a remote prospect.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 41 seconds

That's all from Newsnight tonight, no time for more, we will leave you,

well, with the play out, really, well, with the play out, really,

good night! Hello, we are looking at a wet and windy night, that rain

slowly clears away first thing in the morning. It may well just

linger up into the Northern Isles and the wind is a feature here. It

is a case of sunny spells and scattered showers. A cold feel to

the day. Temperatures struggling to get up into double figures. Some

sunny spells here. We might see nine or ten in the London area,

fewer showers here. There will be a cluster of showers out into the

south and west. Some of these showers, as we push further north

and west could be heavy, with hail and thunder as well. A shattering

of showers close to Anglesey, across the Isle of Man and into

Northern Ireland. By the middle of the afternoon, some showers could

be well organised. Heavy with hail and thunder. We can't rule out a

wintry flavour to the tops of higher ground in Scotland as well.