:00:12. > :00:16.Suppose you sat in cafe, went on- line, and bought a Christmas
:00:16. > :00:20.present, and that neither the company that sold you the coffee,
:00:20. > :00:25.the search engine that found your retailer, or the retailer itself,
:00:25. > :00:30.paid as much tax as many politicians think it should pay,
:00:30. > :00:34.would you mind? In increasingly straightened times,
:00:34. > :00:37.the way some multinationals minimise their taxes has become
:00:37. > :00:40.hugely charged. The Government still aren't doing anything about
:00:40. > :00:44.it. That is their job. It is just ridiculous that they still haven't
:00:44. > :00:49.acted. As the Chancellor talks of
:00:49. > :00:54.crackingdown, is what's legal the same as what's moral, and if not,
:00:54. > :00:58.can the citizen change the corporation?
:00:58. > :01:01.Maurice Saatchi lost his wife to cancer, now he wants to change the
:01:01. > :01:07.law, if recommended treatment doesn't cure, should doctors be
:01:07. > :01:12.free to try something else? The women of the Libyan revolution,
:01:12. > :01:20.now victim to some of the Islamist militias, once on their side.
:01:20. > :01:30.He was hittinging me with his feet and HIStory gun, he was calling me
:01:30. > :01:32.
:01:32. > :01:36.an Israeli, an Israeli spy, calling A statement today announced that
:01:36. > :01:40.the Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant. We won't mention it again,
:01:40. > :01:43.promise. We were rather taken with the statement from a Parliamentary
:01:43. > :01:47.Committee that some of the best known multinationals operating in
:01:47. > :01:52.this country were being immoral. In not paying more tax.
:01:52. > :01:56.The Chancellor of the Exchequer, meanwhile, talks tough about, as he
:01:56. > :02:00.puts it, going after companies which aggressively avoid tax. The
:02:00. > :02:04.problem with all this blow-Hardtalk, is that the tax officials in this
:02:04. > :02:10.country, seem to have no objections to arrangements which mean that a
:02:10. > :02:15.multinational corporation like Amazon, can make sales of �3.4
:02:15. > :02:23.billion in the UK, but pay just �2 million in corporation tax. But is
:02:23. > :02:27.legal the same as moral? Politicians, bankers, the press,
:02:27. > :02:33.they have all been under the spotlight, now it is the turn of
:02:33. > :02:39.major corporates in the public gaze over their tax apayers. Starbucks,
:02:39. > :02:43.Facebook, Google and Amazon, apart from all being American, they have
:02:44. > :02:49.all created a reputation of legally avoiding tax. In parliament last
:02:49. > :02:53.month, MPs didn't pull any punches, while executives floundered. I will
:02:53. > :02:59.come back to the committee, and it is possible to show that figure,
:02:59. > :03:02.disclose that figure. Can you say that again? I will come back to the
:03:02. > :03:06.committee andly see whether it is possible to disclose that figure.
:03:07. > :03:10.We have not disclosed those figures ever publicly, either on a country
:03:10. > :03:15.basis or website basis. You are either running the business very
:03:15. > :03:18.badly, or there is some fiddle going on. We clearly are not
:03:18. > :03:22.aggressively looking to avoid tax or tax on any structure anywhere,
:03:22. > :03:26.we have had profitability challenges, very sincere ones,
:03:26. > :03:29.unfortunately, that we are not pleased with. It is nothing, I
:03:29. > :03:33.assure you, to do with tax avoidance. The committee said the
:03:33. > :03:37.Government should get a grip and clampdown on multinationals that
:03:37. > :03:42.exploit tax laws. It described the behaviour of large corporations as
:03:42. > :03:47.outrageous and an insult to those who pay their fair share, and said
:03:47. > :03:50.HMRC lacked clarity when trying to explain its approach to enforcing
:03:50. > :03:53.the corporation tax regime. Even before the report was published,
:03:53. > :04:03.Starbucks were signals over the weekend, that all the public
:04:03. > :04:20.
:04:20. > :04:25.pressure and negative headlines, So why the change of heart? Weeks
:04:25. > :04:29.of nasty Headlines, and the threat of sit-ins and direct action like
:04:29. > :04:33.this one in Oxford Street, by protest groups like UK Uncut,
:04:33. > :04:37.appear to have galvanised a coffee chain, worried about brand damage.
:04:37. > :04:40.This is the Government's role. It is their job to crackdown on tax
:04:40. > :04:44.avoidance, it is clear that the public are outraged by this.
:04:44. > :04:47.Margaret Hodge and the PAC are outraged by this. The media is
:04:47. > :04:50.brimming with outrage about tax avoidance, and yet the Government
:04:50. > :04:55.still aren't doing anything about it, that is their job, it is
:04:55. > :05:01.ridiculous that they still haven't acted. The problem is, the disabled
:05:01. > :05:03.people, mothers, children, who are bearing the brunt of the cuts, that
:05:03. > :05:07.is outrageous, when there is so much money that could be collected
:05:07. > :05:12.from tax avoidance that could be put into public services.
:05:12. > :05:15.The key to this is something called transfer pricing which allows one
:05:15. > :05:20.part of a company to bill another part for using goods, especially
:05:20. > :05:26.services. In general, the bit of a multinational that controls
:05:26. > :05:30.valuable brand trade marks or patents, bases itself in a low-tax
:05:30. > :05:33.country, lix Luxembourg, Ireland or Switzerland t can bill the sister
:05:33. > :05:37.British company where taxes are higher, for permission to use the
:05:37. > :05:40.trade marks or certain products. That has the effect of magnifying
:05:40. > :05:45.the profits in Luxembourg and minimising them in Britain, thus
:05:45. > :05:49.cutting the amount of tax paid here. Finally the profits left over in
:05:49. > :05:55.Luxembourg or other low-tax country, get sent back to the States where
:05:55. > :05:58.it cannot be taxed a second time. Britain has signed tax treaties
:05:58. > :06:01.with 137 different countries all around the world, meaning companies
:06:01. > :06:05.trading here and British companies trading overseas, can't be taxed
:06:05. > :06:11.twice on the same income. So the Government is in a bind. It cannot
:06:11. > :06:16.ignore the concerns of voters, nor too can it clampdown on the likes
:06:16. > :06:20.of Starbucks, Google and face book, without rufpbing the risk that
:06:20. > :06:26.overseas Governments will clampdown on the likes of RBS and BP or Glaxo.
:06:26. > :06:29.It might be up to consumers to urge companies to pay for tax on their
:06:29. > :06:34.profits. Consumers account for 70% of all spending in the British
:06:34. > :06:39.economy, yet as a lobby group, they are a slumbering giant. When that
:06:39. > :06:43.giant growls, though, big business tends to listen. Think of the
:06:43. > :06:46.backlash when Coca-Cola tried to introduce New Coke in the 1980s,
:06:46. > :06:51.the boycott against South African goods during the apartheid era.
:06:51. > :06:55.More recently there was a campaign to prevent sexualised clothing
:06:55. > :06:58.being marketed to young girls. That was co-ordinate bid one of the most
:06:58. > :07:02.powerful consumer groups in the land, Mumsnet. It is not what I
:07:02. > :07:06.think about things, it is what the collective thinks. Believe me there
:07:06. > :07:10.is a myriad of voices, there is loads of dissent, lots of
:07:10. > :07:13.discussion, and it is healthy. It is the wisdom of a crowd having
:07:13. > :07:18.debated and debated and debated. Are you conscious of the power you
:07:18. > :07:24.could wield against companies? think you know the reason we have
:07:24. > :07:29.done more formal campaigns like Let Girls Be Girls, and another one
:07:29. > :07:33.called We Believe You, getting people to understand the issues
:07:33. > :07:36.around domestic violence and rape, is because we do realise we wield a
:07:36. > :07:39.certain amount of influence. The moment prime ministers start
:07:39. > :07:45.knocking on your door and asking to speak to your users, you realise
:07:45. > :07:51.you have some influence. Despite the poet Tennessee of millions of
:07:51. > :07:57.people thinking -- poetentcy of people discussing on-line, it is
:07:57. > :08:01.only useful if it is acted on in the real worlds. Customers have
:08:01. > :08:05.that effect on brand reputation if they unite together, they need to
:08:05. > :08:10.unite on-line and make sure there is an off-line part to that
:08:10. > :08:14.mobilisation. Only if they connect the on-line mobilisation in off-
:08:14. > :08:18.line action, can they damage the reputation of a brand. Google,
:08:18. > :08:22.Amazon and other multinationals in the spotlight reiterated today that
:08:22. > :08:26.their tax affairs were fully in order, that is true, but because
:08:26. > :08:30.the Government's hands are tied by international tax treaties t will
:08:30. > :08:32.doubtless hope that other firms will follow Starbucks lead, and
:08:32. > :08:37.voluntarily agree to pay for corporation tax.
:08:37. > :08:41.We asked many of the companies accused of immorally minimising
:08:41. > :08:46.their cushion tax bills on to tonight's programme. None of them,
:08:46. > :08:52.includinging Starbucks, Amazon or Google, -- including Starbucks,
:08:52. > :08:56.Amazon or Google would appear. Joining us are my guests now. The
:08:56. > :08:59.former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, Giles Fraser, the
:08:59. > :09:02.tax campaigner, Ellie Mae O'Hagan, and Mark Littlewood of the
:09:03. > :09:06.Institute of Economic Affairs. Mark Littlewood, is there any point in
:09:06. > :09:10.George Osborne blustering about things being outrageous? No point
:09:10. > :09:13.at all. It is as if he was announcing today that he would send
:09:13. > :09:17.more traffic cops on to the motorway, because he doesn't like
:09:17. > :09:20.people driving at 70 miles an hour. If he has a problem with people
:09:20. > :09:24.driving at 70 miles an house he and his Government should cut the speed
:09:24. > :09:28.limit. He has to be clear about what the law is. The problem here
:09:28. > :09:34.is vagaries in the law. We can argue in these studios, and George
:09:34. > :09:38.Osborne and Danny Alexander can release press released as long as
:09:38. > :09:42.they like about the realities, the Government has to have a clear tax
:09:42. > :09:45.code and it doesn't. Enforcement becomes a bit of a joke. As far as
:09:45. > :09:49.you are concerned, there is nothing wrong with what these companies
:09:49. > :09:52.have done, they have merely complied with the law and played --
:09:52. > :09:56.paid what was necessary? They are operating according to the law. To
:09:56. > :10:02.take the point, it is not just the UK tax law, it is the international
:10:02. > :10:07.tax codes that we all need to comply with. So why are you so
:10:08. > :10:10.upset about it? About tax avoidance. There is no tax avoidance, they are
:10:10. > :10:14.paying what they are supposed to pay? That is a red herring to say
:10:14. > :10:17.they are paying what they are supposed to pay. Why? There are
:10:17. > :10:20.loopholes they are exploiting. Should they pay more? They are
:10:20. > :10:27.supposed to pay a rate of corporation tax that they are
:10:27. > :10:30.avoiding. They are manipulating the, as Mark said, the poorly-
:10:30. > :10:33.constructed laws in order to use loopholes to get out of paying what
:10:33. > :10:36.they are supposed to pay. They are not paying what they are supposed
:10:36. > :10:42.to pay. There is a huge difference between what is moral and what is
:10:42. > :10:46.legal. What is going on here, if you have, if you are a company that
:10:46. > :10:50.makes and sells books, the books are printed in the UK, their
:10:50. > :10:57.warehouseed in the UK, they are shipped out in the UK, sent to UK
:10:57. > :11:01.customers, the invoices are printed on UK paper and sent out in the UK
:11:01. > :11:04.but Luxembourg printed on the bottom so you pay the tax in
:11:04. > :11:09.Luxembourg, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out
:11:09. > :11:16.something is fundamentally wrong there. This is nonsense. Which bit
:11:16. > :11:18.is nonsense? When you are talking about Amazon, people don't go to
:11:18. > :11:22.their websites because they are boxed and labelled in the UK. They
:11:22. > :11:27.go to them because they are internationally recognised as a
:11:27. > :11:30.brand. I suggest they are cheaper? It is cheap and convenient.
:11:30. > :11:34.recognised. If you are somebody, think of an on-line bookshop, you
:11:34. > :11:41.can go to, Amazon has great recognition. These are not
:11:41. > :11:46.justifications to avoid tax. People on the screen here have great brand
:11:46. > :11:51.value. How is that an issue about tax avoidance. If you open a cinema
:11:51. > :11:55.in London and show Hollywood blockbuster movies, like Spiderman,
:11:55. > :12:00.what proportion of the ticket price should go to the IP property owner,
:12:00. > :12:04.the person who owns Spiderman in America, clearly more than 0%, as
:12:05. > :12:09.much as 5%, 10%, I'm not sure, it is precisely this argument that
:12:09. > :12:14.Starbucks are in. If the consequence of that, is that small
:12:14. > :12:23.book shops, for example, to take the book analogy, if they go out of
:12:23. > :12:26.business, tough luck? They pay their taxes? There is no question
:12:26. > :12:30.that Amazon and Starbucks are paying their taxes. Small book
:12:30. > :12:34.shops are going out of business. Small coffee shops to the expense
:12:34. > :12:38.of Starbucks? You don't care about that either? The market trend is
:12:38. > :12:41.people are buying books on-line cheaper, and coffee from recognised
:12:41. > :12:45.chains, this is a change in consumer behaviour. The interesting
:12:45. > :12:48.thing now is Starbucks customers decide, we have had enough of you,
:12:48. > :12:52.we will never buy coffee from you again, unless you hand over a
:12:52. > :12:55.billion or two billion to the taxpayer, that is consumer power. A
:12:55. > :12:59.wonderful thing in a free market and free society. We will come to
:12:59. > :13:04.the question of consumer power. Let's explore the moral point
:13:04. > :13:10.further, morally, is a company entitled, I know you are a tax
:13:10. > :13:13.specialist, but is a company entitled to decide to pay more tax
:13:13. > :13:18.regardless of its obligation to its shareholders? Arguably it is not
:13:18. > :13:22.more tax, is it, if it is paying more tax than is legally due, that
:13:22. > :13:27.is arguably not tax. That is the basic question. Are companies free
:13:27. > :13:33.to do that? Well, that's a question that isn't a tax question, at all,
:13:33. > :13:38.that is about the duties of the directors and so on. But arguably,
:13:38. > :13:42.if it is not the legal liable tax it is not tax. The legal liable tax
:13:42. > :13:47.is the corporation tax of Britain, if you are not paying at that rate,
:13:47. > :13:51.you are avoiding tax. That is zero, if you have no profits. What do you
:13:51. > :13:56.want us to do, withdraw from the European Union, is that the idea?
:13:56. > :14:03.think this Government should introduce an anti-avoidance
:14:03. > :14:07.principle. There is research that says you will recoup �5.5 billion
:14:07. > :14:10.in tax, at a time of unprecedented cuts to public services it is
:14:11. > :14:16.incumbent on the Government to do that, morally incumbent as Giles
:14:16. > :14:22.was saying. Could that work? think we are going to get one.
:14:22. > :14:27.we will get an anti-abuse principle, the research shows that won't work,
:14:27. > :14:31.I'm asking for an anti-avoidance principle. We have yet to see the
:14:31. > :14:34.details, none of us know the details. But the key point about
:14:34. > :14:38.this is that most big businesses actually welcome the introduction
:14:38. > :14:43.of such a principle. Because, actually, they are not interested
:14:43. > :14:47.in aggressive tax avoidance. are they participating in it?
:14:47. > :14:51.don't think they would see that is what it is. Hang on a second.
:14:51. > :14:57.is this a moral question? Because it is about your contribution to
:14:57. > :15:00.the common good. And the question is, do these very large
:15:00. > :15:05.multinational companies actually contribute to the good of all. And
:15:05. > :15:09.if they are paying, if they are actually paying very little tax,
:15:09. > :15:14.and they are also putting small businesses out of business, there
:15:14. > :15:17.is a very strong argument to say they don't...There Is an argument
:15:17. > :15:20.to say they employ people and pay national insurance? There is a
:15:20. > :15:23.balance of advantage, there is a balance of advantage, if they are
:15:23. > :15:26.saying they make no profit, I don't know why they are operating here if
:15:26. > :15:30.they make no profit, that seems extraordinary. They say they make
:15:30. > :15:32.no profit, they boast to their shareholders they are making
:15:32. > :15:36.extraordinary profits in their glossy brochures and then they ship
:15:37. > :15:40.all their profits overseas. This country doesn't have the advantage
:15:40. > :15:44.of that. That is a very simple matter. That is a very simple
:15:44. > :15:47.matter, Charles. If there is any fraud going on t needs to be
:15:47. > :15:51.prosecuted. I didn't say there was fraud. If the minutes of their tax
:15:51. > :15:54.holder meetings are different to their returns, this needs to be
:15:54. > :15:58.investigated by the tax authorities, not grandstanded by politician. It
:15:58. > :16:02.needs to be investigated by the tax authorities in the same way that if
:16:02. > :16:05.I claimed I was on the minimum wage, it would be investigated by the tax
:16:05. > :16:08.authorities. The tax authorities are too lenient. Once you mix up
:16:08. > :16:12.the common good and handing money over to the state, they are not
:16:12. > :16:16.exactly the same thing. If Starbucks decides to give money to
:16:16. > :16:20.charitable arms or whatever, I'm sure that would be giving to the
:16:20. > :16:23.common good. I want to the make the point about the moral issue Jeremy
:16:23. > :16:27.has been talking about, we are living in a time of unprecedented
:16:28. > :16:34.cuts to public services, it is irrefutable the damage it is
:16:34. > :16:37.causing to people's lives. Would you ban duty free products. Excuse
:16:37. > :16:43.me, pleat finish my point, George Osborne will be repeating the
:16:43. > :16:47.mantra there is no alternative, here is an alternative. Would you
:16:47. > :16:51.ban people buying duty-free, that is tax avoidance. That is a total
:16:51. > :16:57.red herring, that is a red herring, because duty-free products are
:16:57. > :17:00.designed to relieve people of tax. Are so are these tax codes.
:17:00. > :17:04.Transfer pricing is an incredibly complex thing. Normal people can't
:17:04. > :17:08.take advantage of it, it is not the same as a duty-free. You are
:17:08. > :17:12.distracting from the point I'm making. You want a general anti-
:17:12. > :17:19.avoidance rule, applying to everyone, I assume. Living in a
:17:19. > :17:22.time, let me finish my point, let me finish, we are living in a time
:17:22. > :17:26.unprecedented cuts that is causing damage to people's lives, and
:17:26. > :17:31.women's services which is what being protested about on the
:17:31. > :17:35.weekend. This is about cuts not tax. Tax avoidance corporation, loses
:17:35. > :17:39.�25 billion a year. What about personal tax avoidance. That is a
:17:39. > :17:42.different issue. Hang on, you said earlier you want a general anti-
:17:42. > :17:48.avoidance principle, I'm trying to work out. You can write the
:17:48. > :17:53.principle in such a way. I'm trying to work out why the general anti-
:17:53. > :17:57.avoidance principle you argued for, doesn't apply to duty-free
:17:57. > :18:00.cigarettes. We as a society will write that and exclude that, we
:18:00. > :18:04.will write the general anti- avoidance rule and decide what goes
:18:04. > :18:10.in it. We don't have to include that. OK you two, let someone else
:18:10. > :18:13.have a say. If I behaved, you know, at the moment, extraordinary, these
:18:13. > :18:17.large companies now negotiating their tax with the Government. I
:18:17. > :18:21.would love the tax man to call me up and say come out for a cup of
:18:21. > :18:24.coffee and we will negotiate my tax, that is not how it works. If the
:18:24. > :18:27.Government agrees there is nothing wrong with it? There is a
:18:27. > :18:32.difference between what is legal and what is moral. What is legal
:18:32. > :18:38.must track what is moral. That, if it doesn't track, to some degree,
:18:38. > :18:44.that people recognise, out there, there is a great deal of political,
:18:44. > :18:49.social, unhappiness about this sort of thing. Clearer, simpler tax
:18:49. > :18:55.codes. You have been very restrained, come on? On the moral
:18:55. > :18:58.point. Clearly all human activity has a moral angle to it. I think it
:18:58. > :19:03.is incumbent of all of us in our public lives to think about that.
:19:03. > :19:07.In whatever walk of life we are in. But there is also some pragmatisim
:19:07. > :19:12.to this. The fact of the matter is, we need this economy, we need, for
:19:12. > :19:15.this economy to improve, for more jobs to come, we need inbound
:19:15. > :19:18.investment, we need healthy companies locating here. The
:19:18. > :19:22.Government has done a lot of work to make the UK a more attractive
:19:22. > :19:27.environment, both for people to headquarters. That is an argument
:19:27. > :19:30.for lowering taxes? To attract inbound investment. There is a real
:19:30. > :19:36.danger with this debate. Bear in mind when I talk to my colleagues
:19:36. > :19:41.globally the UK is leading this debate like this. There is a real
:19:41. > :19:45.danger that we are putting off those investors. I'm hearing that.
:19:45. > :19:49.You can't be black mailed by large companies. It is not a question of
:19:49. > :19:52.blackmail. There are 62 million people in this country, they will
:19:52. > :19:56.make profits if they pay their fair share of tax, they will make
:19:56. > :20:00.profits on it, that is why they are here. The idea that we will up
:20:00. > :20:04.sticks and go if you don't like paying the tax. There will be some
:20:04. > :20:09.tax rates the UK could have that would be too high people would go
:20:10. > :20:14.elsewhere. You know, that the levels of taxation that are being
:20:14. > :20:20.paid here are silly low, silly low. Silly high. There is a level, there
:20:20. > :20:24.is a level which is fair, it is fair to business, indigenous
:20:24. > :20:28.businesses that work here, it is fair to those of us who receive the
:20:28. > :20:32.benefit, all of us who receive the benefit of taxation. The idea that
:20:32. > :20:36.you could ship out your responsibilities and warehouse them
:20:36. > :20:40.overseas is clearly morally wrong, and pragmatism is no alibi.
:20:40. > :20:44.would you increase tax revenues? I'm interested in people paying
:20:44. > :20:50.their fair share of that. I think that's what is crucial here.
:20:50. > :20:53.think it should be higher? Yes, if a company like Amazon and Starbucks
:20:53. > :20:57.are paying the minuscule amounts that we have at the moment, then,
:20:57. > :21:01.yes, they should be paying a lot more. How would you change the
:21:01. > :21:06.corporation tax rules? Luckily I'm not an accountant so I can't do
:21:06. > :21:10.that. It is a much harder task than you are saying. We can put a man on
:21:10. > :21:15.the moon we can make this work. Thank you all very much.
:21:15. > :21:18.Now, a cure for cancer is the Holy Grail of medical research, yet is
:21:18. > :21:21.it possible that the law is preventing doctors from making
:21:21. > :21:24.progress? A Private Members Bill introduced
:21:24. > :21:29.in the House of Lords this afternoon, more or less claims it
:21:29. > :21:36.may be. According to Lord Saatchi, the advertising empresary and
:21:36. > :21:41.former chairman of the Conservative Party, the law xels doctors to
:21:41. > :21:46.stick to conventional treatments. He lost his wife to ovarian cancer,
:21:46. > :21:56.the treatment of which is harsh and almost always unsuccessful, why not
:21:56. > :21:56.
:21:56. > :22:00.free doctors to try something new? He's with us.
:22:00. > :22:04.There have been incredible advances in the treatment of many cancers,
:22:04. > :22:10.childhood cancers stand out. Broadly, we are doing well in
:22:10. > :22:15.common cancers such as breast and colorectal cancers, but less well
:22:15. > :22:23.with brain and pancreatic cancers. Maurice Saatchi says he wants to
:22:23. > :22:31.help people to treat harder to treat cancers, including ovarian
:22:31. > :22:34.cancers, including the one that his wife died from. He his says goal,
:22:34. > :22:38.introduced through a Private Members Bill in the Lords today, is
:22:38. > :22:46.to create greater innovation in cancer treatment. In the framework,
:22:46. > :22:51.doctors can try new treatment. The idea is to free them from the
:22:51. > :22:57.threat of being sued from departure from the range of conventional
:22:57. > :23:01.treatments, without condoning recklessness.
:23:01. > :23:05.Aren't there other factors, than fear of being sued, like lack of
:23:05. > :23:09.money for research, why the need for a new law. When a doctor thinks
:23:09. > :23:13.about how they are faced with a difficult clinical sin Nair hey,
:23:13. > :23:18.they take all the appropriate measure, that is referrals, --
:23:18. > :23:21.scenario, they take all the appropriates, referrals, talking to
:23:21. > :23:24.patients, giving them the advantages and disadvantages of one
:23:24. > :23:29.treatment or another. There is always the questions in the back of
:23:29. > :23:34.the mind, what happens if something goes wrong. The bill helps clarify
:23:34. > :23:37.the situation, that if something goes wrong, then the doctor will be
:23:37. > :23:41.less liable. Some cancer charities support the
:23:41. > :23:47.move, they say there is a need to challenge the status quo. We would
:23:47. > :23:50.support anything that will improve the survival rates for women with
:23:50. > :23:53.this disease. The treatment for ovarian cancer has hardly changed
:23:53. > :23:58.in the last 30 years, this will give women the opportunity to talk
:23:58. > :24:02.to their doctor and say, what is the right treatment for my disease.
:24:02. > :24:06.Because we know that one size doesn't fit all.
:24:06. > :24:10.This cancer research centre in Cambridge aims to link laboratory
:24:10. > :24:14.research to practical applications in the clinic. James Brenton
:24:14. > :24:19.specialises in ovarian cancers, in particular why treatments work for
:24:19. > :24:23.some women and not others. So does he think fear of being sued is
:24:23. > :24:26.holding back innovation in cancer treatment? No, I don't think it is
:24:26. > :24:31.litigation fears. I think it is really a lack of understanding
:24:31. > :24:35.about what is happening in the cancer when a patient has relapsed
:24:35. > :24:39.with ovarian cancer. If we look at other cancers where survival has
:24:39. > :24:42.changed dramatically over the past 20 years, like breast cancer, we
:24:42. > :24:46.have identified particular changes that mean specific therapies work
:24:46. > :24:48.very well for those women. We don't have that information yet for
:24:49. > :24:51.ovarian cancer, that limits the opportunities for new medicines to
:24:51. > :24:55.come into the treatment of the disease.
:24:55. > :25:01.He says the current survival rates for ovarian cancer are not as good
:25:01. > :25:06.as he or others would like. survival for most women with
:25:06. > :25:10.ovarian cancer is 20-30% of those women still alive in five years,
:25:10. > :25:14.using the medicines we have, the chemotherapy drugs. Even in the
:25:14. > :25:18.most severe cases, 15 out of 100 are still alive. We are not happy
:25:18. > :25:22.about the survival figures, we do know the medicines we have cause
:25:22. > :25:26.great benefit in the short-term, the problem is the patients become
:25:26. > :25:29.resistant to the chemotherapy drugs, that is the reason for the low
:25:29. > :25:36.survival. Ovarian cancer is one of the most intractable of cancers.
:25:36. > :25:40.The majority of women present with late-stage cancer, and survival in
:25:40. > :25:43.these women have not improved significantly in recent years.
:25:43. > :25:47.According to to Cancer Research UK, overall cancer rates of survival
:25:47. > :25:52.have doubled in the last 40 years, with half of people diagnosed with
:25:52. > :25:57.cancer surviving their disease for at least five years. In the 1960s,
:25:57. > :26:00.only around a quarter of children survived cancer, now almost three-
:26:00. > :26:05.quarters will survive for more than ten years, with many of those being
:26:05. > :26:10.cured of their disease. The bill raises concerns about the
:26:10. > :26:16.level of innovation in cancer treatment, but even for ovarian
:26:16. > :26:22.cancers, the future looks more promising. There is good evidence
:26:22. > :26:27.that good research into ovarian cancer will change the outcome,
:26:27. > :26:32.they are medicines called PARP inhibitors, for those with a gene-
:26:32. > :26:35.change in ovarian cancer which will change the outcome and cure more
:26:35. > :26:38.patients. James Brenton says his team is researching other promising
:26:38. > :26:45.avenues, such as a simple blood test to spot changes within a
:26:45. > :26:49.single cancer, by looking for cancer DNA in a patient's blood.
:26:49. > :26:53.While those behind today's bill say they agree with more kept kal
:26:53. > :26:56.colleagues, that some form of clin -- sceptical colleagues, that
:26:56. > :27:00.Transformers of clinical trial must be the basis of deciding to try new
:27:01. > :27:06.treatments, in the future, they say, as gene-based approaches, allow
:27:06. > :27:12.therapies targeted at individual patients, that fine tuning itself,
:27:12. > :27:15.pay mean large-scale clinical trials are not always possible.
:27:15. > :27:18.Lord Saatchi is with us now, you lost your wife to cancer in the
:27:18. > :27:28.summer of last year. Was there a particular point in the treatment
:27:28. > :27:28.
:27:29. > :27:33.where you realised that the law needed to be changed. I realised
:27:33. > :27:37.the progress of cancer is relentless, remorseless, and
:27:37. > :27:44.merciless. I also observed that the current treatments, certainly for
:27:44. > :27:52.the kind of women's gynaecological cancer I'm now an expert in, these
:27:52. > :27:55.treatments are medieval, degrading, and ineffective. If I may suggest,
:27:55. > :27:59.the most useful way we could have this conversation, if it is all
:27:59. > :28:03.right with you, is in terms of problem-solution. I will try to
:28:03. > :28:08.describe the problem, I will have to be very stark about it, because
:28:08. > :28:15.otherwise it will be quite possible for somebody to say, well, it is
:28:15. > :28:20.not necessarily for this change in the law. May I do that? Please.
:28:21. > :28:25.the moment women would think of the worst part of cancer treatment as
:28:25. > :28:30.being hair loss. Caused by the drugs. And for a woman, in
:28:30. > :28:37.particular, I think, hair loss is most distressing. But I can assure
:28:37. > :28:43.you that hair loss is the good news. The less good news is that the
:28:43. > :28:52.effects of the drugs, they cause and mimic the disease, with
:28:52. > :28:57.symptoms like nausea, sorry about this, vomiting, fatigue, most
:28:57. > :29:03.distressing, but I'm still in the good news, because the really bad
:29:03. > :29:07.news is that the effect of the drugs on the immune system of the
:29:07. > :29:11.woman, allow fatal infection to enter the body, and then the woman
:29:11. > :29:17.is as likely to die from the infection as from the cancer.
:29:17. > :29:23.That's the problem, if I can put it that way. Then we can come on to
:29:23. > :29:28.the solution to that problem. does your bill propose? The bill
:29:28. > :29:32.starts from the position that the current law is a barrier to
:29:32. > :29:40.progress in solving the problem I have just described. A barrier to
:29:40. > :29:47.progress in curing cancer. This is because any deviation, by a doctor,
:29:47. > :29:52.from what his standard procedure, is liable to lead to a finding of
:29:53. > :29:56.guilt for medal negligence. In other words, this is a deterrent --
:29:56. > :30:02.medical negligence. In other words this is a deterrent. This is so
:30:02. > :30:05.should somebody sue? Yes. Have doctors said that is deterring them
:30:05. > :30:09.from trying other forms of treatment because of this?
:30:09. > :30:13.trafting of this bill, taking place -- drafting of this bill, taking
:30:13. > :30:17.place by some great parliamentary draftmen and great medical figures
:30:17. > :30:22.in this country, has dealt with exactly that question, that the
:30:23. > :30:28.fear in the mind of any doctor, that any departure from standard
:30:28. > :30:32.procedure, will cost them their livelihood, and their reputation.
:30:32. > :30:37.That's very serious what this bill will do is relieve them of that
:30:37. > :30:42.burden, and allow more innovation. What it won't do is to create a
:30:42. > :30:48.situation in which doctors are free to experiment in a reckless manner.
:30:48. > :30:53.In fact, I would say, not to go on, I would say that this bill will do
:30:53. > :30:58.more to deter reckless innovation, than the present law. Because it
:30:58. > :31:04.sets out, after much consultation with the medical profession. It set
:31:04. > :31:08.out a procedure, a process, which constitutes responsible innovation.
:31:08. > :31:14.It contrasts that with reckless experimentation, which puts
:31:14. > :31:19.patients lives at risk. But the reason there is an insistence upon
:31:19. > :31:26.conforming to recognised treatment, is precisely to protect the patient
:31:26. > :31:29.from quickry? Quickry, snake oil salesmen, -- Quackery, snake oil
:31:29. > :31:36.salesman? This bill will protect better than the current low. The
:31:36. > :31:40.bill sets out a hard process for a doctor to follow, if he is to
:31:40. > :31:44.innovate in a responsible manner. Have you any examples of the way in
:31:44. > :31:47.which this fear you say doctors have has got in the way of
:31:47. > :31:52.innovation? The fear I describe is in the mind of all doctors at all
:31:52. > :31:55.times. How would it not be. If you were the patient and I was the
:31:55. > :32:00.doctor, and I could see your situation was grim, there is
:32:00. > :32:04.nothing I can do for you, because my situation, as a doctor, is if I
:32:04. > :32:09.depart from what is standard, my entire family, my livelihood, my
:32:09. > :32:15.reputation, is likely to be destroyed. That's a problem. The
:32:15. > :32:19.current law is case law, if this bill became law, this would become
:32:19. > :32:22.statute law, and the definition of responsible innovation, instead of
:32:22. > :32:27.being uncertain, as it is now, would become certain, because it
:32:27. > :32:31.would be in the law. Can you give me an example of the
:32:31. > :32:35.sort of thing you are thinking of? I'm not thinking that there is over
:32:35. > :32:40.there a cure for cancer, which if only it could be picked up and
:32:40. > :32:43.grout into a patients' hospital room everything would be well. --
:32:43. > :32:49.brought into a patients' hospital room everything would be we will.
:32:49. > :32:54.This bill won't cure cancer, it is to encourage the man or woman who
:32:54. > :33:01.will cure cancer. I assume like all medical discoveries, like the
:33:01. > :33:05.discould havery of pencilian or insulin, it will -- discovery of
:33:05. > :33:10.pencilian or insulin, it will be that one man or woman will have an
:33:10. > :33:14.idea in their head about how to cure Cannes, and they will pursue
:33:14. > :33:17.it with great -- cancer, and they will pursue it with great rigour
:33:17. > :33:22.and encouraged by it. This bill will encourage that. Do you think,
:33:22. > :33:26.because of the advances we have made in mapping the human genome,
:33:26. > :33:29.and all of rest of it, because of that gene therapy, and one thing or
:33:29. > :33:32.another, we may be at the point where there is the possibility of
:33:32. > :33:35.change, and some how the inhibitions on how doctors behave
:33:35. > :33:43.are stopping that? I couldn't have put it better than the way you have
:33:43. > :33:47.just put it. I'm very hopeful, as the oncologist on your film said. I
:33:47. > :33:54.hope he's right. I haven't seen that myself. The survival rates in
:33:54. > :33:59.the kind of cancer I'm familiar with are zero. The mortality rate
:33:59. > :34:04.is 100%. And those rates are, as your film showed, the same as 40
:34:04. > :34:08.years ago. The question one must ask is how is this possible? How
:34:08. > :34:13.could there possibly have been such tremendous technological advance,
:34:13. > :34:17.at a breath-taking rate, in so many fields, but not in cancer. They
:34:17. > :34:24.have in some areas of cancer, haven't they? In some areas. Of
:34:24. > :34:29.this improved considerably, not in this Cannes r cancer. Not owe vair
:34:29. > :34:32.-- Cancer. Not ovarian cancer. should address why that should be.
:34:32. > :34:38.When do you think the bill might become law?. That is a very telling
:34:38. > :34:42.question. The bill will become law when the Government decides it will
:34:42. > :34:45.become law. I have produced the bill in the House of Lords. Have
:34:45. > :34:52.they given you any indication they will support you? No, I imagine
:34:52. > :34:57.what the Government will say, when you ask them, is all is well, the
:34:58. > :35:01.Government are doing a marvellous job investing tremendous sums,
:35:01. > :35:05.great research is taking place everywhere, and no Government could
:35:05. > :35:11.do more. I expect that's what they will say. But that would be very
:35:11. > :35:16.dim of them. So, knowing how intelligent the Prime Minister is,
:35:16. > :35:22.I doubt that will be his response. I'm looking forward to tremendous
:35:22. > :35:26.support. Lord Saatchi, thank you. It's over a year since the end of
:35:26. > :35:30.the war which brought down the dictatorship of Colonel Gaddafi in
:35:30. > :35:34.Libya. What bright hopes there were. The country has now staged
:35:34. > :35:37.elections and a new Prime Minister struggles to chart a new course for
:35:38. > :35:42.his country, including, he says, the promotion of human rights. But
:35:42. > :35:46.Libya is very far from free. Something like seven or eight
:35:46. > :35:49.though people are being held by various militias or gangs, which
:35:49. > :35:54.control many of the streets. Women who took part in the struggle to
:35:54. > :36:00.dump a dictator, now find themselves at the particular mercy
:36:00. > :36:07.of Islamist gangs. Tim Whewell has been speaking to one of them.
:36:07. > :36:10.It was a victory over one of the world's most enduring dictatorships,
:36:10. > :36:16.a victory hastened by British political and military support.
:36:16. > :36:21.is great to be here in free Benghazi, and in free Libya.
:36:21. > :36:31.Your city was an inspiration to the world, as you threw off a dictator
:36:31. > :36:41.
:36:41. > :36:43.But one young Libyan, who chose freedom, can't enjoy its fruits. An
:36:43. > :36:48.ardent revolutionly, Magdulien Abaida is facing the cold reality
:36:48. > :36:51.of exile on the epbl of the North Sea. She has been given -- end of
:36:51. > :37:01.the North Sea. She has been given asylum by David Cameron's
:37:01. > :37:02.
:37:02. > :37:05.Government, to protect her from some of the forces that are at work
:37:05. > :37:10.in Libya. To have this revolution, and work hard for this revolution,
:37:10. > :37:14.and then, in the end, after that you just have to leave it. Because
:37:14. > :37:20.it is not a safe place for you any more.
:37:20. > :37:30.During the revolution everybody was united, we all were working
:37:30. > :37:32.
:37:32. > :37:37.together. But now, it's quite difficult.
:37:37. > :37:42.Sunderland, where she knows no-one, is now her temporary home, at the
:37:42. > :37:45.end of tumultuous year-and-a-half, when she joined protests against
:37:45. > :37:49.Colonel Gaddafi, helped organise medical and food supplies for the
:37:49. > :37:52.rebels, and then, in liberated Libya, began to campaign for
:37:52. > :37:58.women's rights. It was that struggle against
:37:58. > :38:02.discrimination, she believes, that put her life at risk. One of the
:38:02. > :38:10.women's meetings she attended in Benghazi this summer was
:38:10. > :38:16.interrupted by armed men. They came and took me from my room, five men.
:38:16. > :38:22.They were armed. They asked me to go with them. I asked them who they
:38:22. > :38:27.were, they said that I will know. Her captors, she says, were members
:38:27. > :38:31.of the revolutionary militias. The brigades were formed from
:38:31. > :38:36.volunteers, who took up arms against Gaddafi, in the spring of
:38:36. > :38:40.last year. But after his overthrow, many
:38:40. > :38:45.refused to integrate into a national army. And some, that
:38:45. > :38:51.operate as a law unto themselves, particularly in Benghazi, have
:38:51. > :38:54.strongly Islamist views. It was one of those militias, that seized her
:38:54. > :39:01.during the women's rights workshop, she was released, but abducted
:39:01. > :39:11.again the next day and taken to their base. Someone came and he
:39:11. > :39:14.
:39:14. > :39:22.started kicking me. And then, he was hitting me with his feet, and
:39:22. > :39:28.with his gun. He was telling me that I he will kill me and bury me
:39:28. > :39:37.here, and nobody knows. He was calling me an Israeli spy, and
:39:37. > :39:45.calling me whore and bitch, and tell me about my morals. You don't
:39:45. > :39:49.have any. He hit me in my face, and he started, he keeps swearing.
:39:49. > :39:55.These are the bruises she was left with. He was telling me he can kill
:39:55. > :40:05.me, right now, and bury me here, and nobody knows about me. I
:40:05. > :40:07.
:40:07. > :40:11.thought that I'm not going to, I will be killed in that place.
:40:11. > :40:15.Eventually released, but accused by the militia of working for Israel,
:40:15. > :40:21.which she strongly denies. She fled the country. Her application for
:40:21. > :40:24.asylum here was supported by Amnesty International. This case is
:40:24. > :40:29.really emblematic of the kind of behaviour, as Amnesty International
:40:29. > :40:33.we have documented since the fall of the former Government, our
:40:33. > :40:39.militias are acting completely out of control. There are hundreds of
:40:39. > :40:46.them across the country. People who have been tortured and died under
:40:46. > :40:53.torture and held incommunicado, all of this is happening while the
:40:53. > :40:57.Government is watching and unable to rein them in. Angry crowds
:40:57. > :41:00.stormed military bases, demanding an end to the lawless brigades,
:41:00. > :41:05.that came after accusations that some had been involved in the
:41:05. > :41:09.attack on the US consolate, and the assassination of the US Ambassador.
:41:09. > :41:13.The Libyan Government vowed to bring them under control, so far to
:41:13. > :41:20.no effect. Among those kidnapped and tortured
:41:20. > :41:24.is one of Libya's best-known brain surgeons.
:41:24. > :41:28.Is that embarrassing for Britain, the UK spent hundreds of millions
:41:28. > :41:34.of pounds on the air campaign that helped overthrow Gaddafi, but did
:41:34. > :41:38.it also help unleash forces that can't now be easily controlled.
:41:38. > :41:42.are concerned, we are working with a Government that is also concerned
:41:42. > :41:45.about it. We are trying to make sure we provide advice to
:41:45. > :41:52.particular ministries, the Ministry of Justice, Interior, defence, in
:41:52. > :41:54.human rights issues. We are training people, and spending money
:41:55. > :41:58.on projects so more people are able to understand human rights
:41:58. > :42:01.principles and putting them in action. We are trying to be
:42:01. > :42:05.strategic with our help, practical in terms of assistance, and we are
:42:05. > :42:10.working with people who recognise, that although they are making some
:42:10. > :42:13.progress, clearly they have many challenges after 40 years.
:42:13. > :42:19.The hope is, that Libya's new Government, appointed this month,
:42:19. > :42:24.after a long period of political uncertainty, can end the abuses.
:42:24. > :42:30.The new Justice Minister is a former human rights lawyer. We need
:42:30. > :42:36.to put an immediate end to all human rights abuses, particularly
:42:36. > :42:44.in Libyan prisons and detention centres. This is a problem that we
:42:44. > :42:50.are facing, we are not shying from it, we are not denying it. We know
:42:50. > :42:56.we have a big prob blems and - problem, and we have the will. To
:42:56. > :43:00.put an end to that. Back in Sunderland, Magdulien
:43:00. > :43:04.Abaida thinks it will be a long time before it is safe for her to
:43:04. > :43:08.go back. Grateful to have been given refuge
:43:08. > :43:14.by the UK, she's going now to pick up the papers that will allow her
:43:14. > :43:19.to stay in Britain. She will be campaigning from here,
:43:20. > :43:23.to end, what she sees, as efforts by Islamic fundamentalists in Libya
:43:23. > :43:29.to roll back women's rights. It is like now we have to control women,
:43:29. > :43:33.we have to hide them, so we can improve. Which is like, it is a big
:43:33. > :43:37.shock for us. The revolution would have been
:43:37. > :43:45.impossible without the work of women, who fed the frontline, and
:43:45. > :43:51.performed many other tasks. Afterwards, some set about
:43:51. > :43:55.empowering themselves to demand a bigger political role too. They
:43:55. > :43:58.were horrified that the rebel leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, used
:43:58. > :44:03.his Liberation Day speech to suggest making it easier for men to
:44:03. > :44:07.have more than one wife. This is not why we made the revolution, not
:44:07. > :44:15.for men to marry four women, the revolution was made by women and
:44:15. > :44:20.men, and we wanted more rights, and not to destroy the rights of half
:44:20. > :44:23.of the society. And again, when the female compere at the ceremony to
:44:23. > :44:27.transfer power to the new parliament was heckled off stage
:44:27. > :44:32.for not wearing a veil, and replaced by a man.
:44:32. > :44:39.There have been reports too of women harassed by militias, for
:44:39. > :44:43.sitting at cafes on their own at night. But Libya's always been a
:44:43. > :44:48.conservative society, and though she doesn't live in Libya full-time,
:44:48. > :44:53.activists, Sara Maziq, thinks women are achieving far more now than
:44:53. > :44:58.they could ever under Gaddafi. Currently we have 33 women in our
:44:58. > :45:00.Congress, we have two ministers in our previous transitional
:45:00. > :45:05.Government, and now two ministers in this Government. I think there
:45:05. > :45:09.is a lot of positive signs. I do hold a lot of hope in our new Prime
:45:09. > :45:12.Minister. I know previously he was a humam rights activist. I know
:45:12. > :45:15.that he supports fully women's rights. We need to look at the
:45:15. > :45:21.overall picture, and the overall picture what is happening in Libya,
:45:21. > :45:24.as far as I'm concerned, as a Libyan, is really in some ways a
:45:24. > :45:31.miracle. But Magdulien Abaida can't return to the activism that helped
:45:31. > :45:35.make her a target of the Islamists' wrath. If you went back to Libya
:45:35. > :45:42.now, what do you think will happen to you? They will detain me
:45:42. > :45:48.directly. And then? I don't know. Maybe they release me before, now,
:45:48. > :45:58.if they catch me again they wouldn't release me any more.
:45:58. > :46:16.
:46:16. > :46:22.There we are. That's it for now the Turner Prize
:46:22. > :46:27.was won tonight by Elizabeth Price, whose video installation, the
:46:27. > :46:37.Woolworth's Choir of 1979, tells the story of a fire that destroyed
:46:37. > :47:06.
:47:06. > :47:08.a city centre store and left ten icey start in Scotland, but only a
:47:08. > :47:13.patchy frost in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further showers
:47:13. > :47:16.coming in on the breeze here. Mostly of rain. And very few
:47:16. > :47:21.showers for the east and south-east of England. Let's take a look at
:47:21. > :47:26.things into the afternoon. Showers in North West England, some filter
:47:26. > :47:31.towards the Midland. Increasing cloud. For East Anglia and the east,
:47:31. > :47:34.sunshine here, temperatures not as high as they were today, as seven
:47:34. > :47:37.or eight degrees. Showers across south-west England, is sunshine
:47:37. > :47:42.inbetween. As there will be to showers in Wales. We don't welcome
:47:42. > :47:45.any more rain to the flood-affected areas, at least it is not a
:47:45. > :47:49.constant rain. For Northern Ireland sunshine and showers, with
:47:49. > :47:52.temperatures around five or six degrees, a few showers brushing the
:47:52. > :47:58.far south-west of Scotland. Elsewhere a cold day in Scotland,
:47:58. > :48:01.cloud around an area of rain, sleet and hill know nudging south across
:48:01. > :48:06.northern Scotland. This is the picture for Tuesday into Wednesday.
:48:06. > :48:10.On Wednesday there will be a lot of sunshine around, the fine day but a
:48:10. > :48:16.cold one, across the bulk of the UK. Make the most of all of that, after