:00:00. > :00:11.A sick child 300 miles away from his parents, who are tonight behind
:00:12. > :00:14.bars. How do the legal and medical procedures across Europe get to
:00:15. > :00:18.this, and how much choice do parents have over their child's own
:00:19. > :00:23.treatment. Also tonight: It sticks in the craw
:00:24. > :00:30.the idea that someone can go from this country, go to Syria, declare
:00:31. > :00:33.Jihad, make all sorts of plans do us damage and then contemplate
:00:34. > :00:37.returning to Britain. Police get more powers to fight terror, are the
:00:38. > :00:40.new rules legal and will they work? This man was once under a control
:00:41. > :00:46.order, he thinks the Government have it all wrong.
:00:47. > :00:50.And this: Technically I have DNA from three
:00:51. > :00:56.different people. Is there any good reason why science should be able to
:00:57. > :01:04.create children with three different biological parents. Today science
:01:05. > :01:10.tries to work out the answer. Good evening. Southampton General
:01:11. > :01:13.Hospital called it a "breakdown in communication", that breakdown has
:01:14. > :01:17.resulted tonight in the parents of Ashya King spending the night in the
:01:18. > :01:21.Soto Real prison in Madrid, whilst their desperately ill son lies in a
:01:22. > :01:24.Malaga hospital 300 miles away. The family who brought him to Spain
:01:25. > :01:27.without the consent of the authorities have refused to be
:01:28. > :01:30.extradited to Britain. As a result they are now banned from seeing
:01:31. > :01:34.their five-year-old. The situation is desperate. A Kafka plot with a
:01:35. > :01:39.horribly real outcome. How does the law work to protect a child from its
:01:40. > :01:49.parents when the parents believe they are only doing what is best.
:01:50. > :01:53.It is the best treatment for Ashya. Parents in prison, away from their
:01:54. > :01:58.ill little boy. He's in a hospital room with guards, miles away. The
:01:59. > :02:03.Kings took a decision to trust their instinct not doctors. But predicted
:02:04. > :02:08.nothing of what the consequences would be. Obviously we never thought
:02:09. > :02:13.this would be such a big deal. We just wanted to do what was best for
:02:14. > :02:17.Ashya. Obviously I'm just grateful for everyone back home. Obviously
:02:18. > :02:22.petitions being signed and money being raised for his treatment,
:02:23. > :02:26.obviously I'm really thankful. The King's Speeches refused the
:02:27. > :02:31.authority's legal request to bring him home, so a Spanish judge ordered
:02:32. > :02:37.them to stay in custody while the legal machine grinds on. I ask call
:02:38. > :02:41.it off this ridiculous chase. It is not a crime for parents to remove
:02:42. > :02:45.their child from hospital, that is unless a court has already put a
:02:46. > :02:49.legal order in place. But cruelty to children can be a crime, and the CPS
:02:50. > :02:55.believed there was enough evidence to get a warrant for The King's
:02:56. > :02:58.Speeches' arrest. No other proton therapy centre around the world has
:02:59. > :03:02.more advanced technology. Patients from all around the world are
:03:03. > :03:05.accepted by our team of competent and friendly international
:03:06. > :03:10.specialists. The King's Speeches plan was to sell their holiday house
:03:11. > :03:16.in Spain pay for this, proton beam therapy in the Czech Republic, where
:03:17. > :03:20.small parts of atoms are beamed at cancer tissue, it can be more
:03:21. > :03:23.precise and less damaging than traditional radiotherapy, but
:03:24. > :03:27.Ashya's doctors in the UK did not believe it was best for him. The
:03:28. > :03:30.surrounding healthy tissue is protected and not damaged by
:03:31. > :03:37.unwanted radiation. I have spoken to the hospital in
:03:38. > :03:41.Prague where the little boy's family hoped he might be treated. They made
:03:42. > :03:45.inquiries on August 20th. Tonight they said they are willing to offer
:03:46. > :03:49.the little boy treatment in a few days' time if his medical situation
:03:50. > :03:54.is appropriate. In fact they said they approached the NHS back in 2012
:03:55. > :03:59.offering to make their services available to hospitals that don't
:04:00. > :04:02.have the equipment. The technology was actually
:04:03. > :04:06.developed in the UK, but there is only one hospital where it is in
:04:07. > :04:10.use. Two will follow soon. NHS England say they do pay for
:04:11. > :04:14.treatment overseas if and win it is appropriate. But when the doctors
:04:15. > :04:20.say no, a number of families do decide to fund it themselves.
:04:21. > :04:24.Everybody wants to hang on to that one thing that maybe the difference
:04:25. > :04:28.between their child living or dying. I think you know sometimes yes, it
:04:29. > :04:33.can be a false economy, but I think when you weigh the two things up,
:04:34. > :04:38.you know, weighing one against the other then if my child only had a 1%
:04:39. > :04:42.chance to beat the cancer I would want to exhaust the 1%. While that
:04:43. > :04:49.emotion is straight forward, decision making about treatment is
:04:50. > :04:53.not. Effective treatment really depends on integration. Now the new
:04:54. > :04:59.organisation has made this more difficult. So many of the national
:05:00. > :05:03.integration processes have been reduced and it seems perhaps as if
:05:04. > :05:07.there has been slightly less focus on cancer. The Government's
:05:08. > :05:15.reorganisation has made it more difficult? I think reorganisation of
:05:16. > :05:19.the NHS has made it more difficult for cross-organisational specialist
:05:20. > :05:25.work of this sort. Last year 99 children were sent abroad for just
:05:26. > :05:28.had kind of treatment, with the NHS covering costs and travel and
:05:29. > :05:32.accommodation for family too. The attraction and the novelty of a
:05:33. > :05:38.high-tech new treatment doesn't mean it is always the best choice for any
:05:39. > :05:42.patients. For some children the question isn't necessarily what kind
:05:43. > :05:47.of radiotherapy they should have, it is how they would cope with any
:05:48. > :05:50.treatment at all? But there are some cases where
:05:51. > :05:56.doctors and parents just can't agree. This time with an
:05:57. > :06:01.extraordinary outcome, parents in custody, doctors in Southampton
:06:02. > :06:05.unable to help. Children who have life-threatening conditions, it is
:06:06. > :06:09.really important that the family and the medical and nursing teams have a
:06:10. > :06:15.good communication and good relationships. In Ashya's case we
:06:16. > :06:18.really regret that the communication and the relationship broke down to
:06:19. > :06:26.the extent that the family lost trust in the team that were caring
:06:27. > :06:30.for him. And the little boy, table but seriously ill without family by
:06:31. > :06:35.his bedside. Now under the court's protection, the decision about his
:06:36. > :06:39.parents' future could take months. This evening, as you heard, the
:06:40. > :06:42.Southampton Hospital Trust admitted that communication and relationship
:06:43. > :06:45.with The King's Speech family had broken down. They said they
:06:46. > :06:48.regretted it. How can the heavy hands of medical professionals and
:06:49. > :06:55.lawyers come between a child and his parents when the same outcome is
:06:56. > :07:00.presumably desired by them all. I'm joined by Professor Harrison and
:07:01. > :07:03.Professor Jonathan Montgomery. Thank you very much for your time this
:07:04. > :07:08.evening. Professor Montgomery, should the hospital go against the
:07:09. > :07:12.wishes of the parents? There are two different sets offish use, the issue
:07:13. > :07:15.first of all about what happens if a child is taken away who is severely
:07:16. > :07:19.ill, I think the health professionals have to act then and
:07:20. > :07:22.try to safeguard the child. Clearly that was what they were faced with
:07:23. > :07:26.on Friday afternoon. If they have more time and the ability to discuss
:07:27. > :07:29.it through then the issue are slightly different. There it was
:07:30. > :07:32.unusual to go against the wishes of the parents as opposed to discuss it
:07:33. > :07:36.with them. Don't you think that is odd, they already met the parents,
:07:37. > :07:40.they knew the boy, they had seen the parents at the child's bedside. Why
:07:41. > :07:44.would you be suspicious of parents in that situation? I'm not sure they
:07:45. > :07:47.were suspicious of them at all until the boy was taken away from
:07:48. > :07:51.hospital. Then they have to decide how dangerous it is for the boy to
:07:52. > :07:54.be removed from hospital. It sounds as though from their view they
:07:55. > :07:57.thought initially it was very dangerous, although we now know of
:07:58. > :08:01.course the parents had taken significant precautions to make sure
:08:02. > :08:05.he was safe. Does that ring true then, if they thought he was in
:08:06. > :08:10.grave danger they had no choice? I don't think that rings true to me.
:08:11. > :08:14.None of us know the basis on which the CPS took the decision to issue a
:08:15. > :08:20.parent to hound this poor family. But the reason given by the CPS at
:08:21. > :08:25.the request of the Hampshire Police was, and I quote "for an offence of
:08:26. > :08:29.cruelty to a person under the age of 16". Well so far it is fairly
:08:30. > :08:33.obvious that the only cruelty to this poor little boy has been his
:08:34. > :08:37.abandonment in a Spanish hospital, where he doesn't speak the language,
:08:38. > :08:40.without his parents, his mother I understand had been with him
:08:41. > :08:47.constantly for the month before this, and without his family
:08:48. > :08:51.present. This is a prima facia cruelty. Whether there was any
:08:52. > :08:55.danger of any other sort of cruelty we don't know. We would have to, it
:08:56. > :08:58.seems to me, with all due respect to Jonathan to be fairly powerful and
:08:59. > :09:05.pressing reasons to believe that they were going to act recklessly or
:09:06. > :09:08.negligently with respect to their son whom they obviously loved, to
:09:09. > :09:12.warrant these draconian and heavy-handed measures. Why do you
:09:13. > :09:14.think they did it, do you think there was professional pride at
:09:15. > :09:20.play, or do you think this was a misjudgment? I have no idea. I'm not
:09:21. > :09:28.going to try to guess the motives of people I don't know. But it is not a
:09:29. > :09:33.crime to withdraw yourself or your children from hospital. And there is
:09:34. > :09:43.no reason, unless they can show why there was a reason, to suppose they
:09:44. > :09:46.were withdrawing him for some neferious reason. I think it was
:09:47. > :09:50.about what was right for the boy. That is not a criminal marks the
:09:51. > :09:54.oddity is it became a criminal matter. It became unnecessarily,
:09:55. > :09:57.with respect, it became unnecessarily a criminal matter, and
:09:58. > :10:03.this has been presented as if there was medical opinion on one side and
:10:04. > :10:09.the family opinion on the other. As we all know medical opinion is not a
:10:10. > :10:12.unitary thing, there are many difficult president Di Canio
:10:13. > :10:15.opinions in case like this. It is not clear without further evidence
:10:16. > :10:19.that the opinion of this particular team in this particular hospital was
:10:20. > :10:22.right sort of opinion to take. I agree with that John. Do you know
:10:23. > :10:26.some of those involved? I know some of the people there. I know this is
:10:27. > :10:29.a hospital that has a clinical Ethics Committee which is way of
:10:30. > :10:34.providing a process to discuss these things. What I don't know is whether
:10:35. > :10:37.that was used in this case. This case emerges, last Friday, as a
:10:38. > :10:43.sudden urgent problem of the boy being removed. I think if we were
:10:44. > :10:46.talking about a more timely process and the Medical Director has
:10:47. > :10:49.recognised that everybody would have desired a proper, timely discussion.
:10:50. > :10:53.I think it would be very much like John is decribing. We don't know
:10:54. > :10:58.where the reports came from, but the press reports were very much leaning
:10:59. > :11:02.towards the parents' religion, they were Jehova's witnesses and the talk
:11:03. > :11:06.of the battery running down, does that seem completely misplaced
:11:07. > :11:11.knowing what we know now? As far as we can tell what we can pick up that
:11:12. > :11:15.wasn't a dimension. What feels to be a dimension is two issues, one is a
:11:16. > :11:19.question about how much faith one could put in this new treatment
:11:20. > :11:22.which the doctors seemed to say is not appropriate for the particular
:11:23. > :11:26.condition the boy is in, and the parents quite reasonably saying we
:11:27. > :11:29.have reason to think that is something that would be success.
:11:30. > :11:32.Ful. You would expect that to be worked through in a collaborative
:11:33. > :11:38.process and you would expect the hospital to make available a second
:11:39. > :11:42.reason. Absolutely, I agree with Jonathan, that is the nub of the
:11:43. > :11:45.issue. But in circumstances like that would you not expect the
:11:46. > :11:54.doctors to insist that they were the only people, this particular set of
:11:55. > :11:59.doctors who who like all of us, do not have a monopoly of which is Don
:12:00. > :12:08.Dom on these matters to insist that there must be bad faith and motives
:12:09. > :12:11.of cruelty. So parents thinking they want to go down a different route of
:12:12. > :12:14.treatment? That is very important, in the mind of the health
:12:15. > :12:17.professionals you have to think what they thought might have been
:12:18. > :12:21.happening. It sounds as if they thought what might be happening is a
:12:22. > :12:24.boy relying on battery-powered feeding system would be without that
:12:25. > :12:28.support. We know that is not the case. The analogy in their minds and
:12:29. > :12:33.probably the minds of the Crown Prosecution Service when it became a
:12:34. > :12:38.criminal matter was with parents, different groups of parents who in
:12:39. > :12:41.the past have felt that because of their beliefs about appropriate
:12:42. > :12:44.treatment they wouldn't, for example, provide insulin for
:12:45. > :12:47.diabetics which becomes an urgent issue. That is where we have in the
:12:48. > :12:51.past seen criminal intervention. Maybe this is outside the medical
:12:52. > :12:54.sphere now, in terms of the ethics involved in a court in Spain keeping
:12:55. > :12:59.them there and the extradition that would take them away from their son.
:13:00. > :13:04.Can anyone step in now in terms of what the hospital could say to get
:13:05. > :13:07.the parents and the child united? I think if this were happening in the
:13:08. > :13:12.UK we would expect that to happen very quickly. We would expect the
:13:13. > :13:16.court to take grip on it and make sure it kept the boy safe, it would
:13:17. > :13:20.also expect them to make sure the parents were with the child. Can the
:13:21. > :13:23.British Government now step in and tell a Spanish court or hospital
:13:24. > :13:27.what to do? They could advise, they can't tell them what to do. Spain is
:13:28. > :13:31.a sovereign state. But they could certainly give very strong
:13:32. > :13:35.indication of what they thought an appropriate outcome would now be.
:13:36. > :13:39.But I'm not just blaming the doctors here, I'm perhaps not blaming them
:13:40. > :13:43.at all. The CPS have a lot to answer for. It may be that they acted on a
:13:44. > :13:49.particular interpretation of events from one side. And it is always
:13:50. > :13:53.dangerous when you only have, when you are only listening to one side
:13:54. > :13:57.of what is clearly an on going and not all together happy relationship
:13:58. > :14:00.between two sides in the care of this young man.
:14:01. > :14:03.Thank you very much both of you indeed.
:14:04. > :14:06.The threat from British Jihadis is real, the Prime Minister told
:14:07. > :14:09.parliament this afternoon, and in so doing he announced police would have
:14:10. > :14:15.temporary powers to exclude British nationals from returning to the UK.
:14:16. > :14:17.Sounds bold, but what that means is currently and crucially pretty
:14:18. > :14:21.unclear. The Government has not specified whether they would remove
:14:22. > :14:24.passports or citizenship from suspected terrorists, but both
:14:25. > :14:30.measures were tonight labelled probably impossible by the former
:14:31. > :14:32.Attorney-General. We look at the entire package announced today and
:14:33. > :14:37.what it really means. Ed Miliband today called it a summer
:14:38. > :14:42.of international instability, August was the serious, not silly season,
:14:43. > :14:45.such a steady stream of bad events, MPs told me they were convinced
:14:46. > :14:50.parliament would be recalled. But it wasn't, leaving it all for
:14:51. > :14:56.parliament today. The Prime Minister came to the House with a long list
:14:57. > :14:58.of crises to address. But it was the counter terrorism announcements
:14:59. > :15:02.people were waiting for. In the early days of the coalition Liberal
:15:03. > :15:05.Democrats and Conservatives forged common cause in protecting civil
:15:06. > :15:09.liberties, since then they have drifted apart, and over the weekend
:15:10. > :15:13.Liberal Democrats voiced concerns that David Cameron today might go
:15:14. > :15:16.too far. Even one Conservative cabinet minister was concerned the
:15:17. > :15:22.Prime Minister might be too draconian. To confront the threat of
:15:23. > :15:25.Islamic extremism we need a tough, intelligent, patient and
:15:26. > :15:28.comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. He
:15:29. > :15:32.started with the areas of agreement, legislation to give the border
:15:33. > :15:36.police temporary powers to take passports away from UK citizens
:15:37. > :15:39.planning to leave to fight Jihad. Airlines will also be required, by
:15:40. > :15:42.law, to co-operate with the intelligence agencies on who is
:15:43. > :15:48.flying where. But everything else was harder. On plans to exclude
:15:49. > :15:52.suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK, David Cameron
:15:53. > :15:56.was only able to say he would work up proposals and put them to
:15:57. > :16:00.cross-party talks. Indeed, in another area, there was something of
:16:01. > :16:05.a U-turn. The coalition shelved the Labour Party's control orders when
:16:06. > :16:09.they came to power, today, to racaus laughter by the opposition, the
:16:10. > :16:12.coalition had to agree they would be looking at bringing back control
:16:13. > :16:16.orders in all but name. We will produce new powers to add to our
:16:17. > :16:22.existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, including
:16:23. > :16:26.stronger locational constraints on suspects under Tpims, either through
:16:27. > :16:29.enhanced use of exclusion zones or relocation powers. David Cameron's
:16:30. > :16:32.position on civil liberties has changed some what over the years,
:16:33. > :16:36.when he became leader it was against Tony Blair and his tough law and
:16:37. > :16:40.order Government. David Cameron sensed an opening and it was the
:16:41. > :16:44.Tories that pledged to protect civil liberties in this country. Even
:16:45. > :16:48.though, as a young man, he worked for Michael Howard's Home Office,
:16:49. > :16:51.hardly noted for its lenient law and order agenda, when David Cameron
:16:52. > :16:59.became leader of the Conservatives it was he that pledged civil
:17:00. > :17:03.liberties. Part of an agenda to woo over metropolitan Britain. That
:17:04. > :17:09.agenda has now been seriously downplayed. This is the then leader
:17:10. > :17:33.of the opposition: Now today I want to focus my remarks
:17:34. > :17:37.on terrorism. This speech at Munich in 2011 was a turning point, less
:17:38. > :17:44.than one year of being in office had hardened David Cameron, here he say
:17:45. > :17:48.the multiculturalism had failed and terrorism was a bigger threat than
:17:49. > :17:53.thought. Here the parties started to go different ways on civil
:17:54. > :17:57.liberties. When a white person holds racist views we rightly condemn
:17:58. > :18:01.then, but when equally unacceptable practices come from someone who
:18:02. > :18:05.isn't white we have been too cautious, frankly, even fearful to
:18:06. > :18:09.stand up to them. Tonight it is unclear what elements of the Prime
:18:10. > :18:12.Minister's package, apart from passport seizures and airline
:18:13. > :18:16.operation will see the light of day. David Cameron was beaten back by Lib
:18:17. > :18:20.Dem opposition and legal concerns. Not great first day back at
:18:21. > :18:25.parliament. Joining me now the one-time control
:18:26. > :18:29.order detainee, Cerie Bullivant, and the former independent reviewer of
:18:30. > :18:35.terror legislation Lord Carlile, we will come to Lord Carl in a second.
:18:36. > :18:39.First, Cerie, how did the control order affect you, you had it for a
:18:40. > :18:43.year-and-a-half? In my case as in many others the control order
:18:44. > :18:46.debilitates your life, that is the purpose of it. It left me with
:18:47. > :18:50.severe depression and it pushed me into a corner where I felt my only
:18:51. > :18:55.option was to abscond and go on the run for five weeks. How easy was it
:18:56. > :18:59.to evade it? This is the problem, with all of these measures, if you
:19:00. > :19:04.have dangerous people you don't want them being held in the community.
:19:05. > :19:08.They need to be put in prison. The only way to do that is through
:19:09. > :19:13.criminal charges. Evading these things was relatively easy, and none
:19:14. > :19:17.of the people that have absconded from control orders or Tpims have
:19:18. > :19:21.been caught. So the relocation measure being put in would stop
:19:22. > :19:25.people like you reentering their own community. That is exactly what it
:19:26. > :19:27.is designed to do? I could have absconded whether on a relocation
:19:28. > :19:33.order or not. That would have had very little effect on whether I did
:19:34. > :19:38.abscond. The fact of the matter is the relocation, even according to
:19:39. > :19:43.Lord McDonald was disproportionate and unjustified. He said in his
:19:44. > :19:47.report on control orders that it was against British values and norms.
:19:48. > :19:51.While the Conservative Government are telling Muslims they need to
:19:52. > :19:55.embrace British value, they themselves are bane donning them
:19:56. > :19:59.with this internal exile. Could you have left the country, they took
:20:00. > :20:03.your passport didn't they? I didn't leave the country but the two people
:20:04. > :20:06.I absconded with left the country. With fake passports? I wasn't with
:20:07. > :20:10.them when they did, that I handed myself in. You absconded and handed
:20:11. > :20:14.yourself back in, so you are proving that they do work? No, the only
:20:15. > :20:18.person who has only faced justice for this was myself. I handed myself
:20:19. > :20:23.in. I chose to come back in everybody else has not been caught
:20:24. > :20:27.and has not been brought to justice on this. The fact of the matter is
:20:28. > :20:30.you have a measure that doesn't protect the British public that
:20:31. > :20:34.captures innocent people like myself. I had my life ruined for two
:20:35. > :20:38.years and continues until today on the basis of secret courts and
:20:39. > :20:42.secret evidence. How is this a British value? The idea is to stop
:20:43. > :20:48.Jihadies from coming back into Britain, can you see how these new
:20:49. > :20:54.measures today will be a deterrent? They are not new measures brought in
:20:55. > :20:58.today. Since April 2014, May has been using the Royal Peroogative to
:20:59. > :21:03.take-away people's passports. What we see today is grandstanding, the
:21:04. > :21:07.rehashing of old policies put out as new so the Government can be seen to
:21:08. > :21:14.be tough on terrorism. In actual fact all it will do is create more
:21:15. > :21:17.of a ghettoisation, and disenfranchisement in the Muslim
:21:18. > :21:21.community. These are not used for Ukrainian separatist. Lord Carlile,
:21:22. > :21:24.I know you don't want to interact particularly, you have heard the
:21:25. > :21:28.arguments and they are pretty powerful, when you hear someone who
:21:29. > :21:33.has had a control order saying more disenfranchised, and the whole idea
:21:34. > :21:38.against British values? I think the arguments we have just heard are
:21:39. > :21:43.misleading. Relocation orders worked very well, for the last five years
:21:44. > :21:46.of control orders relocation orders were entirely effective, they were
:21:47. > :21:53.properly policed, they became before the courts, the courts heard all the
:21:54. > :21:56.evidence. Some people had their relocation orders varied by a judge,
:21:57. > :21:59.it was found to be fair, it was found to be proportionate. There was
:22:00. > :22:04.never a finding that control orders were couldn'try to the Human Rights
:22:05. > :22:07.Act and to represent so is wrong. You make it sound like there is a
:22:08. > :22:12.legal structure around this, there isn't a trial, there isn't a charge?
:22:13. > :22:17.There is a legal structure, there is a complex legal structure around
:22:18. > :22:23.Tpims and relocation orders under the old control orders' regime.
:22:24. > :22:25.Every one of these cases went automatically before a senior High
:22:26. > :22:30.Court judge, not only was the individual represented by his own
:22:31. > :22:35.lawyers but special advocates were put in to represent the position of
:22:36. > :22:39.the individual when secret intelligence was being heard in
:22:40. > :22:45.court. It could not have been a fairer procedure. And yet you have
:22:46. > :22:50.heard the testimony there of somebody who says they absconded.
:22:51. > :22:55.Not from relocation, no. Well he said it didn't matter where he would
:22:56. > :22:59.have been, he could have absconded? That is not true, I'm telling you
:23:00. > :23:03.the facts, there were not absconds from relocation. As an independent
:23:04. > :23:07.reviewer as I was at that time, I went to visit people who were
:23:08. > :23:10.relocated, the system worked well and it was found to be fair and
:23:11. > :23:14.proportionate. What about the two he was with who left the country? They
:23:15. > :23:17.have nothing to do with relocation. They were the people subject to
:23:18. > :23:21.control orders without relocation. We are trying to test whether this
:23:22. > :23:25.is an effective system. If you have someone, who, OK, without
:23:26. > :23:29.relocation, if you insist, still absconded, two others who left the
:23:30. > :23:34.country and an overall impression that they have been maltreated by a
:23:35. > :23:38.British system? I don't think the British public believes they were
:23:39. > :23:42.maltreated at all. I repeat this system, which involved relocation
:23:43. > :23:47.was upheld by the courts repeatedly. I want to talk about this idea of
:23:48. > :23:52.taking somebody's passport on their way in, how workable is that? You
:23:53. > :23:57.heard what was said this afternoon, probably impossible for Government
:23:58. > :24:02.to prevent Britons returning? I agree entirely with the Attorney
:24:03. > :24:07.General and Sir Ming Campbell who said the same yesterday. If somebody
:24:08. > :24:11.is a British citizen with no other nationality, then it is unlawful
:24:12. > :24:15.under international law to remove their passport from them until they
:24:16. > :24:21.are within the country. Once they reenter the country it may be
:24:22. > :24:30.lawful. How do you stop Jihadis recentering Britain? If they are --
:24:31. > :24:34.Re-- reentering Britain? You can't, you re-arrest them if they have
:24:35. > :24:38.committed criminal offence, if we have relocation, Tpims beefed up,
:24:39. > :24:42.then that is an option that can be useded against them. Before they
:24:43. > :24:46.have left? Before they have left or when they return. What we can't do
:24:47. > :24:50.under international law and it would be asking for trouble if we tried to
:24:51. > :24:54.do it is prevent British citizens who have no other nationality from
:24:55. > :24:57.reentering their own country. Doesn't it strike you then that
:24:58. > :25:01.there is a gap in the rhetoric tonight between what David Cameron
:25:02. > :25:06.has said he's doing and what he is legally able to produce? What he
:25:07. > :25:09.said was entirely truthful, he said and I summarise that they were going
:25:10. > :25:13.to try to find an all-party approach to this question of Jihadis
:25:14. > :25:20.reentering the country. I think it is certain that the all-party
:25:21. > :25:24.approach they will find will correspond with what the Attorney
:25:25. > :25:27.General said, I think the Government should tell us the gist of the
:25:28. > :25:30.advice they were given by the current law officers, I wouldn't
:25:31. > :25:36.mind betting that the advice they gave was entirely consistent with
:25:37. > :25:40.the Attorney General's view. Thank you.
:25:41. > :25:44.Pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong have vowed to fight a Chinese
:25:45. > :25:47.Government ruling that effectively gives China control over the
:25:48. > :25:51.candidates for the territory's next leader. Protesters clashed with
:25:52. > :25:55.security as the decision was announced last night. It means a
:25:56. > :25:59.special monitoring body will have to vet everyone standing in the
:26:00. > :26:02.elections of 2017. The first of question, the Hong Kong chief
:26:03. > :26:08.executive will be directly chosen by voters. Well the move by Beijing
:26:09. > :26:12.appears to contravene the joint declaration signed between China and
:26:13. > :26:15.Britain protecting democratic rights of Hong Kong citizens. In an
:26:16. > :26:19.extraordinary letter, seen tonight by Newsnight, we learn that the head
:26:20. > :26:23.of the foreign fares committee, Sir Richard Ottoway, has been advised by
:26:24. > :26:27.his Chinese counterpart not to hold an inquiry into UK-Hong Kong
:26:28. > :26:31.relations and has been warned of the consequences if he does.
:26:32. > :26:36.We have the story. The language is pretty blunt in that letter? It is
:26:37. > :26:39.very, very strong stuff, and British parliamentarians decided earlier
:26:40. > :26:43.this year, perfectly properly because of the historic relationship
:26:44. > :26:46.and Britain's historic responsibility to Hong Kong to take
:26:47. > :26:50.a look at what was going on and progress towards democracy. This
:26:51. > :26:53.letter could not be clearer about basically saying back off. The
:26:54. > :26:59.Chinese do not see it as any of the UK's business. Just to give you a
:27:00. > :27:03.flavour of that letter it suggests that the MP's intention has sent a
:27:04. > :27:06.wrong political signal to the outside world, disrupting Hong
:27:07. > :27:11.Kong's political reform. It says that Britain, these MPs should stop
:27:12. > :27:15.interfering in Hong Kong's affairs, they should cancel the inquiry. Very
:27:16. > :27:21.direct message there. Indeed they say China will brook no interference
:27:22. > :27:26.either directly or indirectly from the UK. Extremely strong language
:27:27. > :27:30.from the Chinese. The message could not be more straight forward, within
:27:31. > :27:33.a sense you have British parliamentarians trying to do
:27:34. > :27:40.exactly what they are meant to do and what they are entitled to.
:27:41. > :27:43.Extremely strong enough. Stuff, we believe the Chinese Ambassador sent
:27:44. > :27:46.this message too, very, very directly you will have seen in the
:27:47. > :27:51.last couple of days due to the decision made by the Chinese
:27:52. > :27:54.authorities, their move to limit the promise of democracy in Hong Kong,
:27:55. > :27:57.this is a very tense time. Britain is not just interested because of
:27:58. > :28:01.our historic role there, but also because of the interests of British
:28:02. > :28:05.business based in Hong Kong. There is huge financial institutions who
:28:06. > :28:09.have massive big operations in Hong Kong. What happens there doesn't
:28:10. > :28:15.just matter because of our nostalgia towards the past, but it also
:28:16. > :28:20.matters in economic terms, so our relationship is really important.
:28:21. > :28:24.We go straight to the horse's mouth to Sir Richard Ottoway, you have the
:28:25. > :28:32.letter, I'm wondering what your response was or would be? Laura has
:28:33. > :28:35.put her finger on it, it is an intensive time in Hong Kong as soon
:28:36. > :28:40.assiveties are running high. There is a misunderstanding about the role
:28:41. > :28:46.of the committee in the UK. Back in 1984 Margaret Thatcher and the
:28:47. > :28:50.President of China signed a joint undertaking to give ideas about the
:28:51. > :28:53.future of Hong Kong. My job in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is
:28:54. > :28:57.to look at whether Britain has complied with its undertakings, and
:28:58. > :29:01.if China hasn't complied with their undertakings, what is the Foreign
:29:02. > :29:06.Office doing about it? That is what we do in parliament. Will you carry
:29:07. > :29:10.on doing that? We decided this afternoon we are going on because
:29:11. > :29:15.our job is to report to parliament what is going on. This is a right
:29:16. > :29:21.and proper procedure. But I don't want particularly to irritate the
:29:22. > :29:25.Chinese, I think I want them to understand the way we work. Just to
:29:26. > :29:29.give you an example. That sounds like you are sort of rather
:29:30. > :29:34.pacifying them by this, do you not feel affronted by the letter? I'm
:29:35. > :29:41.not offended by the letter. He has a job to do and I have a job to do.
:29:42. > :29:44.But just to give you an example, the President of the Supreme Court was
:29:45. > :29:47.recently in Hong Kong and invited to have a look at whether or not there
:29:48. > :29:51.had been interference with the appointment of the judiciary. That
:29:52. > :29:57.is one of the allegations made to my committee. He concluded there wasn't
:29:58. > :30:01.any interference. The point is that it may well be that my committee
:30:02. > :30:04.will decide that actually the Chinese are behaving perfectly
:30:05. > :30:08.reasonably. What about the new law, the protests come from the decision
:30:09. > :30:16.by China to essentially vet all the candidates. The joint declaration
:30:17. > :30:19.you are talking about has at its heart the Hong Kong legal system and
:30:20. > :30:25.democratic system. Do you think this is a breach? That is to prejudge
:30:26. > :30:32.what the inquiry will conclude. Doesn't it sound like a breach of
:30:33. > :30:38.democratic rights? The joint declaration called for universal
:30:39. > :30:42.suffrage with the chief Executive Committee. If you are nominating a
:30:43. > :30:48.limited number of comments, there seems a prima facia face that the
:30:49. > :30:51.undertakings -- case that the undertakings have been given. I
:30:52. > :30:55.don't want to reach that conclusion yet. The joint declaration is a
:30:56. > :30:59.legal document, it is legally binding and 50 years, if that is
:31:00. > :31:03.breached are there sanctions and are you willing to go there if it means
:31:04. > :31:08.jeopardising commercial interests? We are planning to go there. But as
:31:09. > :31:12.far as sanctions are concerned, frankly, we are in a fairly weak
:31:13. > :31:15.position. Indeed we are in a very weak position right from the
:31:16. > :31:20.beginning when the declaration was signed. But I think we can set out
:31:21. > :31:24.the standards and norms that we in Britain think are important and that
:31:25. > :31:45.will of course influence the way we conduct our relations with China. ,
:31:46. > :31:49.The experimental infertility treatment offered in the US was
:31:50. > :31:54.later banned but scientists in the UK have pioneered a new, similar
:31:55. > :31:58.technique, that uses a donor's mitochondria to eliminate severe
:31:59. > :32:03.genetic diseases. Parliament will vote on whether to legalise it later
:32:04. > :32:09.this year. This is the hill, let's try to
:32:10. > :32:14.really pump it. 13-year-old Alanah lives with her mum dad in Michigan
:32:15. > :32:17.in the United States. She likes riding her bike, hanging out with
:32:18. > :32:22.her friends, shopping, just like most teenagers. But she's special.
:32:23. > :32:26.Technically I have DNA from three different people. My two parents
:32:27. > :32:32.that I live with and my birth parents, but I also contain DNA from
:32:33. > :32:39.a third donor. A lady that gave part of hermit mit to my mom's egg. Are
:32:40. > :32:44.She's one of a handful of children born as a result of an experimental
:32:45. > :32:47.fertility treatment. My family has a history of going into menopause
:32:48. > :32:53.early. So my eggs weren't so healthy. That is when my doctor
:32:54. > :33:00.recommended this cyto last Mikel transfer. It is an all consuming
:33:01. > :33:05.drive to have a child. It is the Washington Post -- Washington Post
:33:06. > :33:10.feeling because you will do whatever it takes. The treatment involved
:33:11. > :33:13.tiny structures inside our cells called mitochondria, like little bat
:33:14. > :33:17.trees they provide the power that keeps our bodies functioning, but
:33:18. > :33:22.they also contain a bit of DNA. Doctors thought that Sharon's
:33:23. > :33:26.mitochondria might be faulty. So they injected one of her eggs with
:33:27. > :33:32.mitochondria from the egg of another woman and it worked. Nine months
:33:33. > :33:38.later Alanah was born, baby with three genetic parents. Fewer than 50
:33:39. > :33:42.children were conceived with this technique, but there were
:33:43. > :33:46.complication. One mother miscarried and two babies developed health
:33:47. > :33:49.problems. No-one knows if the treatment was to blame, but US
:33:50. > :33:57.regulators soon stepped in and banned it. More than a decade later
:33:58. > :34:01.researchers here in the UK have developed a new mitochondria
:34:02. > :34:04.technique that could soon mean more children born with three genetic
:34:05. > :34:09.parents. Now it is up to parliament to decide whether cide whether to
:34:10. > :34:17.allow this. This time it is not to treat infertility, but to prevent
:34:18. > :34:21.diseases. Ment in mitochondriaal diseases are those that protect the
:34:22. > :34:28.power stations within ourselves. These diseases are passed down from
:34:29. > :34:35.mother to child. These diseases tend to involve tissues or organs that
:34:36. > :34:38.are heavily dependant on energy. Those organs are things like the
:34:39. > :34:45.brain and sometimes it involves the heart, sometimes it involves the
:34:46. > :34:51.skeltal muscle. Mitochondria diseases are rare, affecting one in
:34:52. > :35:01.every 3,000 people. But they can be devastating. This is Holly, and she
:35:02. > :35:06.was born and then she survived until she was 26 hours. This is Olivia,
:35:07. > :35:12.she's survived until she was four days. Sharon has lost seven
:35:13. > :35:19.children, all of them died within hours of being born, apart from her
:35:20. > :35:25.son Edward. At first he seemed healthy, but he was soon diagnosed
:35:26. > :35:29.with a mitochondria disease that has affected his central nervous system.
:35:30. > :35:34.You could have a nice few hours, but then he would have about eight hours
:35:35. > :35:42.where he would be in pain, screaming with the pain. His face would like
:35:43. > :35:50.twist up and his hands would get really stiff, which was obviously
:35:51. > :35:56.hard to see. Edward died three years ago aged 21. But scientists say they
:35:57. > :36:02.can now stop the disease causing mitochondria from being passed from
:36:03. > :36:07.mother to child. In the new treatment the nucleus of a woman's
:36:08. > :36:10.fertilised egg that contains the DNA that determines our height, hair
:36:11. > :36:15.colour and personality, all the traits that make us who we are is
:36:16. > :36:19.taken out, leaving the faulty mitochondria behind. It is placed
:36:20. > :36:24.into an egg from another woman, this egg has had its nucleus removed but
:36:25. > :36:30.retains its healthy mitochondria, it is then implanted back into the
:36:31. > :36:34.mother. This technique could completely eliminate mitochondria
:36:35. > :36:42.diseases. But it would also alter our genetic code forever. Here at
:36:43. > :36:47.London's Wellcome Collection, all 3. 3 billion letters of the human
:36:48. > :36:53.genome have been written out. In these 115 book, each 1,000-pages
:36:54. > :36:58.long, is all the DNA we inherit from our mum and dad. The amount of DNA
:36:59. > :37:02.in our mitochondria would take up half a page. These are the genes
:37:03. > :37:06.that would come from a third woman in this new treatment. It is a tiny
:37:07. > :37:11.fraction. Nonetheless, this DNA would not only pass down to a child,
:37:12. > :37:16.it would pass down to their children and their children's children.
:37:17. > :37:19.Critics warn we will be creating entire lippages of genetically
:37:20. > :37:24.modified -- lineages of genetically modified people. There have also
:37:25. > :37:29.been safety concerns. Some animal tests suggested the treatment could
:37:30. > :37:34.lead to health problems. However an extensive scientific review that is
:37:35. > :37:38.concluded that the procedure is not unsafe. And that wording is crucial,
:37:39. > :37:43.because scientists cannot guarantee the safety of this procedure because
:37:44. > :37:47.it hasn't been tested on people. Essentially the British patients who
:37:48. > :37:53.volunteer for this will do so knowing that they are human guinea
:37:54. > :37:57.pigs. The champions of this radical new treatment say it could transform
:37:58. > :38:02.lives and Britain could lead the world. But with no guarantees of
:38:03. > :38:06.safety, and unprecedented changes to our genetic fabric at stake, it is
:38:07. > :38:14.up to parliament to decide if this is a price worth paying. Now the
:38:15. > :38:17.question of whether it is ever-safe to film a sex act on your phone may
:38:18. > :38:21.have to wait for another day. Tonight we deal with the rather more
:38:22. > :38:26.pressing issue of what exactly happened to privately stored data of
:38:27. > :38:37.several Hollywood A-listers, naked pictures of the actres Jennifer
:38:38. > :38:40.Lawrence, Kim Kardashian and others, they were claimed to have been
:38:41. > :38:46.hacked from their private accounts. How much do we know about the cloud
:38:47. > :38:49.and how it works? The cloud descended if you like upon u
:38:50. > :38:54.everyone signed up to it without quite getting what it does? I don't
:38:55. > :38:59.think a lot of people do. What it does is data centres that store your
:39:00. > :39:06.data so you can access it on the move. You have lots of companies
:39:07. > :39:10.doing t Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Dropbox and hosts of other smaller
:39:11. > :39:15.companies. You have no idea how they are looking after your data, what
:39:16. > :39:25.are the curt policies. Where it is. Is it in a server, in a space? In
:39:26. > :39:30.servers farms. There are implication of who has access to your data from
:39:31. > :39:34.a legal point of view. If it is the US the US could have access to it
:39:35. > :39:39.through the NSA, there are all sorts of issues. Who owns it, is it still
:39:40. > :39:44.mine? Yes, it is yours, but you are giving it to your cloud provider in
:39:45. > :39:47.return for a service which is usually free, you are giving it to
:39:48. > :39:51.Google in return for e-mail and map, they use it in return to serve you
:39:52. > :39:54.adverts. It is a transaction except the power of the transaction is
:39:55. > :39:58.mostly with the client provider rather than with you. What is your
:39:59. > :40:06.sense of what might have happened here. You know, we think it was
:40:07. > :40:12.iCloud, Apple said they can't confirm anything? Apple will never
:40:13. > :40:17.confirm anything any way. My sense it is probably compromised passwords
:40:18. > :40:24.rather than an actual hack where somebody would break into database
:40:25. > :40:29.and steal passwords. What is the difference between a hack and
:40:30. > :40:34.password? A hack is where they will try to break into servers, it has
:40:35. > :40:39.happened to big companies. Two types of companies. That wouldn't target
:40:40. > :40:43.celebrities? It would try to get passwords. This I think is more
:40:44. > :40:48.specifically targeted at them. The celebrities have filled in a fake
:40:49. > :40:54.form on-line that has harvested their passwords or perhaps an
:40:55. > :40:57.assistant has had access to their passwords, or they have weak
:40:58. > :41:02.passwords and used them everywhere and somebody has broken it. It is
:41:03. > :41:07.not hard to crack passwords if you try hard enough. Are more people not
:41:08. > :41:11.putting their stuff in cloud or is it not to do with the cloud? It is
:41:12. > :41:17.do with the cloud f you keep your data in the house and it is not
:41:18. > :41:20.on-line nobody has access. We like stuff available on-line. The iCloud
:41:21. > :41:27.is a sinking service, when you take a picture of your iPhone, unless you
:41:28. > :41:33.turn it off you sync to the cloud and available on other devices,
:41:34. > :41:39.people love that but don't think about the implications about the
:41:40. > :41:42.data. We all do it. Do you think the companies have any responsibility to
:41:43. > :41:44.protect? Of course they do, and they are going to have more
:41:45. > :41:52.responsibility. There is a big change coming to how the EU
:41:53. > :41:55.regulates data protection. If a company is at fault for breach, they
:41:56. > :41:59.will be up for five-times their global turnover. That will focus the
:42:00. > :42:03.minds. It is a big one. Thank you very much. Many of you watching will
:42:04. > :42:09.not care about football, know about football or even be particularly
:42:10. > :42:14.aware that today was the final 24-hour window for club transfers,
:42:15. > :42:20.this one is for you. Forget about Falcao, Di Maria, Torres, we give
:42:21. > :42:30.you the bluffer's guide to the economics of deadline day.
:42:31. > :42:37.Today is the end of the summer transfer window, it is deadline day,
:42:38. > :42:47.there will be no more of this until the window reopens for January. The
:42:48. > :42:52.last day of the transfer window is a day that is already lauded with
:42:53. > :42:58.cliche, think of all the men holding up shirts to cameras, all those men
:42:59. > :43:01.hiding from cameras in dark tinted Range Rovers, and Harry Redknapp's
:43:02. > :43:06.interviews through a car window. It is a new institution, despite all
:43:07. > :43:11.that tradition. It only started in the early 2000s, it seems fair to
:43:12. > :43:16.ask is having transfer window even a good idea? Here is a question worth
:43:17. > :43:21.asking, what is the effect of the transfer window? Arsenal fans might
:43:22. > :43:25.think it just makes them missable, they haven't had a flurry of new
:43:26. > :43:30.arrivals to fire them up. The only excitement this week is the arrival
:43:31. > :43:34.of Danny Wellbeck from Manchester United. Some locals seem to be
:43:35. > :43:39.giving up on football. We asked an expert on how you work the markets?
:43:40. > :43:43.A short transfer window will enable the participants in the market to
:43:44. > :43:49.compare their possible transactions in a short amount of time and there
:43:50. > :43:52.by find the right price for a player and there is lots of indication that
:43:53. > :43:56.the prices reflect the prayers very much. Just as you have a market, a
:43:57. > :44:02.physical market where people come together and compare prices, the
:44:03. > :44:06.transfer window does this in a short time frame. Why does everyone wait
:44:07. > :44:12.until the last day of the transperwindow to seal their deals?
:44:13. > :44:18.-- transfer window to seal their deals? There is lots of things at
:44:19. > :44:21.play, like buying a house you might have a chain, you have to sell one
:44:22. > :44:25.player to get another. Every bit of the chain has to work and it takes
:44:26. > :44:30.place on a single day and the last day is a good candidate for this to
:44:31. > :44:35.take place. The second one is people play poker, an act of brinkmanship,
:44:36. > :44:39.because if they have several buyers for transfer they might try to get a
:44:40. > :44:42.maximum price. If they wait until the last minute they hold out longer
:44:43. > :44:47.and strengthen the bargaining position. The next Biggs question is
:44:48. > :44:51.pretty -- big question is pretty simple, can clubs buy success? There
:44:52. > :44:54.is a well functioning market in football players. There is a lot of
:44:55. > :44:59.information about the players in the market. A lot of them are traded on
:45:00. > :45:05.a regular basis. That means that the prices paid in the transfer market
:45:06. > :45:10.tend to reflect reliably the value of the players. Teams that spend big
:45:11. > :45:15.are the ones that perform well, you can show that over time to be a
:45:16. > :45:20.reliable relationship. This Graf shows club spending over league
:45:21. > :45:21.positions over spending for 2012. Spending more making you more likely
:45:22. > :45:41.to do well. R Look at how the effect of the
:45:42. > :45:45.managers is dwarfed by the presence of money. A lot of the big signings
:45:46. > :45:49.in Europe are stars of the recent World Cup, it is worth pondering how
:45:50. > :45:54.do World Cups affect the transfer market? Well the Professor's
:45:55. > :45:59.research suggests that clubs often overpay for World Cup stars. People
:46:00. > :46:03.overvalue players because they have noticed the performance very
:46:04. > :46:06.recently, that may not be the best indicator of their long-term
:46:07. > :46:09.performance. All fans hope their clubs will get a unique player
:46:10. > :46:15.relatively cheaply who can inspire them to greatness. But, in general,
:46:16. > :46:21.as Arsenal fans know, you won't win big if you don't spend big.
:46:22. > :46:26.Whilst we have been on air you will be pleased to know that Ramires has
:46:27. > :46:44.signed for Hull City. Now the papers.
:46:45. > :46:49.That's it for tonight. We leave but the debut of 16-year-old Max
:46:50. > :46:52.Verstapen, who was yesterday unveiled as the world's
:46:53. > :46:58.youngest-ever Formula One driver to a crowd in his native Rotterdam, he
:46:59. > :46:59.soon put to bed charges that he just got the gig because of his family
:47:00. > :47:43.connections. Good evening, generally dryer and
:47:44. > :47:47.warmer conditions this week compared with recent weeks. We start the day
:47:48. > :47:51.with mist and low cloud across some central and eastern areas, a grey
:47:52. > :47:54.start here. Some light rain or drizzle possible. It could be foggy
:47:55. > :47:56.first thing. Lifting and shifting and a lot of dry and sunny weather
:47:57. > :47:57.to