01/11/2012 This Week

This morning, the perfect storm, still wreaking havoc after pounding

the East Coast with towering waves and punishing waves. Sandy!S into

the north-east. Leaving millions without power. At least 50 homes

have burned to the ground. Superstorm Sandy leaves a trail of

damage and disruption along America's East Coast. Tonight on

This Week, as Superstorm Sandy causes death and devastation, storm

clouds from Europe are gathering over the Prime Minister and his

party. The time has come for politicians to be bold and and take

the question to the public. Sandy left millions without power and

paralysed the East Coast of America, but could the fallout from policy

disagreements paralyse the coalition?

The Sun's Jane Moore is feeling the chill. Brrrr... Tory and Lib Dem

MPs may not be feeling terribly warm to each other over certain key

issues, but the fault line of division hasn't wrong footed the

Prime Minister. Yet. As President Obama resumes campaigning after the

destruction that was predicted, the politicians always base their

policy on the best scientific evidence. Ben Goldacre is looking

for proof. Politicians use scientific evidence when it suits

them. They ignore it when they don't like the answers. I would

like to see evidence of change. Batten down the hatches. It could

Evening all. Welcome to This Week, the show where unemployable expers

are paid absurd amounts of money to state the bleeding obvious. Think

of us, if you will, as the Pippa Middleton, of political punditry.

After all, who's better at giving self-evident advice than darling

young Pippa whose new magnum opus of Pippa-tips, Celebrate, tells

readers that for a Halloween party, a pointy hat, fake hair and a broom

make a witch's outfit. OK yah! As you can see, these four years at

Edinburgh university really paid dividends. What she failed to say

was that a wig and cigar should be avoided. Even so, it's clear that

call me Dave is a big fan of Pippa. Worried about your party looking

posh and incompetent? Why not appoint an old Etonian Baronet as

your new Chief Whip? He can be counted on to orchestrate a

humiliating defeat on the European budget. Concerned that you didn't

have a credible growth plan for the 21st century. Then invite Michael

Heseltine to give you 89 ways to take you back to the '70s. Need

more A-list MPs? Then pick Louise Mensch and watch her up sticks for

New York. Triggering an Unwinable mid term by-election. Speaking of

those who have useful tips are as useful as the Koran, at a bar mits

va, and I'm in joined by the agony aunt and the uncle of Westminster

politics, with the accent on the agony, I speak of course of Tessa

Jowell and Michael Portillo. Your moment of the week? John Major who

may have been Chief Secretary of the Treasury said to an astonished

group of MPs at a dinner party that Europe was the wolf coming down the

path to gobble up the Conservative Party. We all looked at him

mystified. But of course, in the fullness of time, it's proved

absolutely to be so. Europe is the curse from which the Conservative

Party never escapes. I thought that was one of two lessons that I

learnt last night. But the other was that with the Labour Party

voting with the Conservative rebels, the whole British political scene

is not now euro sceptical, it's euro hostile. You must be a happy

man? I don't know that I am entirely happy. There will be a

parting of the ways between Europe and Britain. Hold that thought.

We'll come a to that. Tessa, your moment of the week? It's not a

Parliamentary moment of the week. It was being at the Pride of

Britain Awards this week where Doreen Lawrence was honoured, for

the second time wrbgs the Lifetime Achievement Award. -- for the

second time, the Lifetime Achievement Award. She's changed

British law and attitudes to race within the police and in the

community more widely. She talked without rancour and she very

graciously accepted the award but then said "Of course, I would set

all this aside to have my son back" and you realise that 19 years later,

the pain of loss has never gone away. Last weekend, the Mizens,

Barry and Margaret, the parents of young Jimmy who was murdered joined

with Grace odd odd whose son David was murdered for a concert of peace

at the 0 2 and there's something remarkable about these mothers who

refuse just to let anger and loss stop their constructive

contribution. Thank you for that moment. No doubt as we speak call

me Dave is busy hitting the Blue Nun hard desperate to dull the pain

of last night's scary Halloween rebellion when Labour joined with

53 Tory rebels to vote for a real cut in the European budget giving

Dave a fright night that will haunt him for some time to come. Are we

enter Agnew phase in our relationship with the European

Union and is there an opportunity for the pro-Europe opposition

Labour to outflank the Euro-Sceptic Tories at the next election? We

asked Will Strong for his Take of Jiem a true Spanish football-loving

pro-European. I believe that December spite its many flaws,

Britain gains immensely from being in the EU. By the time for Britain

to be bold on Europe has arrived. No longer can we stand from the

sidelines sniping, we have to make some big decisions and lead a

reform agenda in Europe and we have to decide whether we want to be in

or out. Events this week is v shown that

politicians across the political speck tum are reassessing their

position on Europe. Ed Miliband was prepared to allie with Tory rebels

in order to push for a deeper cut within the EU budget. Labour needs

to extend that logic to push for deeper reform in Europe and to

resolve the question of Britain's EU membership for a generation.

The British public are getting more and more euro skptic. Part of

Europe's problem is it's unwilling to listen to people and to reform -

- Euro-sceptic. The austerity policies of the eurozone have been

self-defeating, the EU budget lavishes money on farmers rather

than creating growth or tackling climate change. The European

Commission is elitist and unaccountable. Thank you.

Politicians don't lick to admit it, but it looks inevitable there'll be

a referendum on Europe. On Scotland, David Cameron was clear that the

question had to answer whether the union would stay alive. So too of

Europe, we can't fudge this. Labour should seize the initiative and

push for a straightforward in-out question. As a child of the '80s,

me and my generation have never had a say on whether we want to be part

But having a referendum on the EU, we can then debate the dire

consequences of Britain going it alone. Although it will be hard, I

think pro-Europeans can win. Our politicians have got to be bold and

take this question head-on, otherwise Britain will end up like

me - dining alone. Delaney's cafe. You are not alone

any more, you are with us. Thank you very much. Nice to be here.

We'll look after you - I think. Is an in-out referendum inevitable,

Michael? At the moment, I can't think of a political leader who'll

put that question to the British people. I don't think that David

Cameron, if he won the next election wrbgs a Conservative

majority, would do so. I don't think Labour would do so and I'm

sure that a coalition of two parties wouldn't do so. It would be

pointless anyway I think because the British people, as I said

before, have gone beyond Euro- Sceptic to euro hostile. Even if

they could vote to stay in the European Union, all the issues and

different vision we have from continental Europeans will continue

to haunt us. That won't go away. Will's idea that we are going to

lead a reform agenda in Europe I'm afraid is absolute nonsense. They

have been saying that since before you were born. What we want and

what continental Europeans want are fundamentally different things.

They don't buy into our ideas at all. There are some ideas that

people in Europe are talking about now, about whether you should have

ideas for the commission, that is what we should embrace. At the

moment, you have got this train going down the tracks heading

towards referendum because of the referendum lock that Cameron's put

in place. All the hostile forces that are bubbling up mean that if

you have a question that says some repatriation or some change to the

treaty but tuzn't answer the fundamental question of whether we

should be in or out, people will get more angry. You have got to

take this head-on. That would mean all the pro-European forces who

haven't had incentives to put the case for Europe for a generation

will be forced to do so. I think that would be a positive thing to

debate in the UK. Should Mr Miliband take Will's advice and put

in an in-out referendum in the next manifesto? I don't think so, no. I

think that we should be much more engaged in - I don't agree with

Michael - in negotiating reform of the European institutions. I think

- I've done a lot of negotiation in Europe as a minister - what is

absolutely clear is that you get nowhere if the other European

member states think that you are semi detached. What major reform

did Labour achieve in 13 years? Well, 2005 when we had enlargement,

New Labour was part... But that was Mrs Thatcher's policy? Not in 2005

it wasn't. Enlargement was? Yes, but... That's not a reform, that's

expansion. What major way after 13 years of negotiating did you change

the way Europe operates? Well, I think that we certainly secured

change in 2005 in the proportion of the budget that we were responsible

for. That was an achievement that was secured in the national

interests. You give away half the rebate and the French still get all

the money on CAP. Let me come back to the refn dumb. That's not true.

-- referendum. If David Cameron wins another election, it's likely

he'll give us a referendum on the new deal he's going to negotiate to

a more semi detached Britain. is a laughable notion. What's David

Cameron going to do? He'll go to Europe and say to the other

countries, give us some powers back and they'll shake their head and

say, what are you talking about, which powers do you want back, and

if you are going to do that... why should they? Yes and this is

laughable. If you have a pledge that you are going to do that in

referendum and people suggest that David Cameron is going to do that,

the Foreign Office is dog the balance of competencys. Yes. Then

you come back and raise people's expectations, you are unable to

deliver and people get angry. We have done some research at PPPR, we

have done public opinion, held focus groups talking to people

about their views and they are hostile. There are lots of myths

out there because politicians have not had an incentive to talk about

yep. -- Europe. Is it recallistic to think - it won't happen this

side of the election - let's suppose - it's against the polls at

the moment - let's suppose David Cameron wins an election and in his

manifesto is I'll go to Europe and negotiate powers back to Britain on

my own. Doesn't matter about anyone No, it's risible. Risible. That

means laughable. I know. I was repeating it in case viewers didn't

catch it, you do mangle your vowel as bit. Should Cameron, should he

put an in-out referendum in the Tory manifesto? No. I don't think.

So that's not what he believes in. No part of David Cameron believes

in risking leaving the European Union. This whole thing is a lot of

hiddology. We've got to make the place for Europe. Not even Michael

can remember 1975 but I campaigned from a "yes" vote in 1975.

nearly everyone was in favour of a "yes" vote in those days.

Absolutely not. We started that campaign, those who were pro-Europe

started that campaign way behind. You had every newspaper in the

country behind you except the morning star and the Daily Express.

I think a lot of newspapers and businesses would support it. They

were won over. We've got to have that kind of sensible campaign. The

polling evidence shows that the public, that people respond

depending on how the question is fraimed. If people are asked

whether they support European co- operation for the European Arrest

Warrant or trafficking or whatever... Let me ask you. This

how did you feel last night going into the lobbys with the Euro-

sceptics on the Tory side? Consistent with the position that

Labour had held back in July. That's it, since July. But when you

were in power you allowed the budget to double. But the Labour

argument last night for voting as Labour did was different from the

Tory argument. Labour voted last night with the Tory Euro-sceptics

because they think that's the way public opinion is going. All three

parties are running scared of public opinion. Your party would

never have voted with the Tory Euro-sceptics if public opinion

showed strong support for Britain in Europe. I don't know what the

reasons why Labour went into the lobby. What I can tell you is that

at IPPR we looked at all the different spending... You are good

at plugging your think-tank. They pay my wages. 40% of the budget

goes on these farm payments. always has. It used to be more than

that. It only makes ul 3% of the European economy. We are not doing

enough for growth. We are saying cut the budget by 25%. The way you

will get that is to put the British rebate on the table. I've

interviewed think tanks since you were in dipers saying cut the CAP.

It never happens. The Cypriots at the moment, who are in the chair,

have suggested a 5 billion euro cut in the farm policy. On a trillion

budget they've suggested 5 billion. Monsieur Holland has said, "Over my

dead body. If that happens we'll veto the budget." I think what the

think-tank's job is to come up with these ideas. If you go into the

European negotiations and say we want to cut and threaten the veto,

you will end up with a situation where you roll over the current

budget at inflation. We are saying put the British rebate on the table.

We only have it because we overpay on CAP. What planet do you live on?

The French are going to cut it by 30% iner but on the Blue Nun? The

British establishment thinks that if all three national parties

combine along with the unions and business to campaign to stay in

Europe, as they did in 1975, we will follow our advice. Their

advice. Do you think we will? think any referendum has a word

Europe in it anywhere will result in a "no" vote. That is why no

party will put any referendum to the British people, because no

party could put a referendum to the people unless the recommendation of

Government is going to be yes. David Cameron, if you believe him,

will say I'm going to renegotiate with Europe, I'm going to recommend

a "yes" vote. The vote will be no, because the British public is now

hostile. Even though the mainly parties are saying yes? There'll

not be a referendum of any sort at any time. I want a yes or no on

this. Do you think Labour will follow your advice and do a yes-no

prompts in their manifesto? I think if... I just want a yes or no. You

want them to put yes or no and I want tow say yes or no. Do you

think they will? I'm no clairvoyant but I hope they would. Alright. Do

you? No. I think you are right. think the answer is no. But if they

did promise proms one in the manifesto lit would be another

broken promise. -- it would be another broken promise. It is time

to wrestle the bottle of Blue Nun out of that bairn's wee hands, and

give yourself a top-up. Waiting to blind yourself with science and not

realise that you are blind with drink, Ben Goldacre is here to talk

about the crazy idea of basing policy on evidence. Will it never

catch on. Speaking of crazies, they are still out there following us on

the Twitter, the Fleecebook and the good old Interweb. I think some are

still doing Teletext as well. Now, it's not often that our ham-

fisted visual metaphors actually work, but this week we think we've

done ourselves proud. Because, not only was it Hallowe'en, but the

corridors of Parliament really did feel ghostly. A spectre from

yesteryear - the Tarzan of Westminster who used to swing

through the corridors of power when dinosaurs ruled the earth - said

the Government needed an industrial policy. And if that wasn't scary

enough, David Cameron was also being haunted by the Tories' age-

old nightmare - Europe. So, we turned to The Sun's Jane Moore for

All Hallows night, a time of wandering dead, stranded spirits

and all things creepy. Hmm, I'm feeling quite at home here, and

believe me, this graveyard is not as spine tingling as it has been in

Westminster this week, where plenty of ghosts from the past have poched

-- popped up. OK, so not quite waking the dead

but certainly a phantom figure who hasn't been seen round these parts

for a very long time. Michael Heseltine appeared, casting a dark

shadow over the coalition, but perhaps it was caused by his

humongous report, which featured no less than 89 recommendations. It

was commissioned by the Chancellor but it urged the Government to do

more to stimulate growth. Had Heseltine crossed to the other

side? I'm certainly recommending an extext of the growth strategy to

cover a wider field and more people. Let's not forget it it was

Chancellor who helped set up my inquiry and has been immensely

supportive. But Ed Miliband taunted Cameron at Prime Minister's

Questions. Lord Heseltine says today the message I keep hearing is

that the UK doesn't have a strategy for growth and wealth creation. Who

does the Prime Minister blame for that? What Michael Heseltine said

is the coalition is fundamentally on the right track. He said I

praise its work. Hezza wasn't the only icy blast from the past this

week. Europe anyone? By threatening the vote with the Tory rebels

Labour turned Wednesday into quite the fright night for the Government.

So the whips came out. No, madam, not those kind of whips. And they

give a verbal lashing to anyone off message. This Government is taking

the toughest line this these budget negotiations of any Government

since we joined the European Union. He is weak abroad. He is weak at

home. It is John Major all over again. Talking of former Prime

Ministers, our very own Blair Witch, or should that be wizard, stirred

up the political cauldron by suggesting an elected EU President

is the answer The Commons, hearts were racing. Panic had set in.

Enough is enough. If we are taking cuts the European Union must take

them too. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and

say we will not accept this, we will be serving the national

interest. Every time they go into a division lobby different to that of

the Prime Minister they are weakening the Prime Minister's

negotiating hand in Europe. shiver down the spine for the

Government when the result was announced. The eyes to the right,

The people of the East Coast of America were dealing with a monster

dubbed franken storm which visited its shores. Hurricane Sandy swept

in and left people dead and 8 million homes and businesses

without power. And when people are scared they seek reassurance.

Polling day may be less than a week away but all campaigning was

suspended in the US election. Leavings President Obama to rise

above it all. We are here for you. And we will not forget, we will

follow up to make sure that you get all the help that you need until

you have rebuilt. Mitt Romney gave reassurances too. We love all of

our fellow citizens. We come together at times like this and we

want to make sure they have a speedy and quick recovery from

their financial and in many cases personal loss. Back to the UK.

Issues that however hard you try to bury them, they come back to haunt

you. Cameron and Clegg must be thinking about a split in the

coalition, particularly over the future of Trident, which has yet to

be decided. If the Tories are investing in Trident now, is that a

very strong hint as to how they want the renewal decision to go at

a later date? Is it a trick or a treat? We are pressing ahead with

the work and that is essential if we are going to be in a position to

have the first Successor class submarine ready in 2028. I think

some people are jumping the gun on this. The final decision on the

replacement of Trident will not be taken until 2016. However much

other people may not like it that way.

It was an ill wind that blew in yet another coalition division. But was

this one a bit more panto than horror story? Whichever, it was

nightmare for David Cameron, but an absolute dream for Ed Miliband.

Energy Minister says he's against wind farms and enough is enough.

His Energy Secretary says he's gung-ho for them. Who speaks for

the Government? We've got a big pipeline of own shore and offshore

projects coming through. We are committed to those. Frankly all

parties are going to have to have a debate inside this House and

outside about what happens once the targets are met. He ought to

understand that if he can bother to look at the substance.

It has been a tough week for the trm, in trying to control the

troubling spirits of the past and present so they don't haunt his

political future. Sometimes he must wish he can just wave a wand and

make them all vanish. We are off visiting are we? It's

alright, don't be scared. Sleep tight.

That was Jane Moore, the West Norwood cemetery and catacombs.

What did you make of Hezza's report? The first thing I thought

was why on earth did the Government commission it? It was so obvious

what he would come up with. There are some bits of it that I

understand the Genesis, because I worked in a department with Michael

Heseltine. We bundled money together and gave them in a

competition, made the business community and the local authority

and so on come together. It was City Challenge, so I understand the

Genesis of some of what he is talking about. I'm afraid overall

some of the stuff was weak. There was a general advocacy that we

should have a better education. Some of it was dated. I was struck

reading the press this morning that even a left-wing journal like the

Guardian thought it was old hat and didn't take us far forward. I think

in the end, although Ed Miliband made as much of it as he could, I

didn't think hit the impetus from independent opinion that was going

to cause the Government much of a Good ideas? I think so, yes. I

think the problem it's going to have is the degree of will in

Whitehall that would be needed to give effect to what are quite

complex proposals to implement in practice.

I think that, for instance, the proposal to bring together a number

of disparate funds for investment and for regional investment is a

very good one, but it will be strongly resisted by sovereign

departments. There isn't actually a mechanism for managing, well not at

the moment. The Labour politicians I spoke to were really worried that

he advocates giving �50 billion I think it is to Local Enterprise

Partnerships and their view was that no way are they aquipped to

handle that money? Equipped to handle that money? They don't have

the capacity of the old regional development so they couldn't do

that. If this becomes serious policy for implementation, then all

that kind of thing is going to have to be tested, the Public Accounts

Committee would have to look at it. What would it do? I think it would

do tiny bits. It might have a National Committee of some kind.

That doesn't cost any money. To do what? To consider... Remember

Neddy? I don't mean like that, but to make the business community feel

like they're planning something along with the Government. I think

that might put pots of money together, but much smaller than the

�58 billion we have been talking about. A footnote - Michael

Heseltine's personal performance in interviews was absolutely superb.

know that, I interviewed him myself! Superb you too. He was.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, he is kicking off the

debate about renewing Trident. As a former Defence Secretary, what is

your view, should it be renewed? Should we have any nuclear

deterrent? No, webgtdn't use it without the Americans. -- we

couldn't use it without the Americans. We are facing sorts of

enemies like the Taliban and Al- Qaeda who cannot be deterred by

nuclear weapons. It's a tremendous waste of money, done entirely for

reasons of national prestige, it's wasteful and at the Martins, it's

proliferatery. The Conservative part of the coalition looks like it

will proceed with it. What will Labour's position be on this?

time ago when Des Browne was Defence Secretary, the decision

about whether to proceed, as Jane's film makes clear, won't be taken

until 2016. But you are happy that Philip Hammond is going ahead with

the spending the money which allows a decision? Yes, yes. The state of

the coalition - if you look at what is going on at the moment - they

are at loggerheads over Europe. Mr Clegg not very helpful speech but

he's staking out his position as he believes it. They are arguing over

windmills now and over Trident. They'll argue over the run-up to

the autumn statement, they'll argue over a referendum on Europe. What's

happening to the coal snition course, if it were just a

Conservative Government, you would probably have the same number of

rows -- coalition? It doesn't put the coalition's survival in any

jeopardy even though they are at loggerheads. That's probably right.

There probably still won't be an election before 2015? And it's

quite difficult to break up the coalition, quite apart from all the

electoral considerations. They are pretty locked together, certainly

until 2014. The question is, the degree of differentiation or

further differentiation. I think the big problem is, and I think

this goes back to the earlier discussion that we were having

about Europe, is the degree to which both the parties in the

coalition are having to put party management at a kind of equivalent

level with the national interest. That's not a food thing. That will

probably get worse rather than better as it goes on. Now, as the

saying goes, comments free, but facts are sacred. We are a bunch of

scroungers here. Michael's shirt is from the Blue Peter bring and buy

sale, as you can tell from the colour, Tessa's pearls of wisdom

are rented. So you will find nothing but cheep and cheerful

opinion here. What about politicians who wield power? When

it comes to maybeing policy, do they always listen to the

scientific evidence put before them or only when it suits them? We

decided we needed proof so we put The political fallout is

unpredictable, but at least scientists warned of the

deproductive power of Superstorm Sandy. -- destructive. We look out

for one another and we'll bounce back. We don't leave anybody behind.

With Italian seismologists jailed nor six years for failing to

predict an earthquake, are we in danger of blaming science for not

knowing all the answers? Do politicians listen to evidence

anyway? Black-and-white answers to the badger cull were hard to come

by, resulting in the inevitable only any vor shambles and a policy

U-turn. Claims that the Government ignored advice on ash tree

Amageddon are now in full bloom. When politicians turn to signs to

shape policy, do they really understand the answers they

receive? Guideline force breast screening asks women to weigh up

the risks of being overdiagnosed with thousands needlessly treated

every year. Does the untidy world of evidence

cost too much of a -- cause too much of a headache to fit neatly

into politician's sound bites? Draw your own conclusions.

Welcome to the programme. You write about this a lot, about science and

what policies should follow from it. How interested do you think

politicians are on evidence-based policy, as opposed to idealogy-

based policy? That's a real problem. Politicians have to express a lot

of certainty. They flatter themselvess that they lead us. I

think the difficulty with that is sometimes people can have excessive

certainty and they are not willing to test their ideas. It's important

to remember that science can't tell you what's morally right or wrong

but they can tell you if your policy is achieving its objectives.

It's shocking to me as somebody who worked in evidence-based medicine

that, politicians are reluctant to put their great ideas to the test.

Would you go so far as to say that they'll pursue a policy when the

evidence even contradicts their policy? Yes, I think that's

undoubtedly true. Much more disturbing than that is the

reluctance to engage with the process of running, for example,

randomised trials, head-to-head tests. On drugs? We do them on

drugs in medicine but it's easy to do them on policy as well. So in

America, for example, there slbb have been lots of randomised trials

comparing one education intervention against another. In

the ubb we have done some, but not enough. The federal system in the

US lends its way to that, one state with try one thing and another can

try another? -- in the US? There are lots of different councils

where people can implement different things. It's common for

things to be rolled out to the country step-wise, progression.

People are familiar with the idea of postcode lottery.

overwhelming majority of politicians have no scientific

background whatsoever. Does that mean they are not really equipped

to assess, analyse evidence? That is an issue and it's compounded by

a desire to dismiss evidence when it doesn't seethe suit your pre-

existing beliefs. What do you think about that? Do

politicians listen to the evidence? I didn't hear Ben give examples. I

discussed this earlier with the retchers on this programme who

asserted that politicians do the opposite of what scientists tell

them. The people I talked to couldn't come up with any examples.

Do you have an example? Well... It's very rare in the UK to have

straightforward head-to-head AB tests of one policy intervention

versus another, but I think you can certainly see in the way that

people treat people who're offering them evidence that there's a casual

dismissal of it and David Nutt, that chap was sacked. From what I

remember though, he probably strayed into a political area. In

other words, there's as much a danger of politicians, you know,

ignoring scientific advice as there is of scientists straying beyond

the bounds of science. He did become an advocate for his case

though. Exactly. Not sure that's true. Tessa? The science should

service the policy or the evidence should serve as the policy.

Ultimately, it's the politicians who're accountable for the

decisions and judgments that they make, not the scientists. And I

think that... Must have known that as a Public Health Minister, you

must have known that? Absolutely. We could in a number of areas, I

mean when Labour was in Government, been more interventionist and more

guided by the evidence, but the judgment across the Government was

that to take particular ly in relation to teenage pregnancy for

instance where there's very clear evidence about how you prevent

pregnancy in teenage girls. The whole controversy about the MMR

vaccine. That was difficult because you had parts of the press pushing

for different policy, didn't you? That was terrible. The scientific

community was clear about it. politicians stuck to the scientific

evidence didn't they? They were generally fairly solid but it

became a political issue for newspapers. It was a bigger problem

for the BBC because they felt that they had to show both sides of the

argument even though the weight of one side was greater than the other

side. Ministers on MMR were completely solid, but on scientific

advice from the Chief Medical Officer and other expert sources.

Sometimes the evidence creates political difficulties for

politicians, difficulties about the unnecessary procedures in breast

screening in week for cancer. The political policy reaction to that

is quite difficult to work out what it should be? Well, I think the

evidence on breast cancer screening is straightforward, if you can be

bothered to spend a minute on it. The problem is, it's paradoxical,

so it's hard for people to believe that a screening programme which

seems to beneficial could have side effects with unnecessary

interventions. It's hard for people to understand at face value that a

screening programme that saves more lives than it harms in one age

range can do more harm than good if it's broadened out to a wider age

range. There is a generic clash. Politicians like to speak with

certainty because they're always challenged. If they sound uncertain,

they are distrusted. Of course, scientists on the whole are talking

about degrees of risk and have to tell you two sides of the story.

One side may only be 2%, the other side may be 9%, but the scientists

have to tell you both. I think that from a public point of view, that

was a dilemma, the breast screening dilemma this week, which was

communicated in the most confusing way. If I had been going for a

mammogram this week, I would have had no idea. Ben, you have got a

book coming out? Yes, it's about drug companies hiding data and

harming patients. Bad Farmer. Controversial? I don't think so.

Because you have the evidence. Ben, thank you very much. That is your

lot. Not for us, because it's bye- bye child benefit night in

Annabel's. Letters were sent out telling people that they'll not

longer be rewarded for bringing upper grin and Jemima. Drinks will