13/06/2011 Newsnight

One of the world's richest men gave away a billion dollars today to

save children in the developing world from death by diarrhoea or

pneumonia, with vaccines we take advantage. What is not to admire.

Yet decades of aid money from western Governments have now gone

to poor countries. Indeed today, David Cameron promised another �800

million, and the poor and the sick are still with us. Can philanthropy

really change the world. Bill Gates is here, as is the boss of

GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's wealthy drug companies, in in the

next half hour they will face their critics. After that I will talk to

the International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell who is

spending �8 billion a year of our taxs in aid for the developing

world. Also tonight, the mystery of the A Gay Girl In Damascus blogger

solved, it wasn't the woman you saw last week on here, it wasn't a

woman at all, she wasn't in Damascus and she wasn't gay, does

that mean everything written was a lie.

The setting was a hotel in the Square Mile of the City of London,

in the four hours in which some of the richest people in the world,

and some of the most powerful Governments talked, 700 children

are stated to have died of diarrhoea and pneumonia. The

conference at the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, aims

to put an end to - Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, aims

to put an end to it, by combining the money of philanthropists and

Governments and drug companies, what happens when individual

donations overcomes those of states, and how can we account for the

mistakes they made along the way. He made megabucks by monopolising

an entire industry, he drove competitors to the wall, crushed

dissent, and then gave it all away. That was Andrew Carnegie, the

modern grandee of philanthropic capitalism is Gates. Today, the

former Microsoft mogul was faithed, as world leaders - feted as world

leaders cued up to give to his organisation, Global Alliance for

Vaccines and Immunisation. I like to think of it in terms of

equity. This is the first time that we can say that poor children will

not be refused the vaccines that the children in the rich countries

get, because there is not enough money. Since the launch of the Bill

and Melinda Gates Foundation, in 1984, Gates has given away $24

billion, more than half on health projects. He linked up with Warren

Buffet, who has pledged to giveaway 99% of his $62 billion, to launch a

spate of giving pledges by the American rich. Gates famously

brings business discipline to the projects he chooses to help,

demanding clear accountability from Governments and imposing strict

performance targets on aid agencies. But he has his critics. If we rely

on philanthropists for this clairt and this type of aid, what you lose

is any kind of democratic accountability. The people in

developing countries on the receiving end of this aid, they

have no structures through which they can challenge whether it is

going to the right thing or not. 2007, Gates' spending on health was

bigger than the annual budget of the World Health Organisation. In

fact, the foundation is now recognised as one of eight big

agencies which informally determine global health policy. A status,

which, said a study in the Lancet, confers power and influence on a

selected number of organisations, and establishs leverage over the

voice of civil society. Gates' detractors say by focusing

on top-down technical solutions to specific diseases, you may limited

long-term sustainable health services in these countries. The

sheer dependance of charities, universities, research institutions

on foundation money means it is a lot easier to find critics in the

world of computing, than it is in development. They are accountable,

there is nowhere to hide in the world, the media, all of you guys

keep us all under the spotlight. In way Bill Gates is probably more

under the spotlight than other people. There is other ways of

holding him to account. We had a mass phone call with the British

public the other day, people could ring in and send questions that he

had to answer F they want to they it put him under the spotlight.

Most people believe that Bill Gates has made a massive difference.

Bill Gates has done, is to cede the market for a new kind of

philanthropy, over the next ten years Governments will take over

the vaccination project, their upfront cash will measure in much

more bang for bucks. At the same time Governments too have adopted

the Gates' approach, the private sector for the channel for

philanthropic funds, the global agencies not currently the flavour

of the month. The UK Government has cut its funding to the

International Labour Organisation, and the United Nations Industrial

Development organisation, which is trying to build up developing

countries' industrial state. It has cut its funding to grassroots

groups in developing countries and in Britain trying to build the

campaigns against tax dodging and injustice and trade and all of

those things. That means you will get a short-term focus on aid, but

none of the long-term results of global justice trying to bring

development to the poor in that long-term benefit.

When it comes to dealing with global poverty, Bill Gates has, in

the space of a decade, changed the game. But the challenge remain,

tonight, one person in seven, on the planet, will go to sleep hungry,

one in four live in absolute poverty. Two-and-a-half though

people will die today of Malaria. We are joined now by Bill Gates of

the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. By Andrew Witty of the

drug gind, GlaxoSmithKline, and Richard Sezibera, until recently

the Rwanda Health Minister, and on the board for the Global Alliance

for Vaccines and Immunisation. In a moment we will talk to some critics,

for the moment let's talk about what you are trying to do, Gates.

Aid agencies have been at this, Governments at it, what can you do

as a philanthropist that they can't do? Aid agencies have had great

result, over 20 million children a year under the age of five died

back in 1960, now it is under nine million. What we can do is

accelerate that improvement by getting the very latest vaccine

that is the rich countries take for granted and getting them out to the

poor kids. That will save millions of additional lives. Why do you

want to spend your money in that way? I want to spend my money to

take the greatest inequity, the fact that these children die, and

get rid of that. Vaccines are the miracle intervention that allows

that to happen. Why is this our problem? It's the world's problem.

Every death anywhere in the world is a death unhumanity. There has

been a lot of success, immunisation rates are up across the African

continent, infant mortality rates are down, fewer children are dying,

because of the intervention of an alliance like the Global Alliance

for Vaccines and Immunisation. It is amazing what has happened now,

we have access to more vaccines against pneumonia, against

diarrhoea, against now cancer, certificate value cancer. Countries

in Africa that are unable to vaccinate against pneumonia are now

able to do so. You were quoted yesterday saying the drug companies

had not been responsible citizens in the past, but there is a change

of heart occurring. In what way were they not responsible citizens?

During the 1980 and 1990s and the industry was growing and forming

itself into what it became people weren't focused on this agenda. I

think it was wrong, it is late getting focused on the agenda, but

it has done. Over the last eight years you have seen a tremendous

shift in where the industry was. You have even the Gavi Alliance

come into place 1 years ago, the industry has come - 11 years a the

industry has recognised that. It is in all our interest. It is public

relations isn't it? People expect in the west, whether in America or

Europe, people expect to see pharmaceutical industries

contribute to societies less well off, people expect to see that.

Within my organisation the majority of the people who work for us, the

single biggest reason they would quote for why they work for us is a

contribution to human health, not just rich people's human health,

but everybody. Those are the drivers that make us look for ways

to contribute to this agenda. everyone in the aid community

agrees with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation aims and

methods. The organisation, Medecins sans frontier, or Doctors Without

Borders, as they call themselves in mark, they believe it can be done

better. Daniel Berman speaks for them on access for medicine. What

do you worry about here? What I worry about is that, although we

really appreciate the involvement of GlaxoSmithKline, we have to be

honest, because of a relationship that we feel is a little bit too

close between the Gates Foundation and donors and companies, we feel

we are paying too much. The pneumococcal vaccine, you haven't

talked about, that you have mentioned a little bit about how it

is financed. This is a product widely available in the wealthy

countries, there is the market there. In fact, the problem is

there is a $225 million subsidy that is going to Glaxo Smith clean

and Pfizer, I would like to Mr - GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer, I

would like to ask Mr Gates where do you do it that way. They were told

that it was blocked by patents and if there was help in overcoming

patents the pneumococcal vaccine would be on the market. I know IP

has been very important in your business, I guess that puts you in

a difficult situation. Intellectual Property, you mean? When I'm giving

money away, I bring a strong business sense to make sure it is

very well strength. When we created the group that helps purchase this

mum know cock kal vaccine, we researched what does it d number

cock kal vaccine, we researched what does it cost to produce, there

was not the capacity to serve the world. By getting people together

to make a commitment, it allowed companies, including GSK, to spend

a lot of money. What we are getting in terms of saving lives, in any

organisation should celebrate what happened today, and what's going to

happen with these lives saved. You would think it would be MSF. This

is medicine at work, this is medicine at its best, we are saving

millions of lives. There is no foolishness about the costs here.

Mr Gates I think that we totally agree on the mission, I think we

agree with GSK, we vaccinate ten million children a year, we're with

you there, we believe the more vaccines out there the better, we

are talking about how the money is used. In fact, this scheme with the

subsidy was actually created to stimulate development when there

weren't vaccines. I don't think it is right to use the vaccine in this

scheme. Can I specifically address that, on

a couple of points you raise. In terms of intellectual property or

patents getting in the way, as far as GSK is concerned are there any

material patents in pneumococcal vaccines, nobody has asked us about

that. You have a number of other companies developing their own

version of products, it is straight, just a second, it is wrong to say

IP is a problem. In terms of incentivisation, it is interesting

to look back, the first pneumococcal vaccine was in the

1990s, there was a limit of capacity production, the Gavi

Alliance saw this as a major opportunity in the developing world

and aimed to stimulate the activity. What this incentive is, the first

few years the vaccine is on the market, we achieve a price of $7 a

dose, that is very substantially lower than people are paying in the

west, then this drops. People in the west are paying more, so people

in the poorer world pay less? make no apology for that.

accept that is what's happening? are very transparent about teir

price, people in the richest countries pay most, and the middle,

the middle, and the poorest less. Some lives are more valuable than

others? It is unreasonable to expect somebody in the poorest

countries to contribute to share profits and R & D in the future.

But the National Health Service? is to try to make access is

achieved. That story you just said needs to be researched. I was

directly involved in the process with the GAVI board, I was part of

a committee, I resigned from that committee, Mr Gates, because you

loaned five McKinsey consultants to that committee, it was to lower

price force the GAVI committee. How can the consultants help us lower

prices when they cult with companies like Mr Witty's. I'm

worried about the relationship between GAVI. Answer that question?

The reason I give to GAVI and I feel so great about the pricing

they achieve, is the experts understand what these things cost.

We have spent the money to understand that, and yes, it is

very smart people from all over from McKinsey, I have spent time on

these things, these prices are coming down because we want to save

more lives. Time is on our side in innovation. I want to ask one

question, Mr Sezibera, why don't your Governments buy these drugs

direct? Because we can't afford them. That is the simple answer. I

would like to welcome industry, what industry is actually doing

with teir pricing is exactly what Governments across the world and in

the developing world do. Through social health insurance schemes you

make sure the more well off pay relatively for more their health

than the poorests, what they are doing is absolutely right, it is

the thing that makes the vaccines available to the poorest in the

world and makes Governments able to deliver the vaccines to the world,

it is the right thing to do. Our second critic is Doane from the

World Development Movement, they believe that much of GAVI's work

doesn't get at the real underlying problems in the world today. What

is your anxiety today? Few would disagree with vaccinating millions

of children, you can't disagree with that, I think the issue we

have is it is a bit of a distraction, so these sorts of top-

down, business-led philanthropic solutions, distract from the bigger

picture, that is this, it is all well and good to be vaccinated

against preventable disease, but if you send those families back out

and they don't have land on which to farm because it is grabbed by

big corporates, because of land grabbing, or they can't feed their

families because of speculation on food price, on food commodity

prices because they are spending 90% of their income on every day

food stuffs and they can't educate their children. All of these things

will be lost, we will have the same discussion in 20 years time. The

reason the biggest issues aren't dealt with, one more point, is you

could look at progressive taxation could be far more important,

dealing with global monoplies could be far more important, enabling

people to have the policies to feed themselves would be a much more

effective solution for dealing with poverty than vaccination programmes.

This is about the children and the mothers of those children, and

whether we take the technology that every rich child takes for granted

and make it available. If she has a scheme to change the economic world

order, that's all well and good. In the meantime let's not the millions

of children die. That's why you choose health as

opposed to any other aspect of development? I'm involved in many

aspects of development. This is the priority of the moment? We do

things at the same time, we do agriculture, sanitation. You don't

think you get in the way of Governments? I think children dying

is not a good thing. I don't think any mother wants to see her

children die. These vaccines are about saving those lives.

accusations not you think it is a good thing, no-one thinks it is a

good thing that children die. have been dying, only with the

generosity we saw today, only by getting the prices down will their

lives be saved. If we spent more of our time, in developing public

health programmes. One of the concerns we have, much like MSF, is

we are seeing public health and public interests sidelined, over

these technocratic solution, in the instance of vaccinations they

favour big pharma, in the interests of when we are looking at another

development which I know you look in, we are looking at solution that

is favours big agri solutions rather than small. There is a bid

price, lowest price for vaccines comes in, vaccines are public

health, they are the centre of public health, they are the

greatest victory of public health in awful history, that is why we

are down from 20 million dying a year. There is a question here of

accountability too, Governments are accountable to their citizens, they

win power, they lose power by the judgments they make. Who are you

accountable to when you decide to make these, what everyone agrees

are well meant interventions? Anyone who buys a product, if you

buy a car, if you buy a house, you're exercising, you are taking

your success and expressing your values. My values are that all the

wealth I have should go back to society, and it should help the

very poorest. And as I looked at all the ways to help out the

poorest, vaccinations rose to the top of the list as the way to

change their lives. The kids who live, if they don't get sick, their

brains fully develop and they can achieve their potential. This is a

pretty clear win and the fact that yes, Malaria research is being done

now, and vaccines are being delivered, that's a great thing.

you worry that, why the western Governments or western

philanthropists like Bill Gates are making judgments on your behalf?

They are not making judgments on behalf of the developing world. The

developing world countries are co- financing these vaccines, the price

of these vaccines. The health budgets are up, they have targets

of 15%, Rwanda is past 15%, other Governments are coming up. And yes

it is true that we must invest in roads and agriculture, and in food

security, and Governments are doing that, but our people must be alive,

the children must be alive to enjoy these fruits, that is the

importance of vaccination. I want to ask you one further question,

Andrew Witty, it is about a potential conflict of interest here,

drug companies such as yourselves, which are both supplying medicines

or vaccines and sitting on the board which makes judgments about

whether they should be supplied, that is a conflict of interest

isn't it? No, GSK used to have a seat on the GAVI board, we have

rotated off it, there are two industry seats on the GAVI board,

we have come off somebody else is on. The GAVI board, when you look

around the table, almost everyone has a vested interest, you are

either a potential supplier or recipient or potential delivery

agency. Everybody around that table, more or less has a vested interest.

What is clear with the gay the GAVI board operates, is if anything spe

- the way the GAVI board operates, if anything comes up the member

leaves the meet, of course. The balance here is we don't end up in

a situation where you don't have any expertise around the table. If

people are talking about the art of the impossible without any

knowledge of what actually goes on. Having somebody there is important,

I think this would pass any scrutiny over whether or not these

people can assert any undue influence, I'm sure they do not.

Thank you Deborah Doane. Finally a journalist and former speech

writing for David Cameron, the question does aid work, is it worth

all this time and money, and in the long run does it help those in need,

what is your pitch? I do agree with Mr Gates that vaccination is

probably about the best use of aid and Malaria research, that is right.

I have a more fundamentalish problem with the whole issue of aid

- fundamental issue with the whole issue of aid. Countries getting

their aid needs, and not having a need to respond to the needs with

the people there. We are breaching accountability. Harvard Medical

School have shone when you put money into health services health

spending declines, in places like Rwanda and Ethiopia, British aid is

fund ago Government that is sending hit men here, on top of that,

British aid fund add media council that bans independent newspapers

and an Electoral Commission that stopped independent challenges, all

these self-appointed saviours are a problem and the reason why we keep

hearing western voices always the voices for aid, not African voices,

unless they are involved in the industry, because the image of calf

is being destroyed by aid, people see Africa as a supplicant, rather

than in the fast-growing and changing place where six of the

fastest-growing economies are there. Let's deal with the last point

freshest in our mind first, do you worry about who is driving this

whole aid enterprise? politically elected Governments are

by far the biggest donors here. And so politicians like David Cameron,

they make a choice, based on what they think the policies should be

in, the voters will eventually get to weigh in, just like in many

other countries. What about this question of helping to support

repressive regimes? Certainly vaccination, it is quite a stretch

to say it supports repressive regimes, or maybe they should

refuse the aid. That isn't what I was saying, I was saying British

aid, not your aid, British aid has directly gone to repressive regimes,

that is very different from the sort of things you are doing, there

is an issue about that fact. When we decide to save children in a

country, we don't look at what the Government has done and say they

are not a nice Government. We are willing to fund vaccination for all

the children of the world, independent of what is going on

with that Government. Richard Sezibera, you are Rwandan, aren't

you? You stand accused in all of this to a degree? It is not true

that the Rwandan Government sent hit squads all over the world.

was Scotland Yard that said they were. I find the discourse a bit

dispier iting, on the one hand, rb disspiriting, on the one hand, the

British Government, on the other hand regime, the discourse of

people who look at Africa and the developing world as if we do not

have universal values. And of course, if there is a repressive

regime, the people in that country, will rise up against their leaders,

through a democratic process. if your Government is, the entire

edifice of your country is being supported by western aid, there is

less income bancy on you as a Government to render yourself

accountable to our citizens. It is not correct that a Government

should be supported entire by the western world. My own belief and

the belief of many African is we should use aid to get and win our

wean ourselves off aid. It is the quality of the aid, the aid must

come in to fund a country-owned, country-designed-country-run

programme, the more you do that the better. The accountability for

delivery must be put where it belongs, on the shoulders of the

leaders of these countries. If they can't, then they have to answer for

it. You are entirely comfortable with the way this whole thing

operates are you? I share Bill's view to a large degree. You have

never had anxieties about the dependency culture or the image of

Africa? On aid as a general concept I would share some of the questions.

It is important when you talk about aid in the bigger sense. When you

focus on vaccine, next to washing your hands, it is the single

biggest health care intervention in history. When you go to villages,

who have only just received their first solar-powered fridge, and as

a result for the first time people have been vaccinated against basic

illnesses and diseases that are killing children all the time. When

you see that happen on the ground it is really difficult to walk away

interest that and say we shouldn't be trying to do this more often

than in the past. Can I finish with you Bill Gates, on a personal note,

everyone in the world knows who you are, and everyone in the world

almost uses your products in some way or another. Do you hope this

sort of initiative is what you will be remembered for? I don't care to

be remembered at all. I do hope that we can get that number of nine

million children a year who die down to seven million then five

million then three million. There is some wonderful things in the

world, today was a big day, the pledging to buy these two new

vaccines. We're partnered with GSK on Malaria vaccine with luck, in

three years, will be in a position to start delivering that. The

advances in technology should not just be for the richest, they, in

fact, we should tilt our work to help the poorest. And that's why

I'm excited about this second career that I have got.

Thank you all very much indeed. Quite apart from the Gates' money,

the British Government today committed another �800 million of

tax-payers' money to be spent on aid or vaccines specifically. The

Prime Minister said that although just be every other area of

spending is being cut, it was morally right to spend more on

international development. The International Development Secretary,

Andrew Mitchell, is here. First a few facts and figure about the UK

Almost every Government department is seeing cuts.

The biggest recipients of British The International Development

Secretary is, as I mentioned here. David Cameron said today that it

was right to increase your budget, the international development

budget, at the time that other budgets were being cut, it was

morally the right thing to do, why? There are two key arguments, it is

morally the right thing to do. We live in a world where there are

these extraordinary discrepencies of opportunity, and our generations

have a chance to really do something about it. The pledging

conference today is, I think, a very good example of that. It is

not just it is morally right, it is very much in our national interest.

This is �300 or more from every household in the country, at a time,

when the services they need are being cut, and when they themselves

are finding life very often very tough? I don't pretend this is an

easy issue, as a proportion of our expenditure, it is relatively small,

it is under 1% of national income, I think a country like our's can

afford that. If you look at the generosity of people in Britain.

For example, in Comic Relief, which over the last two times is against

a background of much more serious economic situation, people have

been more generous each time. Absolutely, they have a choice in

the matter. They have no choice about whether they pay their taxes,

they pay their taxes, convention has it, in order to be defended by

the Armed Forces, educated in the schools and universities, and all

the rest of it. Instead of which they see all of those being cut,

and you, by force of law, taking more money to spend in places like

Africa? I think the national development budget does have a huge

impact. It also impacts on people's security. The point you have just

made about defending the state. Our security is not only defend bid

guns and tanks, but also training the police in Afghanistan and

building up glofrpbance structures in the Middle East, and getting

girls into school. It is not just a moral issue, but also very much in

our national interest. How much money are we giving to Uganda?

Something like �70 million. Is it true the President of Uganda spent

�30 million on an executive jet? That happened under the last

Government. I don't agree with that, it is the wrong use of the money.

Why do we keep on giving it to them? If Governments under us spend

money in that way, then we will take action to seek to stop it, in

doing, that of course, we want to try to make sure we don't end up

afflicting the poorest people in the countries. You want to make the

Government more accountable, more transparent. What are we doing

giving money to India when it can afford a space programme? India is

a development paradox, there are more poor people in India than the

whole sub-Saharan continent. For the first time India is not the

largest programme. The money is spent in the poorest areas, up to

half of it will be on pro--poor, private sector development. Yet the

Government of industry chooses to spend money on a space programme?

The British development efforts in India, which is a tiny proportion

of what the Indians themselves, under 1%, what they themselves

spend on education and health care, has a colossal effect and benefit

for India. As part of Britain's programme and partnership with

india, which was greatly rejuvinated by the Prime Minister

last year, the development programme play as small but

important part. We give them less than they give to other countries

in assistance? That is not true, the Indian, what you would refer to

the Indian aid programme is not the aim as what we would call an aid

programme, it is a credit system for business. You are spliting

hairs? You can't compare them, they are not the same. Isn't it true,

people like you belong to a generation that look back on Live

Aid as being a marvellous thing and the Gleneagles conference as a

marvellous thing and you are out of step with the public, it might have

been true eight years ago but not any more? I don't think that is

true, the point is our generation have the ability to make a real

change in the world. There is a new state start anything Sudan, south

Sudan, the girl born today in south Sudan has more chance of dying

having a baby than completing primary school. We can do something

about this, I'm so glad that the conference today on Global Alliance

for Vaccines and Immunisation can have a real impact on children

overseas. You have talked about this country becoming an aid

superpower, some would characterise it as you would used to

characterise the Labour Party as being very generous with other

people's money, why is it we have decided to do that, and yet the

Italians, the Germans and the Japanese have not decided to go

that route? When I say the we were a development superpower. In just

the same way as America is a military superpower, but because of

the brilliant leadership of Britain around the world in development, we

have a huge impact on tackling these dreadful diseases and

difficulties, saving lives which we have been talking about. I think it

is part of the British DNA to be generous to those who are much less

fortunate than we are, the extraordinary discrepencies of

wealth which we used earlier, and opportunity. We can do something

about that, and we will. Andrew Mitchell thank you very much.

Now if you were watching last week you perhaps saw an interview with a

London woman who has been presented, completely without her knowledge,

to the world as a lesbian living in Damascus. She was pretty cross

about her picture being used, it was said to be skaurt measure to

protect a Syrian dissident. It turns out not was she not the real

author of A Gay Girl In Damascus, the real author was not gay or in

Damascus. Nor a girl.

Out of a closed country, racked by revolt, came out what sounded like

Amina Abdallah Araf al Omari reported in her blog the brutal

supression of pro-democracy As the violence continued, she also

She was apparently forced into hiding, and then a week ago

Thousands joined a Facebook site, demanding her release. As newt

night discovered last week, the picture she used of herself

actually belonged to a London woman, who is now thinking of suing over

the theft of her identity. I never met Amina I'm not part of her blog,

not friends with her. It's absolutely astonishing that

somebody has been using my pictures and obviously campaigning with my

face on it. Today, a married American student

at Edinburgh University admitted he was the A Gay Girl In Damascus all

along. There are a lot of people who would

be perfectly within their rights punching me in the jaw. He's a

Middle East activist who began blogging as Amina several years ago,

long before the Arab uprisings? intention was never to hurt anyone,

in fact, the only intentions I had, besides my own vanity was to draw

attention to what I believe are important issues, and second, I

amsomebody who feels guilt a lot. I'm feeling incredibly guilty about

hurting people and harming causes that I personally, as a human being,

believe in. This photo, used by Amina, that

previously appeared on a site belonging to McMaster's wife, was a

trail of clue that led other bloggers to the truth. The real

clue there was the photo on Amina's blog had a wider field of view than

the photo on Britta's website, that suggested to us that the person who

put it on Amina's blog had access to the original image.

Evidence of popular anger in Syria, from where foren reporters are

banned comes, in - where foren reporters are banned, some think

that hoaxers like McMaster has brought a wider audience. It has

pointed out certain social issues that the majority of Syrian

bloggers wouldn't touch on, like homosexuality, for obvious social

and religious reasons. I don't think there is any bad motives

behind the bloggers and the events he has given are daily events that

political dissidents and homosexuals go through and face

under the regime of Bashar al-Assad. But among those deceived was this

Canadian woman who said she was Amin's girlfriend and couldn't

sleep for worrying about her. difficult to know where she is, and

who took her. Something the hoaxer has done -

some think the hoaxer has done wider harm too? This hoax has

brought damage to the credibility that people who need to use a cloak

of anonymity and pseudonyms to communicate publicly. That has cast

a doubt on their ability to be heard when they are really in need.

When real Syrian people, or real Arab individuals are expressing

themselves, and not somebody who is, in a sense, adopting that as drag

for his own purposes. Today, refugees continued to arrive

in neighbouring Turkey, after the army retook the rebellious town of

Al-Shughour. As for the Gay Girl in Damascus, what began as a possible

well-meaning attempt to highlight oppression, has ended up

distracting attention from the real horror of Syria now.

Details of concessions in the Government's health bill have been

announced today, and our political editor is with us.

What are they? Strictly speaking we have to wait until tomorrow to get

the Government's response. What happened today was that Professor

Steve Field, the senior GP, asked by the Government eight weeks ago

to go around the country with a team of health exports to work out

what to do about the bill, came back and delivered his report. Much

of it is long and complicated and very difficult to understand.

Essentially, what he is saying is there will probably be some delay

in certain places to the implementation of the GP-led

consortia, that will be commissions health care in future. Perhaps the

most fundamental change that he's recommending is there should be a

lot less emphasis on competition in the health service in future, and

in the health and social care Bill and in particular, that it should

not be the primary purpose of the new Healthwatch dog, Monitor, to

consider competition, competition is important, but it shunting of

overriding importance. Has this done the trick? It has, there is

nothing like the huge rift within the coalition we had a month ago.

The Liberal Democrats have had a successful neating with Nick Clegg,

they believe there is a Vic auto- meeting with Nick Clegg, they

believe there is a victory here. The Health Secretary is

sufficiently happy not to resign. He will play a role in explaining

what the Government will do. Tomorrow we will also be hearing

from groups of health service professionals, some of whom will be

expressing their satisfaction. Where David Cameron has so far

failed, though, politically, is in public opinion, an opinion poll for

ITN tonight shows more than half the British public don't trust

Cameron on the NHS. Was this ever a real issue, is it about substantive

matters in the NHS, or is there some tension between the Liberal

Democrats and the Tories? There are substantive matters in the NHS. My

own view of the proposal that is have come up from Steve Field today,

I was at the briefing s basically where the Government went wrong on

the bill is in presentation and communication, that indeed was a

lot of what Professor Field was saying. In the language they used,

he argues that actually they frightened them who didn't need to

be frightened. A lot of what he's recommending is the language should

be changed, that certain emphasis should be applied here and less

there, and that was much more likely to satisfy the people in the

health service who were deeply worried about all these proposals.

That sounds like ineptness? To a degree. Some people in Downing

Street would argue in terms of presenting this bill, Andrew

Lansley has shown a certain ineptness in terms of communicating

it. Interestingly, where the Liberal Democrats won't be able to

claim a victory is what happens to the bill next. Nick Clegg was

arguing it ought now to go back to the Commons committee, where it was

before, the Government is not going to do that, it is going to say, no,

proceed as before, to report stage, even though that report stage may

take up to a couple of weeks. have lost the public now! Tomorrow

That's all from Newsnight tonight. That's all from Newsnight tonight.

Goodnight. More rain coming in for the week.

Tomorrow is said to be a belter after a chilty start, a lot of

sunshine to look forward to. There will be sudden cloud building

up. It won't threaten rain for the most part.

The low 20s widely and the winds light. A feel-good day. Down across

the far South-West of England, it will cloud up with drizzle by the

end of the afternoon, principally across Cornwall. Elsewhere across

the UK, no such threat. Dry across Wales, with well-broken cloud and

sunny spells, and for Northern Ireland as well. Temperatures here

up to 16-17. Up across Scotland, the north of Scotland, winds will

be lighter than they were today. And the worst of the wet weather

will have cleared away from the Northern Isles, things settling

down across the northern parts. A fine prospect then, for most of us

across northern areas fine. More cloud across the west of the UK,

maybe the odd shower, the theme is for it to stay predominantly dry on

Wednesday, although cloudier than Tuesday. Wednesday's probably the