:00:08. > :00:11.It affects all of us, and we will all have to live with the
:00:11. > :00:14.consequences of the most contentious piece of legislation of
:00:14. > :00:19.the entire Cameron Government. Tonight, the plan to reform the
:00:19. > :00:24.National Health Service. The legislation is far bigger than
:00:24. > :00:28.the law which created an institution all parties profess to
:00:28. > :00:31.love and protect. Does the system have to stay the same forever and
:00:31. > :00:34.ever? The Health Secretary tells us,
:00:34. > :00:38.there is nothing wrong with the reforms, it is all about
:00:38. > :00:41.perceptions. You could say blame me as a communicator, but if people
:00:41. > :00:45.are literally distorting and misrepresenting what the bill does,
:00:45. > :00:48.I just literally have to fight back against that.
:00:48. > :00:51.These people have to make the health service work, they will be
:00:51. > :00:55.putting their anxieties and hopes directly to the Health Minister,
:00:55. > :01:04.who thinks the whole reform is solely about making the system work
:01:04. > :01:08.better for patients. And one sunrises as another departs.
:01:08. > :01:16.How long before News Corporation gets out of British newspapers for
:01:16. > :01:20.good, as James Murdoch quits. Another day, another pile of
:01:20. > :01:23.argument about the Government's attempts to reform the healthcare
:01:23. > :01:27.system, Labour claim tonight that the Government was trying to rush
:01:27. > :01:30.its now very knocked about bill through parliament, by the time of
:01:30. > :01:36.the budget next month. Rubbish said the Government. The plan described
:01:36. > :01:40.by a senior NHS boss, as so big you can see it from space, has had a
:01:40. > :01:42.very checkered history. Promoted by the Liberal Democrats, and amended
:01:42. > :01:46.by them. Introduced into parliament in January last year, then
:01:46. > :01:56.suspended for a while, now approaching final votes. It is not
:01:56. > :02:19.
:02:19. > :02:23.what the Government had hoped for. Away from Whitehall and Westminster,
:02:23. > :02:27.to Worthing. A beach on the south coast. The Government's health
:02:27. > :02:32.reforms look set to make it on to dry land, what exactly do they
:02:32. > :02:38.change, how and when? What we have here is a charity that
:02:38. > :02:41.is part of, in effect, the NHS. asked the Health Secretary to take
:02:41. > :02:51.us to somewhere that exsemplified the reforms they are trying to get
:02:51. > :02:51.
:02:51. > :02:56.going, he has brought us to Action For Deafness. This charity is being
:02:56. > :03:01.billed as the best provider of help for those who are hard of hearing.
:03:01. > :03:06.It isn't strictly the NHS, as it stands it is asked by the health
:03:06. > :03:11.service to cater for patients' needs. Lansley's bill is supposed
:03:11. > :03:16.to give help to give suppliers like this, who want the best for their
:03:17. > :03:20.patients, the work. In 60 seconds, Josie clearly isn't fully aware of
:03:20. > :03:26.what is going on, explain it? we are setting out to do, it comes
:03:26. > :03:29.down to, firstly, making sure that you as a patient, everything that
:03:29. > :03:32.happens to you, you should get really good information, and
:03:32. > :03:37.wherever possible you should have some choice about the service that
:03:37. > :03:43.is provided to you, including where it is provided from. Secondly, you
:03:43. > :03:46.are registered with a GPs' surgery, your GP locally, and doctors and
:03:46. > :03:49.nurses around locally in Worthing, they should be in a position where
:03:49. > :03:53.they are able to design the services that you need locally, and
:03:53. > :03:58.use the NHS resources to make sure those services are here for you.
:03:58. > :04:03.Days ago Nick Clegg urged his party to take pride in the fact that they
:04:03. > :04:08.had saved the NHS from privatisation. It strikes a bit of
:04:08. > :04:12.fear with privatisation. Because, just explain to me what is it? From
:04:12. > :04:18.my point of view, we are not going to do privatisation, explain to me
:04:18. > :04:22.what it is you think privatisation means as a problem? It will just go
:04:22. > :04:27.out to various people, are those people going to care like the
:04:27. > :04:29.National Health Service cares now. I have had a lot of dealings with
:04:29. > :04:33.the National Health Service regarding my father, he died a
:04:33. > :04:37.couple of years ago, to try to bring all those bits and pieces
:04:37. > :04:42.together was one long fight, but we got there in the end. Because we
:04:42. > :04:47.all worked together. If it is going to be put out to privatisation, is
:04:47. > :04:51.it all going to work. The sort of thing I have been saying, actually
:04:51. > :04:56.it is going to be NHS care, like this is NHS. It doesn't have a big
:04:56. > :05:00.sign saying it, but this is NHS care. The political peril of this
:05:00. > :05:03.bill is clear, while the Health Secretary is down south, at Prime
:05:03. > :05:09.Minister's Questions, Labour's leader goes on the attack for yet
:05:09. > :05:12.another week. Let me refresh his memory as to who opposes his bill.
:05:12. > :05:16.There is no good the Deputy Prime Minister smirking, I don't know
:05:16. > :05:21.whether he opposes or supports the bill, which day of the week. Oh he
:05:21. > :05:24.supports it, oh, he supports it, Mr Speaker. What you are saying is the
:05:24. > :05:29.critics don't really understand the bill? I have to say, there are a
:05:29. > :05:33.lot of things that I have seen said about the bill that appear to
:05:33. > :05:37.suggest they haven't even bothered to read it. That includes coalition
:05:38. > :05:42.partners, doesn't it? No. Of course it does? To be fair, Shirley
:05:42. > :05:45.Williams, actually, that is the point. We have spent some
:05:46. > :05:50.considerable time working with Shirley and others in the Lords, to
:05:50. > :05:56.get to a point where, yes, we are going to make some amendments, but
:05:56. > :06:04.they are amendments that give us, and them, a sense of actually,
:06:04. > :06:09.finally putting precise reassurance in. Health Minister Mr Bef van cuts
:06:10. > :06:16.the turf. Lansley's predecessors include the founding fathers of the
:06:16. > :06:20.NHS. Is it up there with Beveridge these reforms? I wouldn't say.
:06:20. > :06:27.they are going to last for a long time? The character is very
:06:27. > :06:30.different. If you go back to 1950, Bevan said there is the tension
:06:30. > :06:34.between the centralised funding system and decentralised
:06:34. > :06:38.administration. And actually, over the years, the fact that the centre
:06:38. > :06:41.has provided all the money, has meant the centre has had all the
:06:41. > :06:44.control. Andrew Lansley was so trusted by the Prime Minister, that
:06:44. > :06:49.years out of forming Government, he was the only one of David Cameron's
:06:49. > :06:52.team to be promised he would make the grade, and go from Shadow
:06:52. > :06:55.Health Secretary to the Government job. The idea was no major reform
:06:55. > :06:59.change, reorganisation, steady as she goes, the public was to trust
:06:59. > :07:02.the Conservatives on the NHS. But now, because of these reforms, it
:07:03. > :07:06.is almost certain the NHS will be a battleground at the next legs, that
:07:06. > :07:09.was never part of their plan. -- next election, that was never
:07:09. > :07:12.part of their plan. It is one thing to get a bill through parliament
:07:12. > :07:15.against opposition, many have done it. But verdicts on policy come
:07:15. > :07:18.later, in the real world of people's experience. The challenge
:07:18. > :07:22.for this Government is, while they may will it to work, it is probably,
:07:23. > :07:26.very soon, out of their hands. As you heard there, the Health
:07:26. > :07:33.Secretary was at a centre for the hard of hearing in Worthing earlier
:07:34. > :07:43.today, by happy chance, it is also the town where Oscar Wilde wrote
:07:43. > :07:46.the Importance of Being Ernest. Did you anticipate the sort of trouble
:07:46. > :07:50.that you have run into on this bill? Yes, I always knew there
:07:50. > :07:55.would be, there is always noise, the NHS matters, so people make a
:07:55. > :08:04.lot of passionate remarks about it. You could go back, 2003, do you
:08:04. > :08:09.remember, it is only less than a decade ago, Alan Milburn put
:08:09. > :08:12.forward foundation Trusts, over 100 members of his own parliament
:08:12. > :08:17.rebelled against him, The Royal College of Nursing came out against
:08:17. > :08:22.it, others said it would be the end of the NHS. You are the person who
:08:22. > :08:25.said in 2006 you would build consensus on the need for change?
:08:25. > :08:28.You failed? On the need for change, absolutely we have, and on the
:08:28. > :08:32.principles of the bill. If you look at it, not only amongst
:08:32. > :08:36.organisations, but last year, when the Future Forum went to thousands
:08:36. > :08:39.of NHS staff, at hundreds of meetings across the country, they
:08:39. > :08:42.established there was a consensus on the principles. Would the bill
:08:42. > :08:46.have been any different if you had not been in coalition? If it had
:08:46. > :08:50.just been a Conservative Government, we would have started now the a
:08:50. > :08:54.different place. The bill is better as a result of the coalition coming
:08:54. > :08:59.together to shape it. Actually, I think, the central point, from the
:08:59. > :09:01.Liberal Democrats' point of view, has been democratic, local,
:09:01. > :09:06.democratic accountability. Local Government, in the new health and
:09:06. > :09:11.well being boards, bringing together health, social care,
:09:11. > :09:14.public health, into a combined forum, where local voices, and
:09:14. > :09:18.local views can be added to professional views from the health
:09:18. > :09:23.service. Actually it is stronger, as a consequence of being a
:09:23. > :09:27.coalition bill. If you can't take cabinet colleagues with you, on a
:09:27. > :09:34.profoundly important piece? We have taken cabinet colleagues with us.
:09:34. > :09:39.They sign off on one thing and then they try to amend it? I'm sorry, we,
:09:39. > :09:41.as a Government, as a coalition Government together, designed the
:09:41. > :09:44.legislation. As a coalition together, Nick Clegg, David Cameron
:09:44. > :09:50.and I, we want to improve the bill, we want to respond to people's
:09:50. > :09:57.concerns, we did that last year. I think we did that very successfully.
:09:57. > :10:02.Are you also going to maintain that this rigmarole we have been through,
:10:02. > :10:05.the legislation being introduce, paused for consultation, and
:10:05. > :10:08.amendments introduced many of which you accept, that was all
:10:08. > :10:13.anticipated too was it? No, I thought when we published the White
:10:13. > :10:16.Paper, which we did in 2010, and we had 6,000 consultation responses,
:10:16. > :10:21.that actually most of the concerns would be there. It turned out it
:10:21. > :10:24.didn't happen that way. That, it wasn't until the bill was in the
:10:24. > :10:28.Commons, that many people said, we're worried about this and that.
:10:28. > :10:33.Actually it was important to pause the bill, to listen, and to respond.
:10:33. > :10:37.We did that. I think, actually, what that demonstrated was the
:10:37. > :10:41.support, in principle, for the bill, across the service. It gave us a
:10:41. > :10:45.lot of recommendations, and we were able to accept them. Which is why,
:10:45. > :10:49.actually, I think, across the NHS, there is an understanding among
:10:49. > :10:52.many staff that this is actually, in a sense, the bill they helped
:10:52. > :10:57.shape. Doesn't it also demonstrate that however well you may be on top
:10:57. > :11:02.of your brief, you are a hopeless communicator? No, I don't think
:11:02. > :11:07.that at all. You didn't take people with you? Then that didn't happen
:11:07. > :11:10.to any a second on health legislation at any time in the past.
:11:10. > :11:14.Patricia Hewitt stood up in front of the Royal College of Nursing and
:11:14. > :11:20.they booed her. Ken Clark, a fabulous communicator, he tried
:11:20. > :11:24.reform in the early 1990s, and the BMA said it was the end of the
:11:24. > :11:28.world as we know it, they put up posters with a picture of Ken Clark
:11:28. > :11:34.asking what do you call a man who doesn't take medical advice. There
:11:34. > :11:37.is no way of undertaking major reform, important reform, and
:11:37. > :11:41.imagining that you are going not to be misrepresented, distorted or the
:11:41. > :11:45.subject of argument, not going to be the subject of genuine concerns,
:11:45. > :11:48.and genuine issues, that you have to genuinely respond to. I think we
:11:48. > :11:53.have pretty much reached the stage where quite a lot of the
:11:53. > :11:56.disinformation out there is a problem too. People are saying
:11:56. > :12:00.things that are literally not true. The list of organisations,
:12:00. > :12:05.organisations that ought to know about the NHS, as well as you know
:12:05. > :12:11.about the NHS, the Faculty of Public Health, BMA, nurse, midwives
:12:11. > :12:15.and all the rest of it? The Family Doctor Association, and the
:12:15. > :12:19.representatives of Trusts and Hospitals. Are you saying they are
:12:19. > :12:23.ignorant, have they fallen for propaganda? They are engaged in
:12:23. > :12:30.various campaigns for various purposes. When you actually get to
:12:30. > :12:33.it, take The Royal College of Nursing, for example. When do you
:12:33. > :12:38.think they opposed the bill? January, up until that point they
:12:38. > :12:42.had been literally with us. They said they supported the bill. What
:12:42. > :12:47.changed? They fell victim to some piece of propaganda or something?
:12:48. > :12:53.You tell me. Maybe they read the bill? I tried to find out what
:12:53. > :12:55.change caused them to change their minds. What is your theory? I think
:12:55. > :13:03.they were angry with the Government because there was a continuation of
:13:03. > :13:06.pay restraint and the pensions issues, frankly, I find it...These
:13:06. > :13:12.Organisations if they are against the bill, they have a right to be?
:13:12. > :13:15.How can it be we introduce the bill in January 2011, for a year The
:13:15. > :13:18.Royal College of Nursing work with us, say they support the bill. The
:13:18. > :13:22.general secretary sits in my office on more than one occasion, saying
:13:22. > :13:25.they support the bill. We make the amendments they looked for in the
:13:25. > :13:30.course of the discussions we had with them last year, and suddenly
:13:30. > :13:34.they say they are against it, well, because actually, other things were
:13:34. > :13:40.going on. Can you guarantee, finally, that if this bill goes
:13:40. > :13:45.through, and it is now much improved, you claim, that it will
:13:45. > :13:51.be the last reform of the NHS, that you can foresee for the next ten
:13:51. > :13:55.years? Yeah. I think it is a major piece of legislation. Why? Because
:13:56. > :13:59.we are dealing with issues that haven't been dealt with in the past.
:13:59. > :14:03.The reason we need the legislation is to effect a transfer of
:14:03. > :14:07.responsibility and power, to local authorities and local health
:14:07. > :14:11.organisations. It doesn't deal with the fundamental problem, that the
:14:11. > :14:16.NHS, for not much longer, can be afforded? It does very much help
:14:16. > :14:20.with that. What it does is it puts the decision making responsibility,
:14:20. > :14:24.increasingly, in the hands of people who can use resources better.
:14:24. > :14:27.Rationing is inconceivable, in your view? Proirt setting is necessary,
:14:27. > :14:35.and should be done by -- priority setting is necessary and should be
:14:35. > :14:39.done by the doctors and nurses with the care of the patients. That is
:14:39. > :14:42.rationing? It is not, that is depriving people access to services,
:14:42. > :14:47.getting people the right care, at the right time, in the right place,
:14:47. > :14:52.is what it's about. Thank you. With us is the Shadow Health Secretary,
:14:52. > :14:57.Andy Burnham. Apart from taking �20 billion out, what is your policy on
:14:57. > :15:02.the NHS? We had a successful NHS when this Government came in,
:15:02. > :15:05.judged by the Commonwealth fund to be one of, if not the best
:15:05. > :15:09.healthcare system in the world. What they have done in the 18
:15:10. > :15:13.months in power, is take the self- confident NHS, destablise it, and
:15:13. > :15:17.demoralise it, and turn it into an organisation fearful for the if you
:15:17. > :15:23.are tue. We will be the judge of what -- Future. We will be the
:15:23. > :15:25.judge of what they turned it into, what is your policy? We have a
:15:26. > :15:30.planned National Health Service that for 60 years delivered care.
:15:30. > :15:33.You haven't a policy other than what exists? I have a policy, a
:15:33. > :15:37.National Health Service that is planned and provides care to a
:15:37. > :15:41.whole population, not legislation for a market in healthcare, that
:15:41. > :15:45.basically, breaks all of that apart. No change? No, and one of the
:15:45. > :15:50.arguments I would make, one of the problems with this bill, it is a
:15:50. > :15:54.distraction from the real reform the NHS needs. It needs service
:15:54. > :15:58.reform, not back office structural reform. It needs reform? It needs
:15:58. > :16:03.more care in the patients' homes in the community, changes to service
:16:03. > :16:07.on the ground. The whole debate about the structures of the NHS s a
:16:07. > :16:12.massive distraction to the change of services we need on the ground.
:16:12. > :16:16.In policy terms, what are you advocating? I have just explained,
:16:16. > :16:19.we need service change. You have asserted people need more care in
:16:20. > :16:23.their homes? In the ageing society, we need to bring together health
:16:23. > :16:27.and social care. It was an argument I made as Health Secretary.
:16:27. > :16:31.would you do that? We needed to reform the social care system to
:16:31. > :16:34.provide more prevention in people's homes, better integration with the
:16:34. > :16:38.health service. This bill is a recipe for fragmentation, and a
:16:38. > :16:43.move away from the integrated care we need to see. I'm interested in
:16:43. > :16:47.what you want to do. Is it just coincidence, that when you are in
:16:48. > :16:52.Government, Tony Blair boasts about the scars on his back, that come,
:16:52. > :16:56.he said, from taking on vests interests in the public sector, and
:16:56. > :17:03.that when you are in opposition, you basic clo dance to the vested
:17:03. > :17:09.interests -- basically dance to the vests interests tune? I don't agree
:17:09. > :17:12.with that. The it is not opportunism, what they did was make
:17:12. > :17:17.a catastrophic mistake, by combining the biggest-ever
:17:17. > :17:21.financial challenge in the NHS, with the biggest-ever top-down
:17:21. > :17:24.reorganisation. They would do well now, at this late stage, to give
:17:24. > :17:29.the NHS the stability it needs to face the financial challenge. That
:17:29. > :17:33.is what I will be doing now. I will be giving the NHS the ability to
:17:33. > :17:41.focus on changing services, make them more sustainable so, they can
:17:41. > :17:44.face the future. Will there be any detail in what you will do, should
:17:44. > :17:49.you be elected? I was part of Government that took the NHS, that
:17:49. > :17:54.was on its knees in 1997, and turned it into one of the best
:17:54. > :17:57.healthcare systems in the world. needs changing? It needs service
:17:57. > :18:02.change. I have always argued for that. We made some difficult change
:18:02. > :18:05.to skefrss in Government. We made changes to stroke services in
:18:05. > :18:08.London, maternity services in Greater Manchester. These are the
:18:08. > :18:13.difficult changes the NHS needs. That is the nettle all politicians
:18:13. > :18:18.need to grasp. If we are in the position where we are always using
:18:18. > :18:22.the NHS as a political football we will never get there. That is what
:18:22. > :18:28.the bill should focus on, this bill is a massive distraction from it.
:18:28. > :18:31.With us now is the Minister of State for Health Simon Burns, and
:18:31. > :18:35.an ensemble of healthcare professionals, between them they
:18:35. > :18:38.represent thousands of nurses, doctors and patients across England,
:18:38. > :18:44.and listen to those who have been patients of the NHS. Some agree
:18:44. > :18:47.with Government reforms, others are sceptical. Let's start with this
:18:47. > :18:52.accusation about The Royal College of Nursing. Did you sit in Andrew
:18:52. > :18:55.Lansley's office and tell him you believed in the bill? Sat in Andrew
:18:55. > :18:58.Lansley's office many times, telling him we had severe anxieties
:18:58. > :19:03.and concerns about this bill, but we were committed to try to work
:19:03. > :19:06.with it, and we worked with it for a year, and we didn't get anywhere,
:19:06. > :19:10.we made the decision that we would now withdraw our support, because
:19:10. > :19:15.while there was a lot of listening, there wasn't much action. So you
:19:15. > :19:18.did tell him you supported the bill in one sense, but when it came to
:19:18. > :19:21.it you decided you couldn't? thought it was the responsible
:19:21. > :19:25.thing to do, with the elected Government of the day, to try to
:19:25. > :19:30.work with this, to see if we could change it, and we didn't succeed.
:19:30. > :19:35.This is a very, very significant difference of emphasis, what is
:19:35. > :19:39.your recollection? I was at some of the meetings, not all, my
:19:39. > :19:42.recollection is similar to Andrew Lansley's. We did listen, we have
:19:42. > :19:47.made changes that responded to what The Royal College of Nurse iting
:19:47. > :19:50.was asking for. For example, they wanted a nurse on all -- The Royal
:19:50. > :19:53.College of Nursing was asking for. They wanted a nurse on all the
:19:53. > :19:58.clinical boards, following the Future Forum review, we have sed
:19:58. > :20:01.that, and that is now happening. We have accepted that and that is
:20:01. > :20:05.now happening. Is your recollection about the British Medical
:20:05. > :20:08.Association in any sense similar? With all reforms there will be
:20:08. > :20:17.people who are for it, within an organisation, and people who aren't.
:20:17. > :20:21.What we found with the responses to the consultation document, that the
:20:21. > :20:24.BMA were supportive of some things, but less happy with others. When
:20:24. > :20:28.the Future Forum reported its recommendations, which we accepted
:20:28. > :20:34.last June, they warmly welcomed that, because they were taking on
:20:34. > :20:39.board ideas to improve and strengthen the bill. So Dr Hamish
:20:39. > :20:43.Meldrum, did you also initially support the bill? No. You have
:20:43. > :20:48.never supported it? Never supported the bill. When the White Paper came
:20:48. > :20:53.out, the headlines, which are about better clinical involvement, better
:20:53. > :20:56.patient engagment quality, of course you support that, when you
:20:57. > :21:00.read beneath the headlines, no, we didn't support it. We engaged in
:21:00. > :21:03.the consultation process, three months after the bill came out, we
:21:03. > :21:07.had a special representative meeting, asking for the bill to be
:21:07. > :21:11.withdrawn. So to say we have supported the bill, I'm sorry, is a
:21:11. > :21:16.travesty of the truth. You also opposed the setting up of the NHS?
:21:16. > :21:23.No we didn't, that is another long and oft repeated myth. The doctors
:21:23. > :21:26.and the BMA proposed, don't look so surprised. Did he not say, I will
:21:26. > :21:31.get their agreement, by stuffing their mouths with gold? That is
:21:31. > :21:35.about the contractual arrangements within the NHS. Exactly? It wasn't
:21:35. > :21:38.about the NHS itself, doctors didn't want to be state employees
:21:38. > :21:43.and actually not to...You Don't like change, that is your problem?
:21:43. > :21:48.That is not true, I have been a GP for over 30 years, I have seen
:21:48. > :21:53.massive change. It has been evolutionary change not structural.
:21:53. > :21:58.I have seen nine structural organisations that have made the
:21:58. > :22:01.NHS worse in many respects, they have been hugely distracting and
:22:01. > :22:05.costly, and taking the eye off the real things. Do you think those
:22:05. > :22:12.with a vested interest in the National Health Service are really
:22:12. > :22:17.adaptable? I would hope they have the best interests of improving the
:22:17. > :22:23.NHS. I want you to talk about your experience rather than your hopes?
:22:23. > :22:27.In my experience I have found they have been prepared to engage, but
:22:27. > :22:33.they have come to conclusions that are not in the interests of moving
:22:33. > :22:38.the NHS to move forward. What is disappoint beg the BMA is they have
:22:38. > :22:42.-- disappointing about the BMA, is they have been for the bill, but
:22:42. > :22:46.they voted for one of the core parts of the bill, clinical
:22:46. > :22:53.commissioning groups. Dr Alessi you are a GP, you support the bill?
:22:53. > :22:56.am a GP. You are singing from an entire different hymn sheet from
:22:56. > :23:00.the BMA? I am looking it on the basis of consultation with patients.
:23:00. > :23:04.I can think of the way things will change in the future. Things won't
:23:04. > :23:07.happen quick low, change won't happen rapidly. We will -- quickly,
:23:07. > :23:11.change won't happen rapidly. We will come to the bit soon where we
:23:11. > :23:14.will manage the interfaces, and we will have more control over what
:23:14. > :23:17.happens to patients than we have at the moment, that is what all this
:23:17. > :23:21.about. You think it gives you freedom? I think the change has
:23:21. > :23:24.been palpable, the discussions I'm having now with my colleagues in
:23:24. > :23:28.hospital is completely different to what it used to be before. They
:23:28. > :23:35.have been liberated as well. They are able to speak to me, before
:23:35. > :23:38.they just, it just didn't work. doctors' trades unions angry?
:23:38. > :23:42.fact it is happening before the bill has passed, shows you don't
:23:42. > :23:46.need a bill to make that happen. That is the whole point. You can't
:23:46. > :23:50.say it is due to the bill, the bill isn't in law yet, these things are
:23:51. > :23:57.and were happening. The fact that doctors want to do the best for
:23:57. > :24:00.their patients, Assam, who sat on a platform with -- as Sam, who sat on
:24:00. > :24:04.a platform with Andrew Lansley a year ago. He said just because we
:24:04. > :24:08.want to do the best four patients, doesn't mean we support this bill
:24:08. > :24:13.and we don't. You are a GP, you also think there
:24:13. > :24:17.is a lot to be said for the reforms? I do, I think while I have
:24:17. > :24:21.some mixed views about the bill, there are some parts I'm not
:24:21. > :24:24.supportive of actually, there is no doubt in my mind, as a GP involved
:24:24. > :24:28.in commissioning, it has made a huge difference to the influence
:24:28. > :24:31.that I have been able to exert. the changes have already been
:24:31. > :24:39.implemented, why do you need another piece of legislation?
:24:39. > :24:43.have been trying to change things for better for about 15 years. Up
:24:43. > :24:46.until this legislation, which attracted everybody's attention, I
:24:46. > :24:51.haven't been able to get the traction I needed to effect change.
:24:51. > :24:56.You have got the traction, you are making the changes, as Dr Alessi
:24:56. > :25:00.has been saying? Absolutely, it is because of the bill, the scope,
:25:00. > :25:04.scale and sheer audacity, has hit the radar of absolutely everybody,
:25:04. > :25:09.and people have started to behave, I agrie, as if it is in lepblgs --
:25:09. > :25:12.I agree, as if it is in legislation, but before this happened under the
:25:12. > :25:17.previous administration it was not possible. The clear indication is
:25:17. > :25:22.you didn't need to do much of this? We do, that is a false myth, put
:25:22. > :25:25.around, sadly, mostly by politicians. The reason we have to
:25:25. > :25:28.have the legislation is because they are moving in pathfinder form
:25:29. > :25:33.at the moment. But there is nothing in law to make the clinical
:25:33. > :25:39.commissioning groups accountable, so you need legislation, and also,
:25:39. > :25:44.you have got to abolish the PCTs and the SHAs, you cannot do that
:25:44. > :25:54.without primary legislation. That is why it needs the legislation to
:25:54. > :25:57.
:25:57. > :26:03.actually make it work. Angela Coulter, you speak for a number of
:26:03. > :26:07.organisations, I understand in your judgment can it deliver better
:26:07. > :26:10.patient care? There are 160 organisations representing patients
:26:10. > :26:13.and carers, and they are, on the whole, very unhappy about the bill.
:26:13. > :26:17.They have done a lot of lobbying, and are very pleased that the
:26:17. > :26:20.Government has listened in some cases, and the bill includes more
:26:20. > :26:25.power for patients, more involvement in decisions about
:26:25. > :26:28.their care, and so on. But, it is a real distraction from the major
:26:28. > :26:33.issue, which faces our health system and everybody else's, which
:26:33. > :26:38.is people with long-term conditions who want joined-up care. The
:26:38. > :26:43.problem is, that this bill seems to represent, or certainly the concern
:26:43. > :26:46.of our members is, is it will make care more disjointed, not more
:26:47. > :26:50.joined up. It is not just a distraction, it is a positive
:26:50. > :26:54.impediment? Nobody really knows, because the bill is incredibly
:26:54. > :26:58.complex. There is a real fear. feel similar? It is one of the
:26:58. > :27:01.major concerns, this emphasis on competition, what we should be
:27:01. > :27:05.doing is getting the component parts to work with each other, to
:27:05. > :27:10.collaberate with each other, the Hackneyed, joined up thinking, this
:27:10. > :27:14.bill will stop that happening. is, I'm afraid. Factually incorrect.
:27:14. > :27:20.The whole ethos of the bill is putting patients at the centre of
:27:20. > :27:25.care, and...Built Around the idea of competition? Competition has
:27:25. > :27:30.always been in the NHS and will continue to be. Competition, based
:27:30. > :27:35.on quality, can be a force for good. Let me give you a brief example.
:27:35. > :27:38.Two NHS hospitals within five miles of each other, one of them has a
:27:38. > :27:43.reputation, through surgeries, for hip replacements, they have short
:27:43. > :27:50.waiting times for it. There may be other peripheral things, their MRS
:27:50. > :27:56.A-levels are very low, their mixed sex ward accommodation is very low,
:27:56. > :28:01.and the hospital five miles away, an NHS one, has a poor record,
:28:01. > :28:04.clinically, on hip replacements, longer waiting times, with patients
:28:04. > :28:08.empowered with choice, you will see, probably, many more patients going
:28:09. > :28:13.to the hospital that is performing better, that will be a spur for the
:28:13. > :28:20.less performing one, to ask why. That is open it to patients now, we
:28:20. > :28:23.don't need the bill for that. is a good thing. You can already do
:28:23. > :28:26.this? You can already do that, if you can find the information about
:28:26. > :28:36.the quality of the hospitals you can choose to go to the best. We
:28:36. > :28:38.
:28:38. > :28:43.didn't need a bill for that. have some experience of how
:28:43. > :28:49.competition works, Kresimir Zubak? I find the debate of -- Stephen
:28:49. > :28:53.Bubb? I find the debate of are we for the bill origins frustrating.
:28:53. > :28:56.The majority of people in hospital beds are over 65, long-term
:28:56. > :29:00.conditions, taking 70% of the health budget, and there are
:29:00. > :29:06.charities and social enterprises, who want to do more to provide
:29:06. > :29:10.those services. We want competition to enable that to happen.
:29:10. > :29:14.You, presumably, you are heavily involved in charities that would
:29:14. > :29:18.like to do more? I run a social enterprise. I presume you welcome
:29:18. > :29:24.this, don't you? It is not case of welcome or not welcome. We are
:29:24. > :29:27.where we are, the fact of the matter is the competition issue is
:29:27. > :29:32.largely irrelevant, we have had competition in the NHS for a long
:29:32. > :29:34.time, the question is management of the markets. What worries me is
:29:34. > :29:39.noft-for-profit organisations, social enterprises, aren't in a
:29:39. > :29:42.place where they can compete with some of the highly capitalised
:29:42. > :29:46.private sector organisations. Just giving you an example, if you look
:29:46. > :29:51.at the provision of community health services in Surrey, that
:29:51. > :29:55.contract, which was worth �90 million a year, went to a private
:29:55. > :29:59.sector organisation, when, actually, the best performer, in terms of
:29:59. > :30:04.delivering community healthcare services was a social enterprise.
:30:04. > :30:08.But it simply could not compete. I raised this matter with the Prime
:30:08. > :30:12.Minister. You can't just talk about competition without saying
:30:12. > :30:18.something about how you manage the market. Just one other thing, it is
:30:18. > :30:20.the case that where you have limited resource, and we do have
:30:20. > :30:24.limited resources, unfettered competition can waste those
:30:24. > :30:29.resources. There are lots of issues about the market and how we manage
:30:29. > :30:33.the market. Your experience, Ali Parsa, of letting different kinds
:30:33. > :30:39.of disciplines get to work, is actually rather different, isn't
:30:39. > :30:43.it? Absolutely. Just explain what you do? We are, I guess, now
:30:43. > :30:46.Europe's largest partnership of doctors, nurses, healthcare
:30:46. > :30:51.professionals, who think we should be able to run hospitals, exactly
:30:51. > :30:53.in the same way that GPs can run GP practices, they are a partnership
:30:53. > :30:56.of people who have come together and contracted back to the
:30:56. > :31:00.Government to deliver to them the services the Government want. Why
:31:00. > :31:05.can we not do that in hospitals. Where we were given the opportunity
:31:05. > :31:10.to do it, for instance, in Bath, from scratch, without any
:31:10. > :31:18.Government grant or support, we built a building that won the award
:31:18. > :31:24.for the best building, globally, we brought people who design luxury
:31:24. > :31:29.hotels to design the building, and Michelin-starred chef to cook every
:31:29. > :31:35.day. It can be done. Makes you want to be ill? When you are ill you are
:31:35. > :31:41.welcome. It can be done. Why do you oppose it? You don't need a bill to
:31:41. > :31:45.do that, as demonstrated. That is a fair point? To take the Simon's
:31:45. > :31:52.point, the hospital that is poor needs to be sorted out, patients
:31:52. > :31:56.still have to go there, you need to sort out bad, inequality of service,
:31:56. > :32:00.competition won't help that. Actually this bill is costing �3
:32:00. > :32:04.billion. No it is not. It is taking a huge amount of people's minds off
:32:04. > :32:11.the care of patients. What do you mean it is costing, the
:32:11. > :32:16.implementation of the bill? implementation. Can we put it right.
:32:16. > :32:19.The cost of it, as the impact assessment shows is up to �1.3
:32:19. > :32:24.billion, a one-off cost, as a result of that, between now and
:32:24. > :32:30.2015, the savings will be �4.5 billion, to reinvest in the health
:32:30. > :32:35.service. For the rest of the decade �1.5 billion, per an number, all to
:32:35. > :32:40.be reinvested in the -- peran number, all to be reinvested in the
:32:40. > :32:43.health service. You are changing the subject now? This is the risk
:32:44. > :32:49.of this legislation. You asked about money, he told you about
:32:49. > :32:52.money, now you are talking about the risk register? I think if you
:32:52. > :32:55.put clinicians in the driving seat of reorganising healthcare, we
:32:56. > :33:01.understand the product of healthcare in a way professional
:33:01. > :33:05.managers don't always. I'm abs lout low certain that my colleagues, and
:33:05. > :33:09.-- absolutely certain that my colleagues, and a lot of young
:33:09. > :33:12.doctors are coming forward with solutions for improving services
:33:12. > :33:16.for patients. The NHS is not perfect, there are areas where we
:33:16. > :33:20.can do better, and we know where they are. We don't need a lot of
:33:20. > :33:26.data, we speak to patients on daily basis, we understand what needs to
:33:26. > :33:31.be fixed. We are the best placed people, clinicians working in
:33:31. > :33:35.partnership with hospitals and colleagues to do this best. We have
:33:35. > :33:41.to remind ourselves this is the NHS and social care bill, it is not
:33:41. > :33:46.just about clinicians deciding what populations want. What it should be
:33:46. > :33:51.about is commissions and populations deciding how they
:33:51. > :33:54.provide an integrated health and social care system. Hang on, let me
:33:54. > :33:59.finish, which is about commissioning. And so far, just a
:33:59. > :34:02.point I'm making, I'm not saying I disagree with any of you, I'm
:34:02. > :34:07.making the point that we have talked about the NHS as though it
:34:07. > :34:11.is about hospitals and clinical interventions, the NHS and social
:34:11. > :34:16.care bill. We're not going to save �20 billion unless we integrate
:34:16. > :34:21.health and social care. Are all of these a conspiracy against the
:34:21. > :34:25.public, the NHS should be about patients? That is my point, it is
:34:25. > :34:30.the NHS and social care bill. also about citizens. It is the
:34:30. > :34:36.citizens in charge. It is care, well co-ordinates and meets their
:34:36. > :34:39.need. Absolutely. That is the challenge. This shake-up of the NHS
:34:39. > :34:43.is putting organisation against organisation, it is dividing
:34:43. > :34:46.professionals, it is actually not helping. It is going to take about
:34:46. > :34:52.four years before the commissioning groups really learn how to do it.
:34:52. > :34:56.It will take some time to settle in. All major change takes time? A lot
:34:56. > :35:01.of people will be ill and need better co-ordinated care. You look
:35:01. > :35:06.at countries according to the OACD, have the best healthcare quality in
:35:06. > :35:09.the world, France, Germany, Switzerland. And the UK. They are a
:35:09. > :35:13.co-operation between the private sector, public sector, private
:35:13. > :35:17.sector in Germany runs more hospitals, more healthcare
:35:17. > :35:20.provisions than the public sector does T does it in a regulated
:35:20. > :35:25.market, in which people can't "cherrypick", in which people need
:35:25. > :35:29.to focus on the patients. That is what we need to focus on. The
:35:29. > :35:32.British public is not concerned on whether the service is provided by
:35:32. > :35:35.public sector, private sector, the Government, it is concerned about
:35:35. > :35:39.whether it is fair, it is accessible, it is free at the point
:35:39. > :35:42.of delivery. We should focus on making sure that happens, and when
:35:42. > :35:46.that happens, when that happens everything will be fine. By the way,
:35:46. > :35:51.for those who think that the private sector, or the social
:35:51. > :35:55.enterprises just take the cherry, let me say it here and now, please,
:35:55. > :36:05.give us all your potatoes, keep the Cheries, we love to have what you
:36:05. > :36:10.don't want. France and Germany spend 2% more of GDP on healthcare.
:36:11. > :36:16.The British healthcare system is the most cost effective service in
:36:16. > :36:20.the world. But not the best. haven't had much of a shout. Can we
:36:20. > :36:24.have an opportunity perhaps, now we are in this state where we are
:36:24. > :36:28.starting to have a dialogue with our local authorities. This is
:36:28. > :36:34.starting now. Let's give us the oxygen we need to make it happen.
:36:34. > :36:37.We need the space, the time to make this happen. I wonder if you feel,
:36:37. > :36:40.as a practising GP, that, in a sense, this is rather missing a
:36:40. > :36:44.point. We can have the organisational changes, but there
:36:44. > :36:47.is a real crisis in this country about how on earth we carry on
:36:48. > :36:52.paying for healthcare, giving the increasing demand? Unless we change
:36:52. > :36:58.what we are doing, we will get into difficulty. I believe only by laifg
:36:58. > :37:01.the dialogues at this level and in- - having these dialogues and at
:37:01. > :37:05.this level and intensity can we find our way out of where we are at
:37:05. > :37:09.the moment. A lot of this debate is often dominated by a professional
:37:09. > :37:16.view. There is nothing wrong with that, but the citizen view doesn't
:37:16. > :37:21.often get in. To give you an example of this, we want more
:37:22. > :37:25.choice in the NHS. The NHS institution guarantees choice, but
:37:25. > :37:28.doesn't deliver it. If at the end of your life you want to die at
:37:29. > :37:33.home or in a hospice, you are often denied that choice. The majority of
:37:33. > :37:37.people who want to die in a hospice or at home, they die in a hospital
:37:37. > :37:40.bed. There are charities out there, hospices that would love to provide
:37:40. > :37:44.that care, they are not commissioned, and the system needs
:37:44. > :37:48.to be opened up, so that those organisations can be commissioned
:37:48. > :37:54.and provide that choice to people. That's what people want. That will
:37:54. > :37:57.happen under your bill, will it? is already happening. It is already
:37:57. > :38:01.happening. It isn't, because the majority of people at the end of
:38:01. > :38:06.their life are dying in a hospital bed, they wish to die in a hospice
:38:06. > :38:10.or home. Let's support charities that provide that for them.
:38:10. > :38:15.going to have to stop you, I'm afraid, we have to get on to
:38:15. > :38:19.something else. Thank you very much. Now, it's perhaps one of the least
:38:19. > :38:22.surprising bits of corporate news this year, James Murdoch, the man
:38:22. > :38:29.whose father gave him a media empire, is quitting ASBOS of News
:38:29. > :38:35.of the World. He hopes there by to step out -- quitting as boss of the
:38:36. > :38:40.News of the World. He hopes to step out and set up somewhere Aspel a
:38:40. > :38:43.television executive. Whether that will be -- Where as a television
:38:43. > :38:53.executive. Whether that will be enough, we will see.
:38:53. > :38:58.
:38:58. > :39:02.On a week where one Murdoch Sun went, another rose.
:39:02. > :39:07.James Murdoch was nowhere near his father's corporation when the
:39:07. > :39:12.hacking went on at News of the World, why do many believe it was
:39:12. > :39:17.he have table he would step down. Some say he was in charge when he
:39:17. > :39:22.tried to limit the damage. Some say he either tried to cover up how far
:39:22. > :39:26.hacking went, in that case he had to go, or on the other hand, he had
:39:26. > :39:30.no idea what was going on in the company, in which case, he had to
:39:30. > :39:33.go. There has been criminal wrongdoing on a large scale in this
:39:33. > :39:36.company for many years. Now the police investigation is beginning
:39:36. > :39:39.to unearth those networks and Leveson is beginning to show the
:39:39. > :39:46.methods deployed by some of the journalists working for the company.
:39:46. > :39:50.Not all of them. And yes, I think the day of judgment is coming for
:39:50. > :39:53.James and Rupert Murdoch. Until very recently, News International
:39:53. > :39:58.maintained hacking was the work of one rogue journalist, the royal
:39:58. > :40:03.editor of the News of the World, Clive Goodman. But the company had
:40:03. > :40:08.information that the practice was far more widespread. Just this week
:40:08. > :40:12.the Leveson Inquiry into practices, saw an internal e-mail showing 110
:40:12. > :40:20.victims could have been involved. James Murdoch agreed a huge pay-off
:40:20. > :40:23.to one of the victims, �700,000 to gord dond Taylor, then of the
:40:23. > :40:27.professional Football Association. If he had read the paperwork that
:40:27. > :40:32.accompanied the pay-off, he would have known many more victims were
:40:32. > :40:38.involved. Although he was sent e- mails, he maintains he didn't read
:40:38. > :40:40.them. You embarked on a sustained cover-up, the accusation against
:40:40. > :40:44.you, because you know how widespread it was and you didn't
:40:44. > :40:47.want it to come out? There was a particular settlement I authorised,
:40:47. > :40:51.and I have said was made with information that was incomplete.
:40:51. > :40:57.James Murdoch has been dogged by this question ever since. Did you
:40:57. > :41:03.see, or were you made aware of the "for Neville" e-mail, the
:41:03. > :41:11.transcript of the apt voicemail message? No, I was not aware of
:41:11. > :41:16.that at the time. But Mr Murdoch has been contradicted by two of his
:41:16. > :41:23.former executives. Although he quits as chief of News of the World,
:41:23. > :41:29.he remains CEO of News Corporation based in New York. Many there say
:41:29. > :41:34.he's no longer credible. Does it worry you that his explains in all
:41:34. > :41:39.of this was, sorry, I didn't read my e-mail? That is at best, that is
:41:39. > :41:43.if nothing else, if he is found incompetent to read his e-mails,
:41:43. > :41:48.that doesn't make him fit to be chief executive of any company we
:41:48. > :41:53.are investing in. You can't have people like this. 100 years ago it
:41:53. > :41:56.would be a cluby person on the board, they have to be high-
:41:56. > :42:01.performing individuals. How do we read the departure, is it evidence,
:42:01. > :42:06.as some believe, a victory for News Corporation shareholders, who don't
:42:06. > :42:10.like the messy, low tech, newspaper business, and particularly the
:42:10. > :42:13.reputational damage it is doing to their interests. Or is it evidence
:42:13. > :42:17.that Rupert Murdoch has decided to take personal charge of the
:42:17. > :42:21.operation here in Britain. Just like he did in the old days.
:42:21. > :42:25.It was, afterall, Rupert, not James Murdoch, who launched the Sun on
:42:25. > :42:31.Sunday this week. However, the big news of the week, that you wouldn't
:42:32. > :42:36.necessarily have read about in the Sun, was the revelation at the
:42:36. > :42:39.Leveson Inquiry, that the Sun was running a network of corrupt public
:42:39. > :42:43.officials, including the police, spending tens of thousands of
:42:43. > :42:48.pounds on bribes. There also appears to be a culture at the Sun
:42:48. > :42:52.of illegal payments, and systems have been create today facilitate
:42:52. > :42:56.these payments, while hiding the identity of the officials receiving
:42:56. > :43:03.the money. Some believe this is a game changer, opening News
:43:03. > :43:06.Corporation in America, to poosable, federal investigation under the
:43:06. > :43:11.Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act. Some believe it is all about
:43:11. > :43:18.isolating and limiting this damage. Joining us now from New York, the
:43:18. > :43:22.former editor of the Sunday Times and Times, Sir Harold Evans, whose
:43:22. > :43:28.book about working for Murdoch, is about to be reissued, including the
:43:28. > :43:32.events of last year. Did he jump or was he pushed, James Murdoch?
:43:32. > :43:40.think we shouldn't spent too much time on James Murdoch, actually, he
:43:40. > :43:43.was a very able executive of Sky. I think he's blundered awfully, I'm
:43:43. > :43:49.not absolutely convinced he orchestrated the cover-up. That may
:43:49. > :43:54.have been the work of sloppyness and negligence of him. I'm not sure
:43:54. > :43:58.he did. I think more important, other than the faith of James
:43:58. > :44:02.Murdoch, is the faith of the Murdoch empire given the very
:44:02. > :44:09.serious charges of bribery, not just by one journalist, buying a
:44:09. > :44:13.cop a drink. But by a whole series of systematic payments. I think,
:44:13. > :44:17.myself, don't forget Rupert Murdoch and I parted, not on the best of
:44:17. > :44:22.terms, he pushed me out of the Times, you have to bear in mind I'm
:44:22. > :44:27.some what prejudiced. I'm also prejudiced for decent reporting,
:44:27. > :44:30.honesty, and not invading people's minds. What is running through the
:44:30. > :44:35.whole thing from beginning to end is the rotten smell of corruption.
:44:35. > :44:39.It has been there for years, and only encouraged by slack and
:44:39. > :44:43.corrupt politicians who wanted favours from him. It is really an
:44:43. > :44:51.indictment, not just of James Murdoch, which is actually small
:44:51. > :44:58.fry in many ways, but the whole Murdoch corporation, of the cosines
:44:58. > :45:02.between slack politicians, and Rupert, who knew how to manipulate
:45:02. > :45:08.them. It raises the question of how the owners of these properties here
:45:08. > :45:12.will regard their investment? a terrific investment in terms of
:45:12. > :45:15.cashflow. You have to look at the News Corporation businesses, they
:45:15. > :45:20.are extremely well run, highly profitable, and the question is how
:45:20. > :45:26.big is a shareholder's soul. If he cares about integrity in the news,
:45:26. > :45:29.he will care a lot. On the other hand, if the Murdoch corporation
:45:29. > :45:35.faces a prosecution under the corrupt practices act in the United
:45:35. > :45:39.States, that is very serious trouble. Because it was that the
:45:39. > :45:42.Murdoch corporation would have to lose, if they were indicted and
:45:43. > :45:46.convicted, they would have to lose control of very valuable
:45:46. > :45:50.investments, that depend on Government licenses, cable
:45:50. > :45:54.television and the like. That is the really serious issue here. Also
:45:54. > :45:59.bear in mind the other serious issue is the terrible blow that
:45:59. > :46:02.these activities have done to the reputation of journalism generally.
:46:02. > :46:08.Just leaving that to one side, the question of the reputation of
:46:08. > :46:12.journalism as a whole, the future of the Murdoch empire, Rupert
:46:12. > :46:15.Murdoch, a man who, whatever his failings, believed in newspapers.
:46:15. > :46:20.James Murdoch, a man who doesn't believe so much in newspapers, but
:46:20. > :46:24.clearly blofs in other forms of media. Why -- believes in other
:46:24. > :46:27.forms of media. Why Hong on to newspapers here? It is a good
:46:27. > :46:31.question. A little bit of my heart goes out to him, I'm a romantic
:46:31. > :46:37.newspaper man myself. But the rest of my heart, and most of my head
:46:37. > :46:41.said, I would rather he had nothing to do with newspapers, he does not
:46:41. > :46:45.bring enough to them, apart from money. He doesn't thing integrity
:46:45. > :46:50.to them. In some sense, as I say, I'm personally slightly torn about
:46:50. > :46:54.it. I think it would be a good idea if he devested himself from the
:46:54. > :46:58.newspapers, it would be good for the shareholders, and in the end,
:46:58. > :47:03.for journalism. The smell now is so intense, I don't think it can be
:47:03. > :47:06.eradicated by any more apologies, revelations keep coming out and
:47:06. > :47:12.coming out. The public, I think, is sick to death of it.
:47:12. > :47:15.Thank you very much for joining us. Tomorrow morning's front pages,
:47:15. > :47:20.James Murdoch is on most of them. There he is on the front page of
:47:20. > :47:24.the Guardian. Also he's on the front page of the Independent and
:47:24. > :47:34.the Financial Times. On the front page of the Telegraph
:47:34. > :47:46.
:47:46. > :47:52.is a picture of Davey Jones of the That's all from Newsnight tonight.
:47:52. > :47:58.A man in a chip shop in Worthing gave me a free gherkin today. There
:47:58. > :48:05.will be all manner of pickles and preserves on tomorrow night,
:48:05. > :48:11.preserves on tomorrow night, overseen by Mr Gavin Esler.
:48:11. > :48:15.Good evening, a cooler start to tomorrow than the last few days.
:48:15. > :48:22.Misty and foggy towards the south. Most brightening up through the day.
:48:22. > :48:25.Sunny spells developing in plane areas. Holding on to a lot of cloud
:48:25. > :48:29.across southern areas. To the east of the Pennines, to the Midlands
:48:29. > :48:33.and the south, the morning cloud and mist, it clears, the cloud
:48:33. > :48:38.breaks, sunny spells developing. It will be a mild day under light
:48:38. > :48:43.winds. Temperatures peaking at around 14.15. Sunny spells in the
:48:43. > :48:49.south west and through many parts of Wales.
:48:49. > :48:53.On the west we could see one or two showery bursts of rain. In the
:48:53. > :48:57.south-east of Northern Ireland, holding on to bright, if not
:48:57. > :49:01.sunnier weather. After a wet start across the Highlands in Northern
:49:01. > :49:05.Ireland, brighter and dryer, some of the patchy rain pushing into
:49:05. > :49:10.other parts of Scotland with a drop in temperature. That rain fizzling
:49:10. > :49:13.out. Cloud on Friday, with temperatures dropping a degree or
:49:13. > :49:18.so down. Across England and Wales a lot more cloud for the end of the
:49:18. > :49:22.week. Again, temperatures down a notch. Still above average for the