:00:13. > :00:18.Congratulations, just Ofcom to go. Hours before he was told he would
:00:18. > :00:22.decide the fate of BSkyB, the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt,
:00:22. > :00:30.congratulated James Murdoch, as the multibillion pound bid moved
:00:30. > :00:34.towards apparent completion. Would you agree, Mr Hunt, that is
:00:34. > :00:38.conveying a some what positive view on where the process had reached.
:00:38. > :00:41.Yes. Serious questions about the actions of Jeremy Hunt and George
:00:41. > :00:45.Osborne. After personal text messages were revealed at the
:00:45. > :00:49.Leveson Inquiry. We will hear from the deputy leader of the Labour
:00:49. > :00:53.Party, Harriet Harman, and the Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert.
:00:53. > :01:00.Another day, another climb-down by George Osborne on the budget.
:01:00. > :01:06.those waiting with baited breath, for that favourite media catch
:01:06. > :01:10.phrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say, you turn if you want
:01:10. > :01:17.to. You wait for one u-turn and then three come along at once.
:01:17. > :01:20.Today the charity tax followed the pasty tax and the caravan tax into
:01:20. > :01:24.the dustbin. We will ask the Newsnight panel why George Osborne
:01:24. > :01:29.got it wrong, and how damaged Jeremy Hunt is after today's
:01:29. > :01:33.Leveson. There are more fears about the eurozone and the polls have
:01:33. > :01:39.closed in Ireland, as people give their verdict on the EU fiscal
:01:39. > :01:44.treaty. We are live in Dublin. And James Bond, a British hero who
:01:44. > :01:48.punches above his wait. Steve Smith investigates his eternal appeal.
:01:48. > :01:52.What does 007 tell us about Britishness, apart from the sex and
:01:52. > :01:59.violence? Writers Anthony Horowitz and
:01:59. > :02:06.Bidisha are here to discuss whether Bond is a barometer of Britishness
:02:06. > :02:09.or good or otherwise. Good evening, the good news for
:02:09. > :02:12.Jeremy Hunt today is he can keep his job as Culture Secretary. David
:02:12. > :02:16.Cameron will not order an investigation into whether he
:02:16. > :02:20.breached the Ministerial Code. The bad news for Mr Hunt is that the
:02:20. > :02:25.opposition still want his head on plate. They claim he may have
:02:25. > :02:33.breached the code, misled parliament and acted as a lobbyist
:02:33. > :02:38.for the BSkyB. An interesting piece of news management, as the hunt --
:02:38. > :02:43.hunt hunt saga unfolded so did the budget. This time the Chancellor
:02:43. > :02:47.has done a U-turn on the charitable donations. At times the Leveson
:02:47. > :02:52.Inquiry has appeared to be an inquiry in Jeremy Hunt, we heard
:02:52. > :02:55.about the lobbyist used to do the job, the ministerial adviser who
:02:55. > :03:00.was deluged with messages, and the permanent secretary in charge of
:03:00. > :03:05.the department. Today we got to hear from Jeremy Hunt himself. To
:03:05. > :03:10.understand this story, we have to go back to mid-November of 2010. At
:03:11. > :03:14.this stage News Corp's bid for BSkyB wasn't going brilliantly well.
:03:14. > :03:18.For one thing, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, deciding on
:03:18. > :03:22.the bid for the Government, was refusing to have any sort of
:03:22. > :03:25.contact whatsoever with News Corporation. In desperation, the
:03:25. > :03:29.company turned to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Who they
:03:30. > :03:35.knew was not only better disposed towards them, he was also only too
:03:35. > :03:39.happy to talk. Before today's appearance at the Leveson Inquiry,
:03:39. > :03:48.we already knew that James Murdoch and the Culture Secretary were due
:03:48. > :03:53.to meet in mid-November 2010. But Mr Hunt had to call off the meeting.
:03:53. > :03:58.One of James Murdoch's staff told the media bus that Hunt had
:03:58. > :04:01.received strong legal advice not to meet them, any meeting could
:04:01. > :04:04.jeopardise the entire process. Instead James Murdoch and Jeremy
:04:04. > :04:08.Hunt spoke on the phone. The conversation was relayed to the
:04:08. > :04:11.Prime Minister in a memo of the 19th of November. In it Mr Hunt
:04:11. > :04:17.wrote that James Murdoch was furious over Vince Cable's handling
:04:17. > :04:23.of the bid, and warned, that if they blocked it, the bit, and media
:04:23. > :04:27.sector would suffer for years. meeting is inappropriate, and as is
:04:27. > :04:32.suggested, why is a telephone call appropriate? I didn't see the
:04:32. > :04:36.telephone call as a replacement for the meeting. My interpretation of
:04:37. > :04:40.the advice was that I should not involve myself in a quasi-judicial
:04:40. > :04:45.process that is being run by another Secretary of State, and
:04:45. > :04:49.that was the purpose of the meeting that was requested by News Corp,
:04:49. > :04:54.that is why it wasn't appropriate. What was discussed on the phone, Mr
:04:54. > :04:59.Hunt? I just heard Mr Murdoch out, and basically heard what he had to
:04:59. > :05:03.say about what was on his mind at that time.
:05:03. > :05:08.What you heard on the phone is exactly the same thing that you
:05:08. > :05:12.would have heard had there been a face-to-face meeting s that right?
:05:12. > :05:16.It depends. The most action-packed day in the history of the bid was
:05:16. > :05:19.the 21st December 2010. At midday the European Commission gave the
:05:19. > :05:25.bid the green light on competition grounds. That meant the only
:05:25. > :05:29.barrier now was in Britain, being overseen by Vince Cable. At 12.46,
:05:29. > :05:38.Jeremy Hunt texted James Murdoch, he was sorry to miss the call, and
:05:38. > :05:42.was on his mobile then. They arranged to talk at 4.00pm. At
:05:42. > :05:46.12.57 Jeremy Hunt texted James Murdoch, he said great, and
:05:46. > :05:51.congrats on Brussels, just Ofcom to go. Would you agree, Mr Hunt, that
:05:51. > :05:57.is conveying a some what positive view on where the process had
:05:58. > :06:04.reached? Yes. What happened next, well, we can only describe as a bit
:06:04. > :06:08.of a bombshell. At 2.30pm, still on the 21st of December, the BBC broke
:06:08. > :06:14.the story that Vince Cable had been secretly recorded saying he had
:06:14. > :06:17.declared war on Rupert Murdoch over the bid. At 3.56pm, News Corp put
:06:17. > :06:24.out a statement saying this raised serious questions about fairness
:06:24. > :06:30.and due process. At 4.00pm, Jeremy Hunt and James Murdoch had their
:06:30. > :06:34.prearranged phone call, discussing Mr Cable's comments. At 4.08 Jeremy
:06:34. > :06:39.Hunt texted the Chancellor, saying he was seriously worried that they
:06:39. > :06:45.would screw this up. There was a similar text to Andy Coulson at
:06:45. > :06:49.4.10pm, David Cameron's Director of Communications. At 4.58 Jeremy Hunt
:06:49. > :06:54.received a sex from George Osborne saying he hoped he liked their
:06:54. > :06:59.solution. That solution is that Vince Cable lost his responsibility
:06:59. > :07:03.for the bid that pass today Jeremy Hunt himself. One question is why
:07:03. > :07:08.was the Chancellor involved in kpwhuen Kateing this decision to --
:07:08. > :07:12.communicating this decision to Mr Hunt. And why didn't the Culture
:07:12. > :07:16.Secretary see it fit to inform the department about his rather chummy
:07:16. > :07:21.text relationship with James Murdoch. To put it bluntly, Dr
:07:22. > :07:27.Cable had lost the role through the appearance of bias in one direction.
:07:27. > :07:32.And doesn't it emerge from a fair reading of this text that you
:07:32. > :07:38.shouldn't have acquired the role for the equal and opposite reason?
:07:38. > :07:44.No, because, as I understand it, the point about a qies say judicial
:07:44. > :07:49.role, is not that -- quasi-judicial role is not that you acquire a
:07:49. > :07:53.responsibility for a quasi-judicial decision with your brain wiped
:07:53. > :07:59.clean. The point about that role is you set aside any views that you
:07:59. > :08:03.have, and you decide objectively on the basis of, in this case, media
:08:03. > :08:08.plurality. And not on the policy considerations that have been my
:08:08. > :08:13.preoccupation to that point. Hunt was then taken through the
:08:13. > :08:16.deluge of correspondence that his former special adviser, Adam Smith,
:08:16. > :08:20.had with News Corporation. It was, Mr Hunt agreed, both inappropriate
:08:20. > :08:24.in tone and quantity. But, he insisted, he hadn't known anything
:08:24. > :08:26.about it. Almost as soon as Jeremy Hunt had
:08:27. > :08:30.finished his evidence, Downing Street let it be known that the
:08:30. > :08:34.Prime Minister thought that he had acted with complete propriety
:08:34. > :08:38.throughout this process. And that he wouldn't now be triggering any
:08:38. > :08:41.investigation as to whether his minister had broken the Ministerial
:08:41. > :08:48.Code. As you can imagine, not everyone thinks that this should be
:08:48. > :08:54.the last word on the matter. Tonight, Labour has called the
:08:54. > :08:58.Prime Minister's decision to keep Mr Hunt in his place disgraceful.
:08:58. > :09:01.Our political editor is here. What's the point of the Ministerial
:09:01. > :09:05.Code? It is pretty pointless, this evening. This is something that
:09:05. > :09:09.David Cameron beefed up within a day of entering office. He wanted
:09:09. > :09:12.the perception of ministerial impriority to be as important as
:09:12. > :09:17.any actual wrongdoing, and also entered into the Ministerial Code
:09:17. > :09:20.that special advisers should also be taken responsibility for by the
:09:20. > :09:25.minister. That hasn't happened today. It is pretty pointless. The
:09:25. > :09:30.man in charge of overseeing it, Alex Alan, has said before he wants,
:09:30. > :09:34.if he feels he is being sidelined, he wants that to be something he
:09:34. > :09:40.would walk over. They are all questions outstanding. Having been
:09:40. > :09:43.very critical in that way. Also Hunt's testimony today also
:09:43. > :09:46.slightly puts the onus back on other people in Government. You
:09:46. > :09:53.have now had George Osborne brought into the fray, in terms of somebody
:09:53. > :09:57.who was, without hearing from the Chancellor, his side of the story,
:09:57. > :10:01.he's texting the Culture Secretary to say he thinks he would like the
:10:01. > :10:04.solution to the Vince Cable problem. Which suggests he knows the Culture
:10:04. > :10:08.Secretary has a particular view about something. I think we have
:10:08. > :10:11.had a couple of developments today. I think Hunt did OK in front of
:10:11. > :10:15.Leveson, equally other people have been brought into the story. What
:10:15. > :10:18.do you make of the interesting coincidence that the budget, yet
:10:18. > :10:23.another rollback on the budget today, with the third of the U-
:10:23. > :10:29.turns this week, and the biggest one? If there were this many u-
:10:30. > :10:33.turns in the flotilla on Sunday, there would be chaos in the Jubilee.
:10:33. > :10:36.There has been three. Backbenchers have been told, when you complain
:10:36. > :10:42.about some of the measures in the budget, you should just be quiet,
:10:42. > :10:46.the cost of them, they all add up, �40 million here, �50 million there,
:10:46. > :10:49.we are going ahead with them. Now there is U-turns, many Tory MPs
:10:49. > :10:54.feel agrieved they have been backing things, and in tight votes
:10:54. > :10:58.in the Commons, now the Government has decided this recess to U-turn
:10:58. > :11:02.on. It is actually within parliament quite serious stuff.
:11:02. > :11:06.Lots of people on holiday, lots of people preparing for the Jubilee.
:11:06. > :11:08.Lots of people getting the burgers on and not actually thinking about
:11:08. > :11:13.politic. Lots of people in parliament are thinking, actually
:11:13. > :11:15.this budget is falling apart. While the deputy leader of the
:11:15. > :11:19.Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has been pursuing Mr Hunt for his
:11:19. > :11:22.alleged wrong doings, she's in Westminster. The Home Office
:11:22. > :11:28.Minister, Nick Herbert, is also with us. Harriet Harman, first of
:11:29. > :11:32.all, what evidence is there, if any, that after Mr Hunt got the job of
:11:33. > :11:36.deciding about the BSkyB job, that he did anything wrong whatsoever?
:11:36. > :11:40.He misled the House of Commons. Because he said after he had
:11:40. > :11:45.responsibility for the BSkyB bid, that he was going to act fairly,
:11:45. > :11:48.impartially, transparently, and as proof of his good faith on, that he
:11:48. > :11:55.would publish all the exchanges between his department, and News
:11:55. > :11:59.Corp. And he didn't do that. There was not a single text, e-mail, or
:11:59. > :12:04.record of a phone call between his special adviser in News Corp,
:12:04. > :12:08.although he admitted that his special adviser was a conduit for
:12:08. > :12:11.information. The Ministerial Code says this is a resignation offence,
:12:11. > :12:16.that if you mislead the House of Commons, you have to resign. What
:12:16. > :12:21.David Cameron has done tonight, is effectively tear up the Ministerial
:12:21. > :12:25.Code. I think that this is a very concerning moment about standards
:12:25. > :12:29.in ministerial office. He's saying he's broken the code, but he will
:12:29. > :12:32.just sweep it under the carpet. That is only one of the ways he has
:12:32. > :12:41.broken the code. There is others as well. But he did refer the bid to
:12:41. > :12:44.Ofcom, and the OFT. He said he strictly followed due process, the
:12:45. > :12:48.parliamentary secretary was happy with the way he handled things.
:12:48. > :12:52.Where would you put your finger on something he absolutely did wrong
:12:52. > :12:55.in the consideration of the bid? Firstly, he should have never take
:12:55. > :12:58.on the decision, because he was clearly biased in favour of it.
:12:58. > :13:05.David Cameron was in a position to know his bias in favour of it,
:13:05. > :13:08.because he had received the memo from Jeremy Hunt. Tell me a single.
:13:08. > :13:14.The permanent secretary didn't know that. They were doing it behind the
:13:14. > :13:19.back of him. Tell me the name of a single senior minister of any party
:13:19. > :13:23.who doesn't have some kind of bias about Rupert Murdoch, everybody has
:13:23. > :13:28.opinions about Rupert Murdoch? Because of that perception of bias,
:13:28. > :13:30.it is not just having no bias, but perception of bias. He should have
:13:30. > :13:34.referred it to the Competition Commission, instead did he just
:13:34. > :13:38.enough to keep hold of the decision himself, and do the discussions
:13:38. > :13:41.about the undertakings in lieu. He should never have taken on the
:13:41. > :13:46.decision. Cameron and Osborne should never have made that
:13:46. > :13:50.political decision to refer to Jeremy Hunt, a quasi-judicial
:13:50. > :13:54.responsibility. And they kept their, one further point, David Cameron
:13:54. > :13:57.took legal advice about whether it was appropriate to give this
:13:57. > :14:03.responsibility to Jeremy Hunt. But they kept their officials and their
:14:03. > :14:08.lawyers in the dark, they never got to see that memo, which showed just
:14:08. > :14:13.how biased Jeremy Hunt was. The whole thing is, they are just
:14:13. > :14:18.trying to sweep it under the carpet and say it is fine, it is not, the
:14:18. > :14:22.House of Commons should be very concerned about this. Should George
:14:22. > :14:25.Osborne appear before Leveson now? It is a matter for Lord Justice
:14:25. > :14:29.Leveson to decide who he calls. It is evidence that George Osborne was
:14:29. > :14:33.not engaged as Chancellor on this, he was engaged as political
:14:33. > :14:38.strategist for the Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister said that he
:14:38. > :14:41.was not involved, this was all quasi-judicial. But it was a highly
:14:41. > :14:46.political decision to give the responsibility for taking this
:14:46. > :14:50.issue of the bid forward, to Jeremy Hunt. You know, if this bid had
:14:50. > :14:53.gone through, and the opponents had done a judicial review. The courts
:14:53. > :14:58.would have, without hesitation, struck it down, as being absolutely
:14:58. > :15:03.flawed as a process, top to bottom. Let me bring in Nick Herbert here.
:15:03. > :15:06.You have torn up the Ministerial Code, you have Jeremy Hunt
:15:06. > :15:10.scheduling a James Murdoch meeting, told by the lawyers that the
:15:10. > :15:14.meeting on the 15th of November 2010 was inappropriate. His
:15:14. > :15:18.decision is to phone up James Murdoch to discuss it. That is
:15:18. > :15:23.surely wrong? Firstly, we had not torn up the Ministerial Code, the
:15:23. > :15:29.Prime Minister is clear there is no breach of the Ministerial Code.
:15:29. > :15:32.hasn't investigated or got Sir Alex Allen to look at it? The Prime
:15:32. > :15:35.Minister is clear these matters should be looked at the Leveson
:15:35. > :15:39.Inquiry, which they are at length. The permanent secretary said he was
:15:39. > :15:44.happy about the way the Culture Secretary had been handling the bid.
:15:44. > :15:49.You have nothing to fear from Sir Alex Allen, it is all fine? Nobody
:15:49. > :15:53.is able to show today that Jeremy Hunt did anything but act with
:15:53. > :15:56.impartiality and integrity, once he had the quasi-judicial decision-
:15:56. > :15:59.making. Ever decision he took it was acting against the interests of
:15:59. > :16:03.the Murdochs. It was not what they wanted, that is the point to be
:16:03. > :16:07.focused on. He is told by the lawyers it is inappropriate to meet
:16:07. > :16:12.James Murdoch, the day afterwards he phones James Murdoch, that is
:16:12. > :16:16.appropriate is it? He didn't meet James Murdoch. He didn't see him,
:16:16. > :16:20.but he phoned him. That is fine, is it? He took the advice and did not
:16:20. > :16:26.meet James Murdoch. Take a step back and look at the decisions
:16:26. > :16:31.which Jeremy Hunt took in referring to the independent Ofcom, and the
:16:31. > :16:36.OFT for independent advice. It is perfectly appropriate to phone
:16:36. > :16:40.somebody you have been told not to meet? Going back repeatedly for the
:16:40. > :16:44.independent advice. Taking that advice. Making sure the
:16:44. > :16:47.undertakings which News Corp were going to have to give were
:16:47. > :16:51.strengthened. The Murdochs didn't like the undertakings and didn't
:16:51. > :16:57.get their way. That was surely the point, not the point of your report
:16:57. > :17:03.or summaries given. On the day what Jeremy Hunt was able to show is he
:17:03. > :17:08.acted with complete impartiality and ining at thety. To take lessons
:17:08. > :17:14.from Harriet Harman -- and integrity. To take lessons from
:17:14. > :17:22.Harriet Harman about that, when the spin doctors were doing appalling
:17:23. > :17:27.things, did they resign. At 12.57 on the 21st of November 2010, he
:17:27. > :17:30.sent a text of congratulations and saying just Ofcom to go, then a
:17:30. > :17:36.text to George Osborne saying he was worried they were going to
:17:36. > :17:42.screw it up. The impression is Jeremy Hunt was acting as a
:17:42. > :17:46.lobbyist for the Murdochs? These were all things that happened
:17:46. > :17:50.before Jeremy Hunt was given the responsibility for being in charge
:17:50. > :17:52.of the bid. That was approved by the cabinet secretary, which knew
:17:52. > :17:56.of the memo sent to the Prime Minister from Jeremy Hunt. Since
:17:56. > :18:00.then nobody has been able to show that Jeremy Hunt acted with
:18:00. > :18:04.anything other than complete impartiality. Except he didn't have
:18:04. > :18:07.the same contact with the opponents, did he have the same contact?
:18:07. > :18:14.Jeremy Hunt, as Culture Secretary, would have had contact with all
:18:14. > :18:17.sorts of media owner, editors, pro- priorities. I'm sure the director-
:18:17. > :18:20.general of the BBC is someone he was in contact with. Nobody was in
:18:20. > :18:25.doubt that Jeremy Hunt had a view about the Murdochs, and the bid.
:18:25. > :18:29.That wasn't the point. Once he was given responsibility, he acted in a
:18:29. > :18:32.completely impartial manner. What today has showed, is that was the
:18:32. > :18:37.case. His permanent secretary said that he had left himself a
:18:37. > :18:39.vanishingly small amount of room to exercise any kind of political
:18:39. > :18:43.discretion in this, because of the independent advice he had taken,
:18:43. > :18:46.and in any case he didn't think the Culture Secretary wanted today do
:18:46. > :18:51.that. George Osborne, a some what busy man, who could have been
:18:51. > :18:55.attending to the economy, takes time out to say he hopes he liked
:18:56. > :18:59.the solution, why is that? George Osborne is one of the most serious
:18:59. > :19:02.figures in Government, this is a serious matter. That is not the
:19:02. > :19:05.point. The point is Jeremy Hunt behaved completely properly in
:19:05. > :19:11.exercising the judgments that he did, referring everything to these
:19:11. > :19:15.independent bodies, and actually the Murdochs were increasingly
:19:15. > :19:18.unhappy about it, saying what he was doing is tantermount to
:19:18. > :19:22.wrecking the bid. They didn't get their way on this, and were never
:19:22. > :19:24.going to get their way. You have shot your fox here, Mr Hunt will
:19:24. > :19:28.stay, there is no breach of the Ministerial Code, and no reference
:19:28. > :19:33.about it either? After he took responsibility for the bid, which
:19:33. > :19:41.we think he should never have done. After he took responsibility, his
:19:41. > :19:44.special adviser had constant contact with News Corporation. The
:19:44. > :19:48.Ministerial Code says you have to take responsibility for your
:19:48. > :19:51.special adviser. He didn't take responsibility, he just sacked him.
:19:51. > :19:54.That is a breach of the Ministerial Code, to not take responsibility
:19:54. > :20:00.for your special adviser. He stood in front of Leveson today and said
:20:00. > :20:07.he had no idea that his special adviser was doing all these things
:20:07. > :20:10.wrong. That is a breach, straight forward of the Ministerial Code.
:20:10. > :20:14.straight forward breach of the Ministerial Code, if it looks bad
:20:14. > :20:18.it is bad? They were clear there was no breach of the Ministerial
:20:18. > :20:22.Code, did Gordon Brown take the same view about the behaviour of a
:20:22. > :20:24.political adviser who acted appallingly under his regime, no he
:20:25. > :20:29.didn't. It is a bogus point by the Labour Party, who have been unable
:20:29. > :20:32.to land any blow today. They threw a lot of mud, prejudgeed Jeremy
:20:32. > :20:35.Hunt's evidence, they called for him to go before he had the
:20:35. > :20:40.opportunity to set out the case in the inquiry, and they haven't made
:20:40. > :20:48.any of the mud stick today. Shortly before they prepared their
:20:48. > :20:52.Jubilee festive bunting or whatever it is, we have assembled the
:20:52. > :20:59.Newsnight political panel. Danny Finkelstein, Sally Morgan, and
:20:59. > :21:04.Miranda Green. Do you think the Ministerial Code is shot? I don't
:21:04. > :21:08.think they have tried to use it this time. I think it is clear, the
:21:08. > :21:12.Ministerial Code has been broken. For two reasons, amongst others,
:21:12. > :21:16.firstly, it talks about perception, whatever you say today about
:21:16. > :21:20.specific details, there is an overall perception that they were
:21:20. > :21:24.constantly in touch with News International. Secondly, the issue
:21:24. > :21:28.about the special adviser. My understanding of the Ministerial
:21:28. > :21:32.Code is that it is pretty crystal clear you take responsibility for
:21:32. > :21:36.your special adviser. I feel very sorry for Adam Smith Smith, I don't
:21:36. > :21:42.know him, he seems like a decent guy who worked closely with Jeremy
:21:42. > :21:47.Hunt for six years. I find it pretty inreceivable that he would
:21:47. > :21:52.do things -- inconceivable that he would go off on his own when they
:21:52. > :21:56.have worked together for so long. The point earlier, is if Sir Alex
:21:56. > :22:04.Allen felt like that, it was a hypothetical question, and if he
:22:04. > :22:09.felt there was a reference he would quit? It doesn't seem a very robust
:22:09. > :22:15.process, there is something very peculiar about the Prime Minister
:22:15. > :22:18.sitting there. The whole political world has been glued to the
:22:18. > :22:22.coverage, presumably in Number Ten they are watching closely, and then
:22:22. > :22:25.at the end of it saying they are free of it and off the hook. Its
:22:25. > :22:30.not a clean process from that point of view. There was a definite
:22:30. > :22:34.feeling that Jeremy Hunt looked very shaky, in the morning, by the
:22:34. > :22:39.lunchtime he had recovered, and by the afternoon the Tory Party were
:22:39. > :22:43.celebrating, he's way scot free. He's not away scot free, because he
:22:43. > :22:47.has been politically damaged seriously. He's not the next leader
:22:47. > :22:50.of the Conservative Party. media would enjoy another inquiry
:22:50. > :22:54.into itself and the Ministerial Code. They are really enjoying it.
:22:55. > :22:58.For the public it is like an inquiry into the carpet industry,
:22:58. > :23:04.with all the journalists being carpet manufacturers, we are
:23:04. > :23:08.riveted by this. You are seriously telling us you don't think the
:23:08. > :23:13.Leveson Inquiry is any more serious than an inquiry into the carpet
:23:13. > :23:15.industry. Journalists -- Journalists think it is very
:23:15. > :23:20.important because we work there. Milly Dowler's parents probably
:23:20. > :23:24.think it is important? The inquiry into the practices of the med was
:23:24. > :23:28.very important. I work for -- media was very important. I work for a
:23:28. > :23:32.newspaper owned by news interle that, and can see close up the
:23:32. > :23:36.devastating consequences for people. On all the newspaper that was very
:23:36. > :23:40.important. This part of the inquiry, I have to saying, has gone on and
:23:40. > :23:45.on, and an inquiry into smaller and smaller details, and the public has
:23:45. > :23:49.lost a lot of interest in this element. Why is George Osborne the
:23:49. > :23:53.go-to guy for Jeremy Hunt about this, he immediately texted George
:23:53. > :23:57.Osborne? Everyone knows that George Osborne is very involved in the
:23:57. > :24:01.political decisions of the Government. He a good friend of
:24:01. > :24:04.James Murdoch? He has been a friend of James Murdoch, I don't know if
:24:04. > :24:07.that is relevant. He was involved when Vince Cable was forced to
:24:07. > :24:11.resign, because of his inappropriate comments on the bid.
:24:11. > :24:15.The Government had a big crisis, the solution was to give Jeremy
:24:15. > :24:19.Hunt that part of the job. That was obviously George Osborne knowing
:24:19. > :24:23.about that, and texted on it. I think an awful lot is being hyped
:24:23. > :24:27.on to a very small thing. Incidently, the Government has a
:24:27. > :24:32.lot of big problems, of which Leveson n my view, is overrated by
:24:32. > :24:37.the media as one of them. I think that is both right and wrong. There
:24:37. > :24:40.are bigger problems, but the constant drip, drip, drip from
:24:40. > :24:45.Leveson is extremely damaging. I think it does matter profoundly,
:24:45. > :24:48.what we are talking about here is integrity. That is very important
:24:48. > :24:51.in politics at the moment. You were writing this week, Danny, about the
:24:51. > :24:55.complete loss of faith in the whole of politics, by the mass of the
:24:55. > :24:58.population. This is part of it, surely. If we get this impression
:24:58. > :25:03.that everyone in the political world, and the media and lobbying
:25:03. > :25:09.world, we are all exiting each other and it is all terribly ipbtd
:25:09. > :25:13.mit, it is all terribly -- intimate, it is a party that the public is
:25:13. > :25:18.excluded from. That is a damaging truth. That is exactly where I am.
:25:18. > :25:23.I personally find it really bizarre to think of cabinet ministers
:25:23. > :25:27.spending their time texting, it is a really weird to go about
:25:27. > :25:30.Government. Was it like that in your day, were you sitting on
:25:30. > :25:33.sofas? We were, but people knew what the meetings are about. There
:25:33. > :25:37.is a serious point here, is a lot of communication within Government
:25:37. > :25:40.is happening without anybody, no civil servants knowing. No records
:25:40. > :25:44.being taken, and nobody knowing what is going on. At the same time,
:25:44. > :25:47.we have a Government where, frankly, I mean I couldn't define for you
:25:47. > :25:51.what the Government is about at the moment. One of the reasons this is
:25:51. > :25:55.so big is because actually, apart from austerity, nobody knows what
:25:55. > :25:58.the Government is there for. you surprised by the role of the
:25:58. > :26:02.Chancellor, or think he's a very important person? What is the role
:26:02. > :26:06.of the Chancellor. You have a text, I'm genuinely interested, you have
:26:06. > :26:10.a text of three words. Maybe it was four. What is the role of the
:26:10. > :26:14.Chancellor. Come on, the role of the clal, it is obvious, he --
:26:14. > :26:18.Chancellor, it's obvious, he's the key political strategist, they were
:26:18. > :26:22.more concerned about the handling of this more than anything else.
:26:22. > :26:26.The cabinet minister had resigned, naturally speaking the Prime
:26:26. > :26:31.Minister's closest political ally. He had resigned? Of course you are
:26:31. > :26:35.right. Cable had to have that responsibility removed, quite right,
:26:35. > :26:38.the Prime Minister's closest political ally was texting the
:26:38. > :26:42.Culture Secretary, who will be involved. Saying you like the
:26:42. > :26:46.solution? What's wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong
:26:46. > :26:49.with that? What is wrong with that, I don't understand. I'm asking you,
:26:49. > :26:56.there's absolutely nothing? Then I can't give an answer, I don't
:26:56. > :26:59.understand what you are talking about. We're on the same page.
:26:59. > :27:04.think he needs to go back and do the running of the economy. That is
:27:04. > :27:08.a serious problem, when we're seeing U-turn after U stuorn and
:27:08. > :27:12.general chaos, that George Osborne -- U-turn and general chaos, that
:27:12. > :27:16.George Osborne is spending more time on tactical day-to-day
:27:16. > :27:19.decisions rather than running Government. It was a major issue in
:27:19. > :27:22.the Government, clearly the Prime Minister will consult major
:27:22. > :27:25.political allies. Although, incidently, of course the economy
:27:25. > :27:31.is the critical issue and very serious mistakes have been made
:27:31. > :27:34.about the budget, ages later. I don't think a one-sentence text was
:27:34. > :27:38.really responsible. It is the manner in which everyone is
:27:38. > :27:43.conducting themselves. I think there was a very strong contrast
:27:43. > :27:46.between today and yesterday. Watching Jeremy Hunt and watching
:27:46. > :27:50.Vince Cable giving evidence. Vince Cable showed there is a different
:27:50. > :27:57.way to run your office, and run your operation, and absolutely,
:27:57. > :28:01.Cable came across a cropper as the Telegraph exposed his private views
:28:01. > :28:05.about the Murdoch empire. And he was rightly, removed from it, as he
:28:05. > :28:09.said. But, in a sense there is a grown-up way of doing it, he made
:28:09. > :28:11.sure the whole office respected the rules which clearly Jeremy Hunt did
:28:11. > :28:17.not do. We will have to leave it there.
:28:17. > :28:20.The people of Ireland in a referendum a few years ago very
:28:20. > :28:24.famously torpedoed one European deal, and the referendum was run
:28:24. > :28:29.again in order to get a different answer. Today Irish people have
:28:30. > :28:35.again been voting for a euro referendum, in crushing austerity.
:28:35. > :28:39.It is a treaty that sets the rules and the polls have just closed.
:28:39. > :28:43.Have you any sense to which way the votes will go? I have been speaking
:28:43. > :28:49.to senior politicians on the yes and no side. They both think the
:28:50. > :28:54.turnout will be quite low, possibly sub-50%. Which means more than half
:28:54. > :29:00.of the Irish populus decided they wouldn't vote. It is a question of
:29:01. > :29:04.whether the low turnout would be good for the no vote, or for the
:29:04. > :29:11.yes vote, because that is the status quo. One thing for certain
:29:11. > :29:15.is the Sinn Fein party, relatively small in the Irish parliament, may
:29:15. > :29:18.have marshalled the working-class vote to come in behind the no side,
:29:19. > :29:21.while the yes side has the majority of the political parties, including
:29:21. > :29:24.the Government and some of the opposition parties. They would be
:29:24. > :29:27.expected bring in the yes side. They have been talking about a vote
:29:27. > :29:32.for question could mean that Ireland could get access of the
:29:32. > :29:35.bail out funds of the ESM, the bail out package in Europe. It is a
:29:35. > :29:39.fatalistic option of voting yes you will get the status quo, and a
:29:40. > :29:45.second bail out if needed. On the big picture, all eyes are not just
:29:45. > :29:50.on Ireland, but Spain. A lot of money has been leaving the country?
:29:50. > :29:55.66 billion euro, that is the sum the bank of Spain said left deposit
:29:55. > :29:59.accounts in March. One suspects that number will rise substantially
:29:59. > :30:03.throughout April and May. Given the fact that the euro crisis has
:30:03. > :30:07.hardly abated since March, it took a dip in March. There is talk of a
:30:07. > :30:10.lot of money leaving Greek and Spanish bank accounts. There is a
:30:10. > :30:15.story eminating, and doing the rounds, it is only a rumour, that
:30:15. > :30:19.the Greek Government might put a cap on sums any more than 50,000
:30:19. > :30:22.euros to be withdrawn or transferred. I haven't been able to
:30:22. > :30:29.confirm that, that would be a capital control, that would be very
:30:29. > :30:31.much towards the road of a Grexit. On the eve of the Queen's Diamond
:30:31. > :30:35.Jubilee, we have been reflected all this week on Britain through the
:30:35. > :30:39.writings of three British authors, tonight Ian Fleming's James Bond,
:30:39. > :30:44.created in the tough austerity years of the 1950s, still very
:30:44. > :30:54.popular, 60 years later. What does the enduring Bond myth tell us
:30:54. > :30:58.
:30:58. > :31:05.about ourselves and post-war Britain.
:31:05. > :31:12.The name is Bond. James Bond. name is bond. James Bond. My name
:31:12. > :31:15.is bond, James Bond. He's lean, he's mean, he's due a
:31:15. > :31:20.telegram from the Queen. Well, nearly.
:31:20. > :31:24.Not Daniel Craig himself, you understand, who remains as light
:31:24. > :31:30.and sprightly as ever. On location in Istanbul for the forth coming
:31:30. > :31:40.James Bond movie. No, I'm talking about dear old 007, he made his boy
:31:40. > :31:50.in print back in 1953, the year of the Queen's coronation.
:31:50. > :31:54.This year is the 50th anniversary of the first Bond film, Dr No.
:31:54. > :31:59.Whatever the fortunes of dear old Blighty, of the Foreign Office, and
:31:59. > :32:05.our true spies, at least there is one Brit who always keeps his end
:32:05. > :32:11.up, 007. The great James Bond franchise is a kind of parallel
:32:11. > :32:15.diplomatic service. Bringing James, or his doppelgangers, to places
:32:15. > :32:20.like Istanbul, recording his exploits, and then relaying them to
:32:20. > :32:24.millions of fans around the world. In fact, in his own gruff, brutal,
:32:24. > :32:30.can-do way, the James Bond of the movies and of the books, represents
:32:30. > :32:34.a kind of soft power. Wielding the soft power behind the scenes on the
:32:34. > :32:42.Bond set, is a producer who has overseen a dozen of the films now,
:32:42. > :32:46.going right back to Ki-Moon in 1979. Who -- Moonraker in 1979. Who could
:32:46. > :32:49.be more British than James Bond, is that still a flavour of the movies,
:32:49. > :32:53.or has it become so international that some of that is lost, do you
:32:53. > :32:56.think? The fact that he is British is an important part of the
:32:56. > :33:01.character, and an important part of the attraction, from around the
:33:01. > :33:09.world. He's a different kind of hero, a different class of hero
:33:09. > :33:12.than you normally get. Michael G Wilson has also given
:33:12. > :33:22.himself Hitchcock-style cameos in many of the films. See how often
:33:22. > :33:30.
:33:30. > :33:35.you can spot him in these clips. Some people might say James Bond is
:33:35. > :33:40.a bit an ark nisic now, do you get that at all, that the idea of a
:33:40. > :33:43.British man going out and saving the world, or putting wrongs right
:33:44. > :33:51.is a bit outdated? Whenever the United States seems to get involved
:33:51. > :33:56.in something, the British are right there to support them. And we have,
:33:56. > :34:02.informally, spoken to various people who are part of the British
:34:02. > :34:07.SAS, and SBS, and they are still very active in the world doing
:34:07. > :34:12.things that James Bond kind of things in the world. It isn't as
:34:12. > :34:17.far fetched as you might think. We don't do historical things, we
:34:17. > :34:27.do films that are in the present time. So, yes, Bond changes,
:34:27. > :34:30.
:34:30. > :34:34.culture changes, as time goes on. Country, England, gun? Shot. Agent?
:34:34. > :34:39.Provokeure. I think the James Bond narrative, first in books and now
:34:39. > :34:43.in fifpls, have functioned as a -- films, have functioned as a
:34:43. > :34:47.barometer of Britain's changing place in the world. In the 1950s,
:34:47. > :34:52.when Fleming was writing the book, it was soon after the world war,
:34:52. > :34:55.Britain could still see itself as a great power and as a nation with
:34:55. > :34:59.great leadership. Increasingly they have adopted a more critical aspect
:34:59. > :35:05.towards. That we will have a character who makes a comment to
:35:05. > :35:09.the effect of being a minor power, a nation in decline, what are you
:35:09. > :35:16.doing here. Hong Kong is our turf now Bond. Don't worry, I'm not here
:35:16. > :35:22.to take it back. But we Brits remain extraordinarily fond of Bond.
:35:22. > :35:28.His publishers, Vintage, reissuing Ian Fleming's original novels, say
:35:28. > :35:33.more than two thirds of us has seen a Bond film. Their focus groups
:35:33. > :35:39.said that Bond was an old fast,ed British hero, ingrained in British
:35:39. > :35:46.culture. That old spy, what is his secret?
:35:46. > :35:49.In search of answers, I'm attending a covert rendezvous in St James
:35:49. > :35:56.London. This is where Fleming himself is said to have overseen
:35:56. > :36:00.the mixing of the original, shaken not stirred, Vodka Martiney, which
:36:00. > :36:10.blame Bond's significant -- Manchester United teen knee, which
:36:10. > :36:12.
:36:12. > :36:17.became Bond's signature tiple. When the books first came out, what
:36:17. > :36:27.do you think about them that so appealed to people, that caught the
:36:27. > :36:37.imagination? You have to remember the first book appeared in 1953,
:36:37. > :36:38.
:36:38. > :36:44.rationing was still going on then. London was a city of bomb sites, we
:36:44. > :36:48.had won the war, but it probably didn't look like that. It was
:36:48. > :36:52.Fleming's fulfilment, but it became the readers of Bond, a collective
:36:52. > :36:58.wish fulfilment. He was cool, capable, and something of a dandy.
:36:58. > :37:02.He chose his clothes well. How do we think of him now, is it a
:37:02. > :37:09.nostalgic exercise? The period aspect of bond, in a way, is a
:37:09. > :37:16.strength, it seems to me. It is far more educative in a funny sort of
:37:16. > :37:21.way, or interesting, to imagine this man, on a mission, in the
:37:21. > :37:25.field. As, I assume it sort of happens nowadays. It does seem like
:37:25. > :37:33.a bygone age. He would probably be working in a call centre,
:37:33. > :37:36.monitoring all the phone calls? GCHQ, not so exciting. And Bond's
:37:37. > :37:41.successors have had the humiliating experience of making the evening
:37:41. > :37:44.news around the world with their flop. Such as this abortive
:37:44. > :37:52.incursion by British Special Forces into Libya, before the fall of
:37:52. > :37:57.Gadaffi. Can it be true, that the salville row Secret Service of --
:37:57. > :38:00.Saville Row Secret Service of James Bond is now a bit, well, pants.
:38:00. > :38:04.strongest thing we had in Britain around the world, is we were not
:38:04. > :38:10.America. If you look at the handling of the mandate, you had
:38:10. > :38:14.this sense that Britain did get out but tried to be fair with both
:38:14. > :38:20.sides. Since 9/11, the image of the British, because we have been
:38:20. > :38:23.working on the battlefield together, is that there is not a playing card
:38:23. > :38:27.worth of difference between the British secret agents and the
:38:27. > :38:32.American secret agents. At least we Brits can make-believe we are the
:38:32. > :38:36.top dogs in the Bond movies, says the rock star who wrote a song for
:38:37. > :38:46.one of them. What is brilliant about the movies, is he had feel
:38:46. > :38:49.lix, the American CIA counterpart, a -- Felix, the American CID
:38:49. > :38:53.counterpart that was second to him. It was amazing that sold to
:38:53. > :38:58.American audiences. Strangely, it seems as though Bond's world, and
:38:59. > :39:03.the one the rest of us live in, are converging. I think the more recent
:39:03. > :39:06.films, particularly the Daniel Craig films, reflect a sense of
:39:06. > :39:10.uncertainty, both about Britain's place in the world, but about who
:39:10. > :39:17.the enemy really is. We are no longer dealing with the ideolgical
:39:17. > :39:20.servant in the cold wa, we have the shadowy cartels, significantly in
:39:20. > :39:22.Casino Royal, and Quantum of Solace, we have had internal treachery
:39:22. > :39:27.within the Secret Service. That is not something we have addressed
:39:27. > :39:30.before in the Bond films. In the Cold War we were hoping never to
:39:30. > :39:33.come to blows. It was about recruiting long-term agents and
:39:33. > :39:41.gradually learning what the Russians were planning. Now we live
:39:41. > :39:48.in a world where a drone can deliver a missile, and wipe out our
:39:48. > :39:52.enemies, without any judicial process. A terrorist is identified,
:39:52. > :39:57.he becomes a legitimate target. We are approaching the Bond world,
:39:57. > :40:03.where the enemies are the black hats, and it is legitimate we can
:40:03. > :40:08.kill them. Some men are going to kill us, they are going to kill
:40:08. > :40:15.them first. Bond is oddly relevant, even after all these years. That is
:40:15. > :40:19.good news for those of us who have ever fancied stepping into his hand
:40:19. > :40:27.made brogues. Whether I would like to be James Bond is a waste of time
:40:27. > :40:37.imagining. We call would a bit? we are honest we are far too
:40:37. > :40:39.
:40:39. > :40:44.cowardly and risk adverse, to be James Bond. But later, at the BBC
:40:44. > :40:53.Gun Club...How was that, I have to get the suit back to Radio 3, can
:40:53. > :41:02.we knock...yeah, thanks. The novelist and screenwriter,
:41:02. > :41:09.Anthony Horowitz's own hero, Alex Ryder, as a young Bond, and Bidisha,
:41:09. > :41:14.a writer and broadcaster, and not so enthusiastic. You hate Bond?
:41:14. > :41:19.hate vintage bond, I like the Daniel Craig remake. But the Bond
:41:19. > :41:25.myth created in the immediate post- war period, it reeks of rancid,
:41:25. > :41:30.vintage, gentleman's Cologne, and I keep imagining the old Bonds, one
:41:31. > :41:40.can never quite remember, dressed in a polyessther tuxedo, with a
:41:41. > :41:42.
:41:42. > :41:45.full 70s chest wig underneath. The smug -- -- the smugness, he said
:41:45. > :41:49.the right thing at the right time. It was delivered with a smirk,
:41:49. > :41:54.knowing he would some how kill you, beat you or some how win. Even if
:41:54. > :41:57.you were a lesbian you would fall for him eventually. If you didn't
:41:57. > :42:01.fancy him you were mentally unstable. Is this a bit of
:42:01. > :42:05.Britishness at the time as well? definitely think there was a sense
:42:05. > :42:09.of imperial confidence there. That the smooth Brit has come in, he
:42:09. > :42:14.will make it all OK, because he knows it all. And what you see now
:42:14. > :42:21.is that it is much more equivocal, but that sense of arrogance sticks
:42:21. > :42:25.in the throat. What a strong reaction to such a great hero. You
:42:25. > :42:30.have to go back in time, it wasn't arrogance. In 1953, two years
:42:30. > :42:34.before I was born, I remember later in the 60s, that Britain was an
:42:34. > :42:39.austere place. Foreign travel was rarified, sex, as you know, sexual
:42:39. > :42:43.intercourse wasn't invented until 1963, out of this comes a hero that
:42:43. > :42:48.provides us with a bit of hope. Somebody who can hark back to the
:42:48. > :42:53.great years in the war. Special operations executive, naval
:42:53. > :42:58.intelligence, where Fleming had his training. In 1962, in the Olympics,
:42:58. > :43:01.we won one medal, we were loser, we needed someone to pin our hopes to.
:43:01. > :43:07.A mythical figure, to be larger than the world he found himself.
:43:07. > :43:12.Outside the snobbery and the spies, he is the bionic her ro. You don't
:43:12. > :43:19.last 50 years and sell -- hero. You don't last 50 years and sell 100
:43:19. > :43:24.million copies of books, must be doing something right. He must be?
:43:24. > :43:29.He is doing something very clever, which saeing our fantasies and
:43:29. > :43:34.desires, I -- which is answering our fantasies and desire. In an age
:43:34. > :43:40.of austerity I understand that. What is Bond providing? This is
:43:40. > :43:44.vintage Bond, it is a world where the guy has the perfect suit, the
:43:44. > :43:50.glamorous job, the perfect women, he's on the inside. He has all the
:43:50. > :43:56.gadgets, he's going from plane to train to automobile. There are no
:43:56. > :44:00.gadgets in the books. What you are doing here is confusing some of the
:44:00. > :44:06.wins-making films based on the book -- wince-making films based on the
:44:06. > :44:12.book, including the Roger Moore ones. We are talking here about a
:44:12. > :44:18.literary undertaking, and the books with their wonderful scriptive
:44:18. > :44:22.passage, the huge set pieces, are unforgettable. Is it good for
:44:22. > :44:25.Britain's image abroad, something to be proud of. First of all it
:44:25. > :44:31.sells 100 million copies, but should we be proud of it, does
:44:32. > :44:38.something touch on us? The films are American, not British. I'm
:44:38. > :44:43.delighted by their success. We can be proud of Bond in reflecting
:44:43. > :44:50.aspects of our character, in days torting mirror, positive aspects.
:44:50. > :44:55.On Her Majesty's Secret Service, in the Jubilee year,'s a monarchist,
:44:55. > :45:00.and patriot. Also the sense of the Americans, feel lix Lighter, on the
:45:00. > :45:07.same side, but in the shadow of Bond, since 1945, that is a
:45:07. > :45:12.surprise? You can definitely do a racial or nationalistic critque. I
:45:12. > :45:18.have a problem with the novels. I accept you have probably read them
:45:18. > :45:25.all and I haven't, you are an expert on this. What Vintage Bond
:45:25. > :45:30.was famous for was the attitude to other countries, the zenophobia,
:45:31. > :45:35.the orientalism. Who is the bad guy? That is the angry foreigner.
:45:35. > :45:40.He must be quelled, because se volatile and disruptive. You have a
:45:40. > :45:48.point, often it is the unpleasant Jew, there is a lot of hantity
:45:48. > :45:54.semitism in the books, the famous thing about with violence. This is
:45:54. > :45:57.not why we admire the books. have they endured? Very few
:45:57. > :46:02.characters have managed the cross generational success. Sherlock
:46:02. > :46:09.homes is the other one. Why? Because he's more, he's such a
:46:10. > :46:15.clever construct, the byronic hero. He is a construct, but they work
:46:15. > :46:20.because they keep on reinventing them. The Bond now is much more
:46:20. > :46:25.equivocal, self-doubting, rough and ready, and politically displaced T
:46:25. > :46:35.has lost some of the arrogance, the sexism and the racism that I hated.
:46:35. > :46:53.
:46:53. > :47:03.That is all from Newsnight, back with more good cheer tomorrow. Good
:47:03. > :47:26.
:47:26. > :47:29.It will be a warm night tonight in the south. But unusually cold
:47:29. > :47:32.across the north of Scotland. That is where we have the best of the
:47:32. > :47:36.early sunshine, many places will brighten up tomorrow. With a little
:47:36. > :47:39.bit of sunshine. On the whole there will be a lot of cloud around. Very
:47:39. > :47:43.few places will see any rain. For northern England it looks dry for
:47:43. > :47:49.the most parts. The best of the sunshine may be around coastal area.
:47:49. > :47:54.Any early rain around the Wash will fade away. Brighter bries in East
:47:54. > :47:58.Anglia. The warm weather South Wales. It will feel humid here,
:47:58. > :48:02.especially when the sunshine comes out. One or two showers in the
:48:02. > :48:06.afternoon. Through the north and the Midlands, it will feel cooler
:48:06. > :48:11.and fresher, fine and dry. A lot of dry weather to come across Northern
:48:11. > :48:15.Ireland, it may start off a bit grey, sunshine breaking through. He
:48:15. > :48:20.specially in Antrim and Down, and sunny spells across Scotland. A
:48:20. > :48:24.chilly feel, I suspect. A bit of a breeze in northern Scotland, taking
:48:24. > :48:28.the edge off the temperatures. We are struggling into Saturday as
:48:28. > :48:32.well. Sunshine in Belfast, a cooler day, Friday and Saturday than today.
:48:32. > :48:35.Temperatures in the south not changing a great deal. The warmest
:48:35. > :48:39.across southern parts of England and Wales, turning a bit cooler,