:00:07. > :00:11.This programme contains flash photography from the start. It was
:00:12. > :00:14.inconceivable that the Prime Minister's friends at the News of
:00:15. > :00:19.the World didn't know that their staff were hacking people's phones,
:00:20. > :00:24.said a prosecutor today. On day three of the trial of Rebekah
:00:25. > :00:33.Brooks, Coulson and others, it is also revealed that four people have
:00:34. > :00:37.already pleaded guilty. She can make chemistry fun, so does this teacher
:00:38. > :00:40.really need a piece of paper from a teacher training college? Labour's
:00:41. > :00:56.new shadow Education Secretary thinks she does. Why? James Blake
:00:57. > :00:59.has just won the Mercury Music Prize, Steve Smith will be catching
:01:00. > :01:04.his atoppings. Imagine being this surfer, we will talk to the man from
:01:05. > :01:14.Devon who may just have ridden the world's biggest wave.
:01:15. > :01:22.There was phone hacking, who knew? Was the way the prosecution put it
:01:23. > :01:26.to jurors at the Old Bailey, resolving that question is the task
:01:27. > :01:30.of the court trying eight men and women, including two former editors
:01:31. > :01:34.of the News of the World. One pal of the Prime Minister, the other his
:01:35. > :01:41.one-time official spokesman. It is the most eager low- watched case in
:01:42. > :01:47.Britain, with potentionally very strong implication for some very
:01:48. > :01:53.powerful people. This report contains flash
:01:54. > :01:59.photograp. The News of the World is a Sunday newspaper, it wasn't War
:02:00. > :02:01.and Peace, it was not an enormous document TFSHGS the size of
:02:02. > :02:06.something that, if you were editor, you could taken a interest in what
:02:07. > :02:13.was going into it. It was with those words that Andrew Edis QC
:02:14. > :02:18.prosecuting left the jury at the end of this day 1 of this toysoric
:02:19. > :02:22.child. In a nod to the charges facing the eight defendants, he
:02:23. > :02:27.earlier told the jury although it was the phone hacking trial, it
:02:28. > :02:31.wasn't just the phone hacking trial. On conspiracy to commit misconduct
:02:32. > :02:49.in office which constitutes four of the eight counts he
:02:50. > :02:58.On conspiracy to pervert the course of justic There are two counts,
:02:59. > :03:02.which he described as: Hiding stuff so the police couldn't
:03:03. > :03:07.get it. He went into some detail, accusing
:03:08. > :03:11.Rebekah Brooks and her PA of removing notebooks from the News of
:03:12. > :03:13.the World archive. And her husband Charley and others of moving
:03:14. > :03:18.material from their various homes, in order to stop the police from
:03:19. > :03:22.finding it. It was said Andrew Edis, quite a complex little operation,
:03:23. > :03:26.discovered by accident. Something he said he thought the jury would find
:03:27. > :03:31.quite memorable. But today did focus on phone hacking, and the key point
:03:32. > :03:34.Andrew Edis put to the jury, is even though an individual may not
:03:35. > :03:38.themselves have hacked phones, they could still be guilty of a prime if
:03:39. > :03:42.they had conspired to see it done, or knew about it and did nothing to
:03:43. > :03:48.stop it. The two people he had in mind when he said that were this
:03:49. > :03:55.case's most high-profile defendants. Brooks and Andy Coulson. The
:03:56. > :03:57.question is, is the case of each of those who didn't do it themselves,
:03:58. > :04:15.were they part of the conspiracy? But today's main revelation came in
:04:16. > :04:22.the form of the guilty plays, previously entered by three former
:04:23. > :04:26.News of the World journalists. Neville Thurlbeck, and James
:04:27. > :04:32.Weatherup a have all pleaded guilty to phone hacking, has private
:04:33. > :04:39.investigator Glenn Mulcaire, in his case of the murdered teenager Milly
:04:40. > :04:43.Dowler's mobile phone messages. The prosecution said they can prove the
:04:44. > :04:49.guilt of Ian Edmondson. There were references to Jude Law, Paul
:04:50. > :04:55.McCartney, John Prescott, and even David Blunkett. In truth this was
:04:56. > :04:58.not a day of dramatic revelation, rather the prosecution laying out as
:04:59. > :05:04.carefully as it could a case which in time is sure to prove hugely
:05:05. > :05:10.detailed. It was in his final flourish that Andrew Edis was at his
:05:11. > :05:16.most succinct. He told the jury: What you have to decide is
:05:17. > :05:18.ultimately how much did the management know about what was going
:05:19. > :05:21.on at their newspaper. How much did they know about what was being
:05:22. > :05:26.published and where it came from. How much did they know about why it
:05:27. > :05:32.was right to publish a particular story, why they knew it was true. It
:05:33. > :05:36.was their responsibility as editors, under their contract, to take
:05:37. > :05:43.reasonable steps to make sure that what goes in the paper is true,
:05:44. > :05:46.otherwise they get sued. The case continues tomorrow, when we will get
:05:47. > :05:51.to hear most of the rest of the prosecution's opening statement.
:05:52. > :05:57.Their case proper which follows is reckoned by some to be quite likely
:05:58. > :06:01.to last until Christmas. They all deny the charges of course.
:06:02. > :06:04.Steve is with us with news on the future of press regulation. This was
:06:05. > :06:09.the last ditch attempt by the newspaper, the last judicial
:06:10. > :06:14.attempt? It is quite a big day. The press attempted to get an injunction
:06:15. > :06:18.to prevent the cross-party royal charter from being sealed today.
:06:19. > :06:23.That failed this morning. Or by lunchtime. Unexpectedly those judges
:06:24. > :06:28.also ruled that the press was not entitled to bring a judicial review
:06:29. > :06:31.claim about the Privy Council decision to dismiss their own
:06:32. > :06:35.proposed charter and then towards the end of the day the Privy Council
:06:36. > :06:40.sealed the cross-party charter. We are now headed for what I think
:06:41. > :06:44.might politely be described as impasse.
:06:45. > :06:48.Meaning? Meaning that the charter doesn't sipped a regulator, it only
:06:49. > :06:52.sets up a recognition body. A recognition body I dare say at some
:06:53. > :06:59.point will be established, meanwhile the press are setting up their own
:07:00. > :07:02.self-regulator, IPSO, Independent Press Standards Organisation. Which
:07:03. > :07:06.will come in January and will continue to function and steadfastly
:07:07. > :07:11.and deliberately not seek recognition from the charter
:07:12. > :07:16.recognition body. Which will produce pressure on politicians to act. The
:07:17. > :07:20.Leveson system which puts in place a backstop to prevent the press from
:07:21. > :07:24.backsliding, doesn't exist without a recognition body to which the press
:07:25. > :07:27.submit themselves. Currently they are not willing to submit
:07:28. > :07:30.themselves? No they are not. None of the national press, as far as I can
:07:31. > :07:36.see are willing to submit themselves to, that they are not firmly in with
:07:37. > :07:39.IPSO yet. My impression talking to various people is attitudes are
:07:40. > :07:44.hardening. There is a Mail editorial, and you would say they
:07:45. > :07:51.would say this, it says a judicial farce and a dark day for freedom.
:07:52. > :07:56.Foreigners to Britain were offered a fascinating insight into the called
:07:57. > :08:01.modern democracy. The judicial farce which many will be left thinking is
:08:02. > :08:04.an establishment stitch-up has deep implications for free press and
:08:05. > :08:07.democracy. You would think they would say that wouldn't you. I spoke
:08:08. > :08:11.to the editor of a reputable newspaper who said there is a huge
:08:12. > :08:16.philosophical difference. They say sign up or else, nobody will. They
:08:17. > :08:20.are clearly on what might be described as a collision course.
:08:21. > :08:31.This may take many, many months, if not years, actually to come to a
:08:32. > :08:40.head. Coming up... # This is the darkness of the dawn
:08:41. > :08:43.# And friends are gone You need more qualifications to flip burgers in
:08:44. > :08:50.Britain than you do to teach children here. With what relish, if
:08:51. > :08:54.you will forgive a bad pun, the newbie shadow Education Secretary,
:08:55. > :08:59.Tristram Hunt, denounced Government's stance on letting
:09:00. > :09:06.unqualified adults loose in the platform. The Government hit back
:09:07. > :09:10.and said he was not to be listened to. The question of who is allowed
:09:11. > :09:22.into our children's classrooms is much, much bigger.
:09:23. > :09:26.It is the drama that has everyone talking. Only this one is being
:09:27. > :09:32.played out not on your TV. But from the classroom to the Commons. The
:09:33. > :09:37.surprising truth, Mr Speaker, is under this Government you need more
:09:38. > :09:43.qualifications to get a job in a burger bar than you do to teach in
:09:44. > :09:47.an English school. If the Labour policy is enacted, that will mean
:09:48. > :09:51.there are people currently teaching in the state sector, academies and
:09:52. > :10:03.free schools, who will lose their jobs. This is Antia Zarska.
:10:04. > :10:11.Six weeks into her new job at this state-funded free school in East
:10:12. > :10:15.London, now on its half-term break. If you have a passion for a subject,
:10:16. > :10:20.if you are always constantly improving and engaging yourself not
:10:21. > :10:24.just your students in the subject, I feel the students will enter that
:10:25. > :10:31.dialogue with you and they will ocate what you are giving them as
:10:32. > :10:34.well. Last year Michael Goof relaxed the rules, letting state schools do
:10:35. > :10:39.what the private sector has done for years and take on teachers like
:10:40. > :10:45.this. Antia has a science PhD and taught in California, but no formal
:10:46. > :10:49.teaching qualification. Antia, our chemistry teacher, when we did the
:10:50. > :10:52.advert for the post we didn't just look at unqualified teachers but
:10:53. > :10:56.everybody who applied to it. There is no-one out there. But the reason
:10:57. > :11:01.we chose who we chose is because they are best-fitted to the post.
:11:02. > :11:06.That is it, there is no huge theoretical thing behind it. It is
:11:07. > :11:10.the best person for the job. For Nick Clegg this is becoming an
:11:11. > :11:15.election issue, not hiding his opposition to official Government
:11:16. > :11:21.policy. We should have qualified teachers in all of our schools. That
:11:22. > :11:25.means free schools and academies too. If you say I have a seating
:11:26. > :11:30.plan here and I will tell you where to sit, they are immediately like I
:11:31. > :11:34.won't like what she has done. A few miles away in central London, that
:11:35. > :11:38.next generation of state school teachers, here they are learning the
:11:39. > :11:43.traditional way. A year's formal training in subjects like lesson
:11:44. > :11:48.plans and classroom control. We are just trying to get vocational
:11:49. > :11:53.training and theoretical training, you wouldn't ask the same question
:11:54. > :11:57.to lawyer or doctor. I find it the opposite of sensible that you would
:11:58. > :12:03.ask the question do teachers need to learn how to think. The problem is
:12:04. > :12:07.Mr Gove has an incorrect assumption that all we do is sit around in a
:12:08. > :12:11.classroom. We are all in school placements, we are spending real
:12:12. > :12:15.time in school. I think it is much more a combination of the two.
:12:16. > :12:19.This is the kind of basic standard, the Labour Party would like to see
:12:20. > :12:27.mandatory again across all state cools. -- schools. I don't think any
:12:28. > :12:32.headteacher should take on any teachers without qualified teacher
:12:33. > :12:37.status. All children deserve well trained teachers. You will need to
:12:38. > :12:41.go and get changed, you can't be here in a T-shirt. At one of the
:12:42. > :12:46.country's top private schools. You have lost your trouser, go and
:12:47. > :12:50.borrow some, or jape us at period three, you can't be in a tracksuit.
:12:51. > :12:53.A third of the staff here, like this politics teacher, were recruited
:12:54. > :12:56.straight from university or the private sector without a teaching
:12:57. > :13:01.certificate. That's the most important thing said in this lesson
:13:02. > :13:05.so fa If someone asked you to do a formal teaching qualification for a
:13:06. > :13:09.year, would it have put you off the profession? At that point it would
:13:10. > :13:13.have done. I had funding to do my fast masters, I wanted do it, I
:13:14. > :13:20.don't think on the back of that I would have wanted to spend another
:13:21. > :13:27.year at university. I don't think. Here though fees cost ?20,000 a
:13:28. > :13:31.year. Teaching at an inner City comprehensive might need different
:13:32. > :13:34.skills and talents. It is even more important in the state sector than
:13:35. > :13:39.it is in the private sector. Because you need passionate teachers. If you
:13:40. > :13:43.have got a group of disaffected youngsters, it is even more
:13:44. > :13:46.important that the headteacher has the flexibility to appoint someone
:13:47. > :13:56.that they think is really passionate about their subject and can connect
:13:57. > :14:00.with chirp. What did Aristotle say? Of the Ices system would like money
:14:01. > :14:03.shifted from teacher training colleges to schools. So new staff
:14:04. > :14:08.can learn on the job, in the classroom. What worries me is that
:14:09. > :14:15.they are focussing on the wrong definition of "unqualified", 250% of
:14:16. > :14:21.maths -- 50% of math teachers don't have a maths degree, and 50 pest of
:14:22. > :14:25.physics teachers don't have a physics degree, they are unqualified
:14:26. > :14:29.for me. And the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have no comment to
:14:30. > :14:32.make on that. For Labour this is a dangerous experiment, for the Tories
:14:33. > :14:37.a chance to show how committed they are to reform A volatile mix we are
:14:38. > :14:44.going to hear more of as we head towards the next election.
:14:45. > :14:48.Tristram Hunt, the shadow Education Secretary is here now. Ever been
:14:49. > :14:54.taught by an alified teacher? I don't know I have been taught by
:14:55. > :14:59.wonderful teachers, Mr Ellis who caught me lateral thinking, Mrs
:15:00. > :15:02.Newton my form teacher. None at your private secondary school were
:15:03. > :15:07.unqualified as far as you know? I don't think most people ask about
:15:08. > :15:12.the qualification capacity of their teachers. This is about public
:15:13. > :15:16.policy. It hasn't held you back? It is about making sure when it comes
:15:17. > :15:20.to the expenditure of tax-payers' money in the state school system
:15:21. > :15:23.that we have a minimum baseline qualification because the evidence
:15:24. > :15:28.surround the world, Jeremy, is where you have the best qualified teachers
:15:29. > :15:32.in Finland, Singapore, elsewhere, you have the best results. That
:15:33. > :15:37.doesn't seem to be an unreasonable aspiration. You are defining
:15:38. > :15:42.qualifications very narrowly? That is why the head of Brighton College
:15:43. > :15:47.was wrong. Why do most physics teachers not have a physics degree,
:15:48. > :15:51.is that acceptable? We want subject knowledge. That is absolutely vital.
:15:52. > :15:55.What we're saying is that subject knowledge is not enough. You can be
:15:56. > :16:01.a world expert in your field, but can you hold the attention of a year
:16:02. > :16:05.7? Can you actually deliver the learning outcomes, can you allow
:16:06. > :16:12.them to achieve the best for their GCSE. Being a teacher is not seism
:16:13. > :16:16.profession. -- A simple profession. Someone who has taught for 20 years,
:16:17. > :16:21.and they don't have this piece of paper? It is more than a piece of
:16:22. > :16:25.paper. If you looked at what was said there about how children learn
:16:26. > :16:28.and structure a class. These are important so children can achieve
:16:29. > :16:32.the best. Clearly they learn something on this course, but if
:16:33. > :16:35.someone has taught for 20 years, effectively, and doesn't have this
:16:36. > :16:40.cal cautious you would stop them -- qualification, you would stop them
:16:41. > :16:46.teaching would you? I think most teachers you talk to. Would you stop
:16:47. > :16:48.them teaching? There is always room for improvement, under a Labour
:16:49. > :16:53.Government we will move to a position where those teaching in the
:16:54. > :16:58.state sector will have qualified teacher status. A very engage young
:16:59. > :17:01.woman who teaches chemistry, great, no qualification by your book? We
:17:02. > :17:05.already have a system where if you have a teaching qualification from
:17:06. > :17:10.America or Australia or abroad, you can transfer that. She doesn't have
:17:11. > :17:17.a teaching Kimballcation? Under -- qualification. Under Labour we would
:17:18. > :17:23.move to qualified status. She has the subject knowledge but she needs
:17:24. > :17:27.to learn about managing classes. Have you got a teaching
:17:28. > :17:30.qualification? I couldn't teach GCSEs. You have taught at
:17:31. > :17:35.universities without a teaching qualification, is that correct? I
:17:36. > :17:38.have a PhD. Not a teaching qualification? Teaching in classes
:17:39. > :17:41.is a different matter, injure me. We are dealing with a child's
:17:42. > :17:45.development. These are complex areas. What we are saying in the
:17:46. > :17:49.Labour Government is we want the best teachers in English schools in
:17:50. > :17:53.the world. Let me return to the issue, the countries who do best,
:17:54. > :17:56.Finland, Singapore, they are not having an argument about
:17:57. > :17:59.deregulation and deskilling the teaching profession. They are having
:18:00. > :18:03.the most skilled teachers they can find. Why is this controversial.
:18:04. > :18:11.Thank you for reminding us of that. Tell us how many people in Barker
:18:12. > :18:15.Pond have teaching qualification and fail the course and don't make it?
:18:16. > :18:20.No I don't. The fact you don't know, it is something you oath ought to
:18:21. > :18:23.know. Secondly, since most people who started get the qualification,
:18:24. > :18:28.perhaps it suggests it is not as difficult to achieve as you may
:18:29. > :18:33.think? First of all you were saying it is a silly piece of paper. I
:18:34. > :18:38.didn't say silly. Where do we want to be as a nation. We have recently
:18:39. > :18:41.had some OECD figures about our levels on literacy and numeracy
:18:42. > :18:44.which shows we are in danger of slipping behind from where we need
:18:45. > :18:49.to be. How do you achieve results. You have the best possible teacher
:18:50. > :18:53.cohort possible. Would you send a child of yours to a school where
:18:54. > :18:57.there were unqualified teachers? This isn't about my children. It is
:18:58. > :19:02.about all of our children? This is about reducing risk. Would you or
:19:03. > :19:07.not? My children are educated and I'm proud they are educated in the
:19:08. > :19:12.state system, where there are qualified teachers. And there may be
:19:13. > :19:16.unqualified teachers at the schools they go to, and you don't care about
:19:17. > :19:21.that? This is why we have the policy for crying out loud. We want all
:19:22. > :19:24.teachers in the state education sector to have qualified teacher
:19:25. > :19:27.status, so they can run the classrooms to the best of their
:19:28. > :19:30.ability. Let me ask you the question again, I have obviously not been
:19:31. > :19:36.clear. Would you ever send your children to a school which employed
:19:37. > :19:44.unqualified teachers? I would send my children to schools with
:19:45. > :19:48.qualified teachers because the schools my kids go to are those with
:19:49. > :19:51.qualified teachers. Why are we having an argument about
:19:52. > :19:54.deregulating a profession when we know the best results are achieved
:19:55. > :20:00.from the most professional elements of it. Let me ask you the question
:20:01. > :20:04.again, yes or no, would you send your children to a school which
:20:05. > :20:08.employed unqualified teacherers? I will send my -- teachers. I will
:20:09. > :20:12.tend my children, and they go to school already and their teachers
:20:13. > :20:16.are brilliantly qualified. They have a long lifetime ahead of them? I
:20:17. > :20:20.want my children, as every parent warrants their children, to be
:20:21. > :20:25.taught by the best qualified, the most motivated teachers possible.
:20:26. > :20:28.And it is the case... I note you haven't answered the question to
:20:29. > :20:33.which you could have given a yes or no. In the Labour Party we want
:20:34. > :20:38.qualified teachers in the classroom. Most people watching the programme
:20:39. > :20:42.will want qualified teachers. You can't answer about sending your own
:20:43. > :20:46.children to a school with unqualified National Union of
:20:47. > :20:50.Teachersers? My kids, I will give you the answer, go to their local
:20:51. > :20:53.school and they will always... Would you consider ever sending your
:20:54. > :20:59.children, I said I wouldn't ask it one more time I have do. Sending
:21:00. > :21:01.your children to a school that employs unqualified teachers? I
:21:02. > :21:05.would always want to send my children to the schools where the
:21:06. > :21:09.teachers are as qualified as possible. You haven't answered, it
:21:10. > :21:13.is yes or no? That is every parent watching the programme tonight wants
:21:14. > :21:16.their children to be taught by teachers who are qualified. To have
:21:17. > :21:23.the wonder of learning. You want them to be talked by good teachers,
:21:24. > :21:30.which may not be the same thing? Our case is if you don't have this
:21:31. > :21:34.structure you end up with the unqualified teachers we saw at the
:21:35. > :21:38.school in Derby. If the state won't protect those children what will the
:21:39. > :21:42.Secretary of State be doing. Are you worried about standards in the
:21:43. > :21:50.independent sector? I'm more wore cleat about achieving results in
:21:51. > :21:54.Wolverhampton and Stoke-on-Trent. The independent sector employs lots
:21:55. > :21:59.of unqualified teachers, but you are not worried about them. As a
:22:00. > :22:01.Secretary of State for the Labour Government I'm concerned about
:22:02. > :22:05.taxpayer money being spent correctly. With the free school in
:22:06. > :22:10.Bradford we are seeing the misallocation of funds and
:22:11. > :22:13.unqualified teachers. We want great standards in great state schools.
:22:14. > :22:17.Thank you very much, thank you. Now the highest court in Britain
:22:18. > :22:22.decided today that a hospital had been right to withhold treatment
:22:23. > :22:26.from a very sick man, despite the wishes of his family. This important
:22:27. > :22:31.judgment in the complicated area which many of us may visit, where
:22:32. > :22:35.ethic, humanity and institutions and families collide is expected to cast
:22:36. > :22:40.a long shadow. The dying man's family had wanted doctors to
:22:41. > :22:43.continue treatment. The Supreme Court decided they were within their
:22:44. > :22:47.rights to press for that. Lower courts had been entitled to rule in
:22:48. > :22:51.favour of the hospital too. Mr James, a grandfather and
:22:52. > :22:55.professional musician was admitted to impotencive care after
:22:56. > :23:00.contracting an infection in hospital. His condition deteriorated
:23:01. > :23:05.leaving him unable to speak or breathe unaided. The hospital asked
:23:06. > :23:09.the High Court for permission to withhold some treatments if his
:23:10. > :23:13.condition got any worse. The court refused, forcing them to continue
:23:14. > :23:17.treatment. The hospital then appealed, and as Mr James became
:23:18. > :23:24.increasingly ill they won the right to withhold treatment. Just ten days
:23:25. > :23:28.after that verdict Mr James died. Despite his death his family brought
:23:29. > :23:32.the case to the Supreme Court, hoping to have the verdict
:23:33. > :23:37.overruled. This afternoon, in a complex ruling, the Supreme Court
:23:38. > :23:41.decided that on the evidence available, both of the decisions of
:23:42. > :23:48.the lower courts were correct. We are joined now from our studio in
:23:49. > :23:54.Liverpool by David's widow, May James.
:23:55. > :24:01.Even after your husband showed no prospect of recovery, you continued
:24:02. > :24:09.this legal fight, why? Because he still was showing life, a life
:24:10. > :24:19.worthwhile living. You continued the legal fight after he died? Yes to
:24:20. > :24:28.the Supreme Court. In the Appeal Court there was a precedent set that
:24:29. > :24:33.doctors if they felt that treatment was futile, invasive treatment was
:24:34. > :24:41.futile, well they didn't really have to give it to the patient. Now that
:24:42. > :24:48.meant any hospital in the country which you know, I carried this on
:24:49. > :24:53.because I wanted to help other people with family, loved ones, that
:24:54. > :24:59.may end up in a position like my husband ended up. It was whore
:25:00. > :25:05.rendous, I just would not like anybody to go through what I went
:25:06. > :25:11.through. I went through it for the love of my husband. When he died I
:25:12. > :25:19.felt no, well it has to go on to help other people. That's why. It
:25:20. > :25:26.must take a real depth of conviction to reject doctors' advice doesn't
:25:27. > :25:33.it? When the doctors started saying about withdrawing treatment it was
:25:34. > :25:40.quite a few months down the line. It was round about July last year that
:25:41. > :25:45.they first said to me they said if he should have a cardiac arrest they
:25:46. > :25:49.didn't want to resusitate, would I agree. They said to me we don't
:25:50. > :25:55.expect him to have a cardiac arrest. So I said if you don't expect why
:25:56. > :26:00.are you asking me this? Just in case he does? So I said no well I can't
:26:01. > :26:05.agree with that. Because you can't tell me what is wrong with my
:26:06. > :26:11.husband. You can't diagnose what is wrong with my husband. Tell me that
:26:12. > :26:17.he has cancer? Tell me that he has TB and I then may go along with your
:26:18. > :26:24.wishes. But until you can diagnose what is wrong with him you should
:26:25. > :26:28.not be asking me this. What do you make of the Supreme Court judgment
:26:29. > :26:32.today which seems extremely complicated and seems to come down
:26:33. > :26:41.on both sides, both the hospital and you were right? Yes, yes. What they
:26:42. > :26:46.said was at the particular time. When we were at the court of
:26:47. > :26:52.rotection, judge Jackson would not grant the hospital what they wanted.
:26:53. > :26:59.But then by the time it got into the Appeal Court Dave had deteriorated
:27:00. > :27:05.again. At that particular time the Supreme Court said today that it was
:27:06. > :27:14.right, they felt that the Appeal Court was right in passing for the
:27:15. > :27:22.hospital. For the hospital not to give the treatment. But then well
:27:23. > :27:28.they didn't give the treatment and he died. What do you feel ought to
:27:29. > :27:34.be the guiding principle in cases like this? Like what was passed
:27:35. > :27:40.today. I mean what happened at the Appeal Court, because they granted,
:27:41. > :27:47.there was the, there was a precedent set, which went against what judge
:27:48. > :27:52.Jackson said, so therefore the law had changed. What I wanted was the
:27:53. > :28:00.law changing back. What has happened today is the hospital were told that
:28:01. > :28:15.they did the right thing. The Appeal Court was right at that particular
:28:16. > :28:23.time. I was told that the appeal judges erred, they did not follow
:28:24. > :28:30.the mental capacity rules right. That what was passed on that day, at
:28:31. > :28:34.t Appeal Court was not to carry on. They have more or less gone back to
:28:35. > :28:46.what it was. The laws were changed back, I wanted it t Doctors now have
:28:47. > :28:50.got to take a different approach towards patience and stop and think
:28:51. > :28:57.a bit more about the mental capacity act. Thank you very much for joining
:28:58. > :29:01.us. You feel unwell, you go to the doctor, she prescribes you a
:29:02. > :29:06.medicine. How do you know it works? You take her judgment. How does she
:29:07. > :29:09.know it works? She takes the judgment of the regulator and the
:29:10. > :29:13.regulator examples the evidence of the people who make the drugs who
:29:14. > :29:18.stand to make a lot of money if the drug is deemed safe and effective.
:29:19. > :29:29.If what if the struck company hadn't isclosed all its evidence, only that
:29:30. > :29:32.which was commercially useful. There is nothing new about clinical
:29:33. > :29:37.trials, in medicine we use the simple but vital experiments to find
:29:38. > :29:44.out which treatment works best. A few hundred patients are recruited,
:29:45. > :29:48.half get one treatment and the other half the other, and we measure how
:29:49. > :29:52.they are doing. There is a problem, I'm standing in the laboratories of
:29:53. > :29:54.the Royal Institution, an organisation that stands for the
:29:55. > :30:00.fusion of knowledge, that is the issue. We know after trials are
:30:01. > :30:04.conducted and completed the results are routinely being withheld from
:30:05. > :30:12.doctors, researchers and patients. The very people who need the vital
:30:13. > :30:18.information to Inform decisions made about them. Paper in the British
:30:19. > :30:49.Medical Journal follows up one of the largest information
:30:50. > :30:57.Many an industry have claimed this is all in the past, is this true?
:30:58. > :31:01.No, I feel the biased underreporting of clinical trials hasn't been fixed
:31:02. > :31:06.yet. I have been concerned about it for 25 years now. I first met a
:31:07. > :31:11.delegation from the association of the British pharmaceutical industry
:31:12. > :31:16.about 20 years ago, there were some very encouraging progressions soon
:31:17. > :31:20.after that, it all went pear-shaped a few years after that. We are back
:31:21. > :31:24.to a situation now where we have promises as we had in the 1990,
:31:25. > :31:29.which haven't been followed through. This delay carries a real human
:31:30. > :31:32.cost, because while industry, researchers and regulators have
:31:33. > :31:37.failed to fix this problem over the past few decades, information is
:31:38. > :31:42.going missing every year. It is common to be told today that trial
:31:43. > :31:46.results from even ten years ago are impossible to find. From dry
:31:47. > :31:53.document storage archives like these. It is not just about doctors
:31:54. > :31:57.being misled. I'm also really concerned about patients who take
:31:58. > :32:01.part in clinical trials. They are volunteering to take part in medical
:32:02. > :32:06.research, on the assumption of further knowledge. Those trials have
:32:07. > :32:10.been suppressed in effect those patients' trust has been abused.
:32:11. > :32:16.While many an industry and research are dragging their feet, some at
:32:17. > :32:19.least are beginning to take action. We can't change things across the
:32:20. > :32:23.board but we think it is the right thing to do with the company. We
:32:24. > :32:27.recognise the issue around transparency. We beef it is right to
:32:28. > :32:33.make this data available. It recognises what is needed in
:32:34. > :32:37.science. It also recognises the great contib Bruges for clinical
:32:38. > :32:41.trials -- contributions for clinical trials. We like to think this is a
:32:42. > :32:45.highly scientific affair with laboratories and test-tubes, that is
:32:46. > :32:49.true when it comes to making a real molecule. The real proof of which
:32:50. > :32:55.treatment works best comes from trials in the real world on real
:32:56. > :32:59.patients like you and me. When a water to half of all the clinical
:33:00. > :33:03.trials are withheld from doctors, researchers and patients. People
:33:04. > :33:14.like me are practising medicine with one arm tied behind our backs.
:33:15. > :33:17.My guest is with me, set up the old trials campaign. And the chief
:33:18. > :33:22.executive of the British pharmaceutical industry.
:33:23. > :33:28.-- the Association for The British pharmaceutical industry.
:33:29. > :33:32.Maybe some of our viewers are being prescribed drugs, and the testing
:33:33. > :33:37.results of those drugs haven't been published? It is possible but
:33:38. > :33:43.unlikely. The regulator sees all the data. The regulator will look at
:33:44. > :33:46.quality, safety and efficacy. It is not acceptable that it is possible
:33:47. > :33:51.that there are people taking drugs, the results of which we may not all
:33:52. > :33:56.know? The regulator will know that information. The debate is focussing
:33:57. > :33:59.on how to make that information more broadly available. That is what the
:34:00. > :34:04.campaign that Ben has been running has been about. You are happy that
:34:05. > :34:13.the regulator has the capacity to example all the say veilable data?
:34:14. > :34:19.They axe -- the available data? They take the available data and look at
:34:20. > :34:25.it. I think it is false reassurance, if we look at medicines spotted over
:34:26. > :34:32.the course of the years. Problems with Viox, and the diabetes drug,
:34:33. > :34:38.and Tamiflu. Th weren't spotted by regulator, not because they are
:34:39. > :34:43.stupid and poorly motivated. They are highly trained and educated.
:34:44. > :34:47.Like all problems in science we need to make as many people as possible
:34:48. > :34:50.looks at the evidence. We have to let them all see all of the
:34:51. > :34:54.evidence. Regulators have a low bar, they decide if a drug works or
:34:55. > :35:00.doesn't. Doctors and researchers have to make a decision about which
:35:01. > :35:07.is the best treatments. So the argument is don't just rely on the
:35:08. > :35:15.regulator but make it available to the scientific community for
:35:16. > :35:19.assessment ctive. What is wrong with making everything available to
:35:20. > :35:24.everybody? Absolutely nothing wrong. We support greater clarify. Why not
:35:25. > :35:28.doing it? Since 2005 the industry made a global commitment to release
:35:29. > :35:34.data. In the UK the governing body for the industry in the UK, amended
:35:35. > :35:41.its Code of Practise, backed by law and the MRRA, to release all details
:35:42. > :35:43.on criminal trials. The nature of the data will be disclosed and we
:35:44. > :35:47.will work with people to make sure it is what we need. It STICHLly
:35:48. > :35:52.isn't happening, we have been hearing these promises for 20 years.
:35:53. > :35:55.It is extraordinarily dangerous to allow a situation to persist where
:35:56. > :36:00.doctors, patience and researchers are mislead about the risks and
:36:01. > :36:06.benefits of treatments. We have set up a campaign supported by the great
:36:07. > :36:10.and good of medicine. GSK, one of the biggest drug companies in the
:36:11. > :36:17.world -- companies in the world have signed up. And companies have said
:36:18. > :36:21.we will not engage with campaigns like the old trials campaigns. We
:36:22. > :36:27.have 200 patient groups representing 30 million patients, you say won't
:36:28. > :36:32.even engage with our concerns. That is not completely true, we have
:36:33. > :36:37.engaged and will continue to do so. Our medical and research departments
:36:38. > :36:42.have meetings scheduled to discuss this very issue. We will and do
:36:43. > :36:46.engage. We are committed to greater transparency. We support a lot of
:36:47. > :36:50.the objectives that you are working on. Since 2005 we have had the
:36:51. > :36:54.global commitment. We have research coming out next week that has been
:36:55. > :37:01.peer reviewed and published that will show 90% of data is now
:37:02. > :37:07.publicly available the year after license. That is the second time you
:37:08. > :37:13.have used the terms "after license". There must be drugs that aren't
:37:14. > :37:18.licensed? We have scientists, patients, the healthcare system and
:37:19. > :37:23.advocates and people like beep have a legitimate claim to say if a trial
:37:24. > :37:30.doesn't produce a result or license that information is just as valid.
:37:31. > :37:34.It is. There is commercial self-interest, western drug
:37:35. > :37:41.companies have done a pretty good job in tackling many very serious
:37:42. > :37:46.human conditions. I'm no crazed campaigner, I have stood up to for
:37:47. > :37:53.medicine for many years. We can't say it is OK for drug companies to
:37:54. > :37:57.make money while withholding the benefits of anything else. There is
:37:58. > :38:00.no legislation to prevent them from do. That the pharmaceutical industry
:38:01. > :38:04.have been campaigning hard against us. In Europe the new legislation
:38:05. > :38:09.around clinical trials in Europe is being blocked by industry lobbyists
:38:10. > :38:14.who are trying to stop a clause being put in and results posted
:38:15. > :38:20.within a year. Clinical study notes were made available by the European
:38:21. > :38:27.group. They have some. That has stopped because two drug companies,
:38:28. > :38:35.have been able to get an interim ruling from the central court of the
:38:36. > :38:40.European Union, they have done that with the full support of the
:38:41. > :38:43.European pharmaceutical's association and members of API.
:38:44. > :38:47.These companies operated individually and will operate that
:38:48. > :38:50.way to protect interests. You were opposed to that? We need to look at
:38:51. > :38:54.what happened with the two companies. It was about commercial
:38:55. > :38:57.requests for information, not scientific quests for information. A
:38:58. > :39:05.lot of the information that comes into the regulator is competitive.
:39:06. > :39:11.We have been prevented from getting access to information. We are
:39:12. > :39:15.committed to greater transparency. Same thing for 20 years. Just before
:39:16. > :39:20.we got on air the electronic musician and singer songwriter,
:39:21. > :39:26.James Blake, was announced the winner of the Mercury Music Prize.
:39:27. > :39:33.Stef Smith has not seen a bow business party where he couldn't
:39:34. > :39:37.refuse a drink. Congratulations, you have seen off David Bowie and the
:39:38. > :39:47.Artic Monkeys, how does that feel? It is not the words I would use.
:39:48. > :39:53.Bested? Within pleased to share the stage with. Not Bowie, he was on
:39:54. > :40:01.stage in a video. He was there in spirit. Sadly not all of our
:40:02. > :40:12.Newsnight viewers will have downloaded Overgrown yet. What can
:40:13. > :40:16.they expect? Don't let this bauble sway you. Just I hope that it takes
:40:17. > :40:21.you to a place that is positive for you. I don't know? What is your
:40:22. > :40:29.record like, is it a howl of pain about England and the planet today
:40:30. > :40:35.or is it more ambient chillax, give us a flavour? That is progressive
:40:36. > :40:41.for Newsnight "chillax. That is very progressive,ing? Anything beyond
:40:42. > :40:49.skiffle is. What sort of things can we expect here? It is a singular
:40:50. > :40:53.thought that runs through the album. I think I'm a common denominator
:40:54. > :40:57.there, all the way through, it is my voice and my productions and I, for
:40:58. > :41:05.the most part did it all myself. There is a couple of featured
:41:06. > :41:08.things. I did it all in my room. How important is this for you. We keep
:41:09. > :41:17.hearing that the music industry is in trouble. This is your second
:41:18. > :41:21.album. Tell us about that? I don't think the music industry is in
:41:22. > :41:26.trouble. People have found a new way to consume music, it is still my
:41:27. > :41:34.responsibility to make good music. Regardless of how you consume T OK,
:41:35. > :41:40.will you consider coming on and playing some of it for us, maybe one
:41:41. > :41:49.of the catchier numbers? numbers? Ly very experimental for your
:41:50. > :41:52.chillaxing audience. We will clear 20 minutes. Thank you very much.
:41:53. > :41:56.That's the way to deal with Steve Smith, a man from North Devon is
:41:57. > :42:00.waiting to hear officially whether he has just surfed the world's
:42:01. > :42:05.biggest wave. It wasn't by chance, it wouldn't be if you wanted to live
:42:06. > :42:11.to tell the tale. Andrew Cotton was in Portugal with various other
:42:12. > :42:16.surfers waiting to see if the storm that hit Europe this week would blow
:42:17. > :42:20.him any good. Waves that were 80 feet high that would drive the rest
:42:21. > :42:27.of us out of the water drew them. He's in Lisbon now. What was it like
:42:28. > :42:32.riding an enormous wave like that? Well it was one of those sort of, I
:42:33. > :42:39.have been or training for this day you know since I can remember well
:42:40. > :42:45.really. It was a long, long bumpy drop, going really fast. But at the
:42:46. > :42:49.same time everything was sort of in slow motion really. Just
:42:50. > :42:57.concentrating of where I wanted to be on the wave. Obviously not
:42:58. > :43:03.falling off! And sort of completing the ride. How fast are you going
:43:04. > :43:12.when you are riding a wave like that? That is a good question. I
:43:13. > :43:16.don't actually know. For me that was the fastest I have been on a surf
:43:17. > :43:19.board. We use really short really heavy surf board, which isn't like
:43:20. > :43:27.the standard surf board that you would ride at home in Devon. But you
:43:28. > :43:31.know, at a guess 20 miles an hour, but that is throwing numbers out
:43:32. > :43:39.there really. Are you scared when you are riding a wave like that?
:43:40. > :43:45.Obviously yeah, fear definitely comes into. But the second, you have
:43:46. > :43:53.to put the fear Include File Not Found -- you have to put the fear in
:43:54. > :43:58.its place. You can't be scared, you have to be focussed on the job in
:43:59. > :44:02.hand. So I am scared, but not when I'm actually surfing, it is a before
:44:03. > :44:07.and after thing. And when I'm actually surfing I put the fear in
:44:08. > :44:22.its place. On one of your rides you fell off. Yeah. I had a fall. That
:44:23. > :44:27.is nothing new, you knew what was going to happen. I'm lucky to work
:44:28. > :44:30.with experienced water guys and we have a really good safety team in
:44:31. > :44:37.practice. It is not like we just go and surf at a local beach. It is a
:44:38. > :44:42.big team that surround us doing these sort of surfing of these
:44:43. > :44:47.waves. If you come off in a wave like that, it must be like falling
:44:48. > :44:55.into an enormous washing machine or something, do you know which way up
:44:56. > :45:00.you are. You could be down for ages couldn't you? Yeah, yeah, there is a
:45:01. > :45:06.massive impact. You get shaken and yeah, I suppose you don't know which
:45:07. > :45:11.way is up or down. On this particular wave I got taken really
:45:12. > :45:15.deep, my eardrums burst a little bit. It is years and years of
:45:16. > :45:20.training and sort of commitment to what I do. It is not like it is the
:45:21. > :45:24.first big wave I have ever surfed. I know how to deal with those
:45:25. > :45:31.situations you relax and go with the flow. And you come up. You are a
:45:32. > :45:40.plumber by trade aren't you? Yeah I am. What will it be like to
:45:41. > :45:50.returning to unblocking drains? I can't wait! Thank yous very much and
:45:51. > :45:55.many congratulations, cheers. That is that. If you have ever suffered
:45:56. > :45:59.one of those dreams in which you walk into a crowded office and
:46:00. > :46:04.discover your naked, what you are about to see may strike a chored, it
:46:05. > :46:14.is not new but bears watching again. The moment when the brilliant
:46:15. > :46:25.pianist sat down to play a Mozart piano concerto the orchestra was
:46:26. > :46:32.starting up on something completely different.
:46:33. > :46:35.She made a startling recovery. You do it so well. Make sure you do
:46:36. > :46:52.it.