:00:18. > :00:23.she's the victim of a politically motivate the smear campaign. It is
:00:24. > :00:32.not the case that my work, when I was at NCCL was influenced or
:00:33. > :00:38.colluding or apologising for paedophilia, it is an unfair
:00:39. > :00:43.inference and a smear. And this: A year I was diagnosed with diabetes,
:00:44. > :00:48.linked to poor diet and being overweight. He's the head of the
:00:49. > :00:52.NHS, what hope is there for the rest of us. David Nicolson is here to
:00:53. > :00:55.talk to us about whether the service can cope with an explosion of
:00:56. > :01:00.long-term conditions. What is wrong with a butcher advertising where
:01:01. > :01:09.meat comes from? This foot critic quite likes it. -- this food critic
:01:10. > :01:17.quite likes it. The accusations are explosive that
:01:18. > :01:20.in the 1970s and 1980s senior Labour Party figures were involved with an
:01:21. > :01:25.organisation that supported paedophilia. The Daily Mail's
:01:26. > :01:28.campaign has been noisy and aggressive, and until tonight
:01:29. > :01:32.unanswered. The question is, how could the deputy leader of the
:01:33. > :01:37.Labour Party, her husband and another senior Labour Party official
:01:38. > :01:40.have any dealings with an organisation involved in the sexual
:01:41. > :01:44.exploitation of children. How did the pressure OK group they worked
:01:45. > :01:52.with at the time ally with a campaign to reduce the age of
:01:53. > :01:56.consent to ten. Over recent days the Daily Mail has splashed its front
:01:57. > :02:00.pages with allegations about the Labour Deputy Leader, her husband,
:02:01. > :02:06.and the former Labour Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt. All
:02:07. > :02:12.three worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties in the
:02:13. > :02:18.1970s and 1980s. The human council now known as Liberty, was closely
:02:19. > :02:24.linked to the peeped yale Information Exchange -- paedophiles
:02:25. > :02:33.Information Exchange. It is argued it tried to lower the age of consent
:02:34. > :02:40.to ten. Mrs Harman was a leader there in 1978. Her name appears on
:02:41. > :02:47.papers to the Home Office, that pictures of naked children should
:02:48. > :02:52.not be disproved only if it was proved that the children had been
:02:53. > :03:00.harmed. Harriet Harman is a person of huge dignity and integrity, I
:03:01. > :03:04.have known her for 20 years, I don't listen to these allegations, I know
:03:05. > :03:07.she is on the right side of all these issues, that is clear. After
:03:08. > :03:15.days of demands from the Daily Mail and other newspapers for Hewitt,
:03:16. > :03:20.Dromy and Harman to provide answers, the Labour Deputy Leader has decided
:03:21. > :03:22.to break her silence. We spoke exclusively to Harriet Harman
:03:23. > :03:26.earlier this evening. Harriet Harman, are you speaking out now
:03:27. > :03:30.because the Daily Mail has made it impossible for you to keep quiet?
:03:31. > :03:34.Yes, that is the case. I mean they have made these allegations before
:03:35. > :03:39.and they are so outlandish and so far from the truth that in the past
:03:40. > :03:45.I have thought, don't dignify them with a response. People won't
:03:46. > :03:49.believe them, they will just go away. I thought the same this time.
:03:50. > :03:54.They have put it on their front page three times, they are whipping up
:03:55. > :03:58.such an ugly insinuation that I felt it was really important to respond
:03:59. > :04:02.to them. But you were the legal officer for several years at the
:04:03. > :04:07.national Aum for civil liberties, which was affiliated to the
:04:08. > :04:10.Paedophile Information Exchange, were you aware of the affiliation?
:04:11. > :04:18.It was an organisation that had something like 6,000 members and
:04:19. > :04:24.1,000 affiliates, and anybody could join by paying a fee. When I was
:04:25. > :04:27.there as legal officer there was nothing, far from it, that I put
:04:28. > :04:32.forward that supported sexual abuse of children. But why was it
:04:33. > :04:36.acceptable, even to have an affiliation, they didn't try to hide
:04:37. > :04:40.what they were, the heightle of the group was The Paedophile Information
:04:41. > :04:45.Exchange, why was it OK for them to have any link with the group you
:04:46. > :04:48.worked with? NCCL was an organisation where any organisation
:04:49. > :04:54.could pay their affiliation and join it. And that's the way it was. It
:04:55. > :04:59.didn't have an expulsions policy. Any individual who wanted to pay
:05:00. > :05:04.their money to join NCCL could, and any organisation could join and
:05:05. > :05:10.affiliate to it. And affiliation is an official link, and when you were
:05:11. > :05:13.the legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties, did you
:05:14. > :05:16.do anything to suggest that link should be broken, did you do
:05:17. > :05:20.anything to try to push them away from your organisation? They had
:05:21. > :05:27.already been pushed away. They will still members until 1983? They had
:05:28. > :05:32.been pushed away in 1976, the policy was set by the broad membership of
:05:33. > :05:35.NCCL at their annual general meetings. In terms of that
:05:36. > :05:40.affiliation, did you have anxiety about that at the time? Well the
:05:41. > :05:44.anxiety and controversy had happened before I was there. But did you not
:05:45. > :05:47.have anxiety about the continuing affiliation while you were there,
:05:48. > :05:50.you were there for four years, you were there with one of your close
:05:51. > :05:56.friends and husband. Did you none of you discuss anxieties about having
:05:57. > :06:00.them as a group linked, however distantly to the work that you were
:06:01. > :06:04.trying to do? But they were not linked to the work that we were
:06:05. > :06:07.doing. You see at the time when you were the legal officer there, you
:06:08. > :06:12.wrote in a briefing paper to MPs, and we have it here, prosecutions in
:06:13. > :06:15.relation to child protection and photography should only proceed if
:06:16. > :06:19.you can prove that children were actually harmed, now making that
:06:20. > :06:26.argument while the National Council was linked to the Paedophile
:06:27. > :06:31.Information Exchange, can you see why people might raise an eyebrow
:06:32. > :06:35.about that argument being made while there was an official link to an
:06:36. > :06:39.overt group of paedophiles. If you look at the briefing paper it
:06:40. > :06:44.welcomes the Protection of Children Bill, which for the first time would
:06:45. > :06:48.introduce a criminal law that said photography of children which would
:06:49. > :06:53.be used for pornography, which was sexually Ayew Bewsive of -- sexually
:06:54. > :06:56.abusive of children was for the first time be a criminal offence. We
:06:57. > :07:00.also argued that we wanted it to have clear definitions. Was the
:07:01. > :07:04.affiliation between the two groups a mistake? There wasn't an affiliation
:07:05. > :07:08.between the two groups. You are making it sound like there was a
:07:09. > :07:13.mutuality. There wasn't. Technically there was an affiliation, they paid
:07:14. > :07:17.their membership to the NCCL, they were part of the wider group, was
:07:18. > :07:22.that a mistake? They paid their money to NCCL and at the time, NCCL
:07:23. > :07:26.takes money from any organisation which was a lawful organisation and
:07:27. > :07:31.any individual. Was it a mistake to have that affiliation? I think what
:07:32. > :07:37.was right was to actually dispel them from the conference and make
:07:38. > :07:42.sure that their views were never taken forward by NCCL, that is what
:07:43. > :07:49.the big clash was. It is a very simple question, yes or no, was it a
:07:50. > :07:53.mistake to allow an overt group, publicly campaigning for paedophiles
:07:54. > :07:59.to be affiliated, which is the term they used, to the National Council
:08:00. > :08:04.for Civil Liberties, when you were legal officer? On the basis that it
:08:05. > :08:10.has created some how a sense that NCCL's work was therefore tainted by
:08:11. > :08:15.them, yes, obviously, that is a very unfortunate inference to have. But
:08:16. > :08:27.it is not the case that my work when I was at NCCL was influenced by PI,
:08:28. > :08:32.or was colluding or involved in paedophilia and it is a smear. Why
:08:33. > :08:35.won't you say whether or not it was a mistake, to have affiliation, you
:08:36. > :08:38.could have sent back the membership fees or thrown them out? It was not
:08:39. > :08:43.the sort of organisation which actually people applied to. And were
:08:44. > :08:50.then vetted, you know, are you able to give your donation? More than
:08:51. > :08:53.1,000 organisations, you know had all sorts of different things. This
:08:54. > :08:57.was a group you were well aware with, why won't you with the benefit
:08:58. > :09:03.of decades of hindsight just say yes it was a mistake for there to be any
:09:04. > :09:08.affiliation? They were challenged and pushed aside from their views
:09:09. > :09:14.having influence. Your implication is that some how by giving money
:09:15. > :09:19.NCCL was influenced, it wasn't. I don't know what they gave, ?10 a
:09:20. > :09:25.year, I don't know. But the policy was set by NCCL Annual General
:09:26. > :09:29.Meeting. You were happy your employer for four years took
:09:30. > :09:32.membership money from a group that was overtly campaigning for the
:09:33. > :09:36.rights of paedophiles, that wasn't a mistake, that is what you were
:09:37. > :09:42.saying? I was content with the fact in the knowledge that nothing that I
:09:43. > :09:46.did supported paedophilia in any way, shape or form. But you are
:09:47. > :09:50.happy for the National Council of civil liberties to have taken money
:09:51. > :09:54.from a paedophile group. I wasn't happy that the group existed. They
:09:55. > :10:00.shouldn't have existed. They were obviously you know a front for very
:10:01. > :10:04.bad people who I think many of them were then prosecuted. Is this the
:10:05. > :10:07.beginning of another big battle between the Labour Party and the
:10:08. > :10:13.Daily Mail, your party leader already has had a huge battle with
:10:14. > :10:18.them? This is not battle I'm seeking, this is the Daily Mail
:10:19. > :10:23.aggressively trying to completely reshape the facts of a situation 30
:10:24. > :10:27.years ago. It is ironic that they are accusing me of supporting
:10:28. > :10:33.indecency in relation to children, when they themselves are not above
:10:34. > :10:41.producing photographs of very young girls, titivating photographs in
:10:42. > :10:45.bikinis, I stand by what I was doing at NCCL, and I stand by what I have
:10:46. > :10:48.done all the way through. Are you accusing the Daily Mail of printing
:10:49. > :10:53.indecent images, it sounds very much like you are making that accusation?
:10:54. > :10:57.If there is anybody who has over the years supported indecency, it is
:10:58. > :11:03.much more the Daily Mail than it is me. That is the frank truth of it.
:11:04. > :11:07.Laura joins us now, has this explanation made things better or
:11:08. > :11:11.worse? Well, I think it is certainly not made the problem go away, not
:11:12. > :11:15.least because as you heard time and again we asked Harriet Harman
:11:16. > :11:19.whether it was a mistake to have this affiliation, however close or
:11:20. > :11:22.distant with the Paedophile Information Exchange, she refused to
:11:23. > :11:24.say it. Those people who have been following this story closely, not
:11:25. > :11:29.least the Daily Mail, frankly, will be really wound up by that. At the
:11:30. > :11:33.end of the interslew she hit back -- interview, she hit back at the
:11:34. > :11:36.newspaper accusing them of printing the things that they themselves
:11:37. > :11:44.might consider indecent. That will be frankly like a red rag to a bull.
:11:45. > :11:51.You have the front page? Still the Daily Mail have "still they won't
:11:52. > :11:55.say sorry". Given the vociferousness of the campaigned why the it might
:11:56. > :11:59.be wrapped up is not likely. What sort of state was she in? She had
:12:00. > :12:02.clearly thought about how she was going to present her case. You see
:12:03. > :12:06.they have gone back over the evidence, the document, some of them
:12:07. > :12:09.the Mail has published. She's clearly very familiar with them, but
:12:10. > :12:15.the Daily Mail has told us tonight as far as they are concerned today's
:12:16. > :12:20.statements from Miss Harman they have described it have been full of
:12:21. > :12:24.peasantry and obfuscation, they say it is the paper's job to ask
:12:25. > :12:27.controversial questions. There is a sense of exasperation, some of the
:12:28. > :12:32.allegations have been made before. Miss Harman has never spoken out
:12:33. > :12:37.publicly like this, in a sense she's at the end of her tether. I don't
:12:38. > :12:40.think this is the end of the row. The new Government in Ukraine is,
:12:41. > :12:47.according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, nothing more than an armed
:12:48. > :12:50.mutiny, hell hath no fury than a superpower scorned, and Moscow is
:12:51. > :12:54.warning of the dangers it sees to the many ethnic Russians living in
:12:55. > :12:59.the Ukraine. It is the sort of language used to justify military
:13:00. > :13:04.intervention in other parts of the Soviet Union. Russia was using words
:13:05. > :13:07.like "terrorist" and "dictator" to describe the new Government in
:13:08. > :13:12.Ukraine. Our reporter Gabriel Gatehouse is still in Kiev and sent
:13:13. > :13:18.this dispatch. The streets still wear the scars of
:13:19. > :13:22.last week's violence. Many are still trying to digest the sheer enormity
:13:23. > :13:26.of it. But the new authorities are now trying to understand exactly
:13:27. > :13:42.what happened, who the shooters were, and who gave the orders? On
:13:43. > :13:49.Thursday morning, this street turned into a deadly firing range. Some of
:13:50. > :13:54.the shooting was coming from the protestors, who had suddenly charged
:13:55. > :13:57.on police lines. But most of the gunfire came from the police
:13:58. > :14:04.themselves. And they were using snipers. So these originated from
:14:05. > :14:09.the top of the bank and then the second high advantage point was
:14:10. > :14:16.here? The round one, yeah. In Kiev today British forensic experts were
:14:17. > :14:21.collecting evidence. And this was high velocity round. Would that mean
:14:22. > :14:26.a sniper rifle or an AK? I think this is sniper because the position
:14:27. > :14:31.over there, near the metal lampost, the bullet holes are very, very
:14:32. > :14:36.close together. They asked us to conceal their identities, their
:14:37. > :14:40.work, they said, was politically sensitive. There is one particular
:14:41. > :14:44.clean shot up here which lines up with the balcony over here. Using
:14:45. > :14:49.the bullet scars as their guide, they are trying to work out exactly
:14:50. > :14:55.where the snipers' were positioned. If you look through here and you
:14:56. > :14:59.just see a direct line of sight with the balcony of the bank building
:15:00. > :15:09.over there. That is amazing how you can work that all out. It was a
:15:10. > :15:13.bloodbath really, wasn't it. Today the new Ukrainian Interior Minister
:15:14. > :15:16.issued a warrant for arrest of Viktor Yanukovych, the former
:15:17. > :15:22.President, on charges of mass murder. Whatever the British
:15:23. > :15:29.investigators find here could be used in a future prosecution. We are
:15:30. > :15:32.looking at the sniper positions and who would be responsible for the
:15:33. > :15:36.deaths of the people in that area. The investigators say there were at
:15:37. > :15:40.least four sniper position, one at ground level, here at this
:15:41. > :15:44.barricade. And then another three in the tall buildings behind it over
:15:45. > :15:49.there. And the snipers were shooting directly down this road, in the
:15:50. > :15:57.direction of the hotel where they were staying and the square beyond.
:15:58. > :16:06.In the past 24 hours new footage has emerged showing police marksmen at
:16:07. > :16:15.that barricade on Thursday. Most are armed with Kalashnikov Assault
:16:16. > :16:21.Rifles. But some are clearly carrying sniper rifles. A Ukrainian
:16:22. > :16:24.MP today said he had uncovered documents that proved that the
:16:25. > :16:27.security operation that ended in so many deaths last week had been
:16:28. > :16:36.authorised at the very highest levels. TRANSLATION: There are
:16:37. > :16:39.documents with details of the whole security operation, I have made some
:16:40. > :16:42.of these papers public today. They contain the exact names and
:16:43. > :16:49.locations of the snipers and the names of those in charge. Kiev is
:16:50. > :16:54.now a city where law and order rests in the hands of loosely organised
:16:55. > :16:59.vigilante groups, calling themselves Self- Defence of Midan, they do more
:17:00. > :17:02.than man barricades, they guard Government buildings saying they
:17:03. > :17:06.want to ensure an orderly handover of the state. We are closely
:17:07. > :17:11.co-operating with the state guards. For instance in the presidential
:17:12. > :17:15.administration it is state guards who control the building from
:17:16. > :17:18.inside. We are controlling the whole perameter, nobody is capable of
:17:19. > :17:26.entering the building without our permission. If you control the
:17:27. > :17:35.buildings, who controls you? I think it is a good question. No-one? There
:17:36. > :17:41.is a Council of People who are with us. That's one thing. Who are those
:17:42. > :17:50.people? Those people are heads of units. At night these heads of units
:17:51. > :17:55.roam the streets of the city, groups of menacing-looking men with body
:17:56. > :17:58.armour brandishing clubs. Last night we saw a man being dragged off by
:17:59. > :18:04.one of these groups, destination unknown. The police have virtually
:18:05. > :18:07.disappeared. The hunt is now on for Viktor Yanukovych. At his oppulent
:18:08. > :18:13.compound on the edge of Kiev, the only sign of him was on his
:18:14. > :18:17.personalised liquor bottles. Ordinary Ukrainians flock there in
:18:18. > :18:21.their thousands, an eye-popping weekend outing. This was his
:18:22. > :18:26.floating bang the questioning hall. There was also a zoo, complete with
:18:27. > :18:31.Ostrich and other possibly edible birds. The duck house, that ultimate
:18:32. > :18:36.symbol of corruption, was much in evidence. Where does the money come
:18:37. > :18:43.from? Of course from our money, from our taxes. And my relatives and
:18:44. > :18:49.friends said that they like to joke th every teacher who wants such a
:18:50. > :18:51.building in Ukraine. They say it is one of the world's wonders.
:18:52. > :19:02.TRANSLATION: Ukraine's leaders face an
:19:03. > :19:05.argumentative electorate. Politicians are called to explain
:19:06. > :19:10.themselves directly to the people. It is a very difficult task but I'm
:19:11. > :19:12.more than sure we want very much and we have control of the people. You
:19:13. > :19:20.don't control them? The people control us, because they move the
:19:21. > :19:24.Government away and the new Government will be bad they will
:19:25. > :19:30.move us. But much more badly, because the people died for that.
:19:31. > :19:37.This time people say they can't just go back to business as usual. We
:19:38. > :19:42.have already paid too high a price. Gabriel Gatehouse joins us now from
:19:43. > :19:52.Kiev. What's the feeling there about these noises being made. Menacing
:19:53. > :19:56.noises being made in Moscow. Ukrainians are strangers to menacing
:19:57. > :20:01.noises in Moscow, they have heard them over gas wars and other
:20:02. > :20:11.incidences, for those who fear a Russian invasion is now, they hear
:20:12. > :20:15.Mr Medeyev talking about armed mutineers and passport issuing, they
:20:16. > :20:19.are worried. For those who say it will be all right, they look at the
:20:20. > :20:24.fact that statement was made by Mr Medeyev and not Putin. Having backed
:20:25. > :20:28.from Yanukovych so heavily and Putin was heavily involved in the
:20:29. > :20:32.negotiations, that led to that abortive deal that saw Yanukovych
:20:33. > :20:35.almost save his skin by offering fresh elections by December. They
:20:36. > :20:39.have to speak out. It is a matter of pride. But I think also they will be
:20:40. > :20:45.looking at the same picture that you are seeing behind you there, Jeremy.
:20:46. > :20:48.That is an almost empty square. There is almost zero chance that
:20:49. > :20:53.Viktor Yanukovych can come back from this. So they will look forward and
:20:54. > :20:58.think how do we work with whoever it is to come. They will probably hope
:20:59. > :21:03.it will involve Eugenia Tymoshenko in some form or another. Now to
:21:04. > :21:08.National Health Service. In public opinion terms the NHS has come to
:21:09. > :21:13.occupy a status that the Church of England could only dream of even in
:21:14. > :21:17.its hey day. The chief executive of the National Health Service in
:21:18. > :21:20.England, Sir David Nicolson, is retiring next month. He leaves
:21:21. > :21:23.behind an organisation that has just been through yet another
:21:24. > :21:29.reorganisation, yet that is still on track for a predicted shortage of
:21:30. > :21:31.tens of billions of pounds a year in the future. With more and more
:21:32. > :21:39.people in need of long-term treatment. We invited him to
:21:40. > :21:43.reflect. I have been the chief executive of the NHS for eight
:21:44. > :21:49.years, I think it is the best job in the world. REPORTER: Can we ask some
:21:50. > :21:54.questions? But like many jobs you can pay a price in relation to your
:21:55. > :22:00.lifestyle. A year ago I was diagnosed with diabetes, linked to a
:22:01. > :22:04.poor diet and being overweight. In the next few weeks I will stop being
:22:05. > :22:08.the chief executive of NHS England and will be just a patient. One of
:22:09. > :22:14.the 15 million people in this country who suffer from long-term
:22:15. > :22:20.conditions. The NHS has come a long way. We have cut waiting times to
:22:21. > :22:23.some of the shortest in the world, stack -- tackled the scourge of
:22:24. > :22:27.hospital infections and saved thousands of lives by improving
:22:28. > :22:31.heart and cancer services. As a direct result of that success, we
:22:32. > :22:36.now have more and more people living to an old age, which at least one
:22:37. > :22:42.long-term condition. The NHS spends a staggering ?1. Five million an
:22:43. > :22:45.hour for services on diabetes, for people like me. Is that money spent
:22:46. > :22:50.in the best possible way? No it isn't. We spend far too much of it
:22:51. > :22:59.on the complication of diabetes, the amputation, the heart failure, the
:23:00. > :23:03.strokes, We need to spend more on prevention. Andrea has diabetes and
:23:04. > :23:07.has been in and out of hospital for years. Daily living, you are rushing
:23:08. > :23:13.about, I have children, dropping them here, there and everywhere, I
:23:14. > :23:17.don't always eat when I should eat. So obviously that has an affect on
:23:18. > :23:22.my diabetes. I would like to be helped at home more so, that I don't
:23:23. > :23:28.have to come into hospital as much. If there was, I did have a community
:23:29. > :23:32.nurse, but it brokedown. So I ended up coming back to hospital. But
:23:33. > :23:39.something like that would be great for people with diabetes. It is not
:23:40. > :23:42.just Andrea who thinks this, future of the NHS must be about the shift
:23:43. > :23:46.of services, out of hospital and closer to people's homes. So in this
:23:47. > :23:50.part of Birmingham we have already been able to reduce the number of
:23:51. > :23:54.hospital beds by 300 and make sure the money we were using for that
:23:55. > :24:00.care is delivered in the community nearer to where the patients are.
:24:01. > :24:05.These ideas aren't radical. But implementing them across the NHS is.
:24:06. > :24:09.As part of this, the NHS needs to continue to embrace technology, to
:24:10. > :24:16.give patients control over their treatment. One of the ways in which
:24:17. > :24:21.I can take control of my own health and healthcare is by the use of
:24:22. > :24:25.simple technology. I can text my GP information about myself, he can
:24:26. > :24:32.analyse it and send me back useful and helpful advice. This saves me
:24:33. > :24:36.time, and takes pressure off my GP. If we want an NHS that works in the
:24:37. > :24:41.future, we need to give patients more control, we need to give
:24:42. > :24:47.communities like these more control over the NHS. We also need to have
:24:48. > :24:50.the ambition to make radical change, to make the kinds of changes that
:24:51. > :24:55.will improve services for our patients and their outcomes.
:24:56. > :24:59.Sir David Nicolson is here now. In your judgment, with your long
:25:00. > :25:03.experience coming up to retirement, do you think the NHS can continue
:25:04. > :25:07.like this, funded by taxation and free at the point of need? I think
:25:08. > :25:12.this is a really important point. If you look at my colleagues across
:25:13. > :25:16.Europe and the developed world, all healthcare systems are having the
:25:17. > :25:20.kind of challenges that I described in the film. And there are different
:25:21. > :25:25.ways of dealing with them. Some countries are going down the road of
:25:26. > :25:30.significantly reducing the amount, the pay for their staff. So 15-20%
:25:31. > :25:35.reductions in pay for doctors and nurse, places like Ireland. There
:25:36. > :25:38.are some other places like Greece, Portugal and Spain, who are looking
:25:39. > :25:43.at reducing the offer patients. That is not the way we want to do it at
:25:44. > :25:48.the NHS, we are completely committed to the universally free at the point
:25:49. > :25:54.of use point. It is difficult to do that. You think it can continue as
:25:55. > :25:59.it is? It absolutely can. Despite the looming ?30 billion deficit? If
:26:00. > :26:02.we tackle the issues. That is around giving patients more control, but
:26:03. > :26:06.also being radical about the way we reorganise our health service as
:26:07. > :26:11.providing much more services in the community and reducing the size of
:26:12. > :26:16.our hospitals. So fewer hospitals? They have to be reduced in size.
:26:17. > :26:21.Whether or not they are fewer. Individual hospitals reduced in
:26:22. > :26:26.size? Absolutely. But nobody likes to have their hospital shut down or
:26:27. > :26:29.reduced in size do they? That is why it is often very difficult for
:26:30. > :26:33.people to do that. That is why it is controversial. But it is absolutely
:26:34. > :26:38.vital. Doesn't it follow from that then that politicians are quite the
:26:39. > :26:41.worst people to make these sort of judgments? Well it is one of the
:26:42. > :26:45.reasons we have been through the whole range of reforms we have had.
:26:46. > :26:54.To give an organisation a responsibility for looking beyond
:26:55. > :26:59.the electoral cycle. That is NHS England. Is the Secretary of State
:27:00. > :27:03.responsible in that process? All the politicians I have worked with over
:27:04. > :27:09.the years, and no political party has a monopoly on good ideas about
:27:10. > :27:11.the NHS. Working with the current Secretary of State, when faced with
:27:12. > :27:16.a difficult decision he's prepared to take it. And take it beyond the
:27:17. > :27:19.political cycle? That I think is the issue for us going forward. There is
:27:20. > :27:24.no doubt, if you want to make change in the NHS you need to think three,
:27:25. > :27:29.five, seven years out, and the tyranny of the electoral cycle
:27:30. > :27:32.stands. And the Secretary of State is prepared to do that? To make the
:27:33. > :27:38.difficult decisions and has done on every occasion. But the system works
:27:39. > :27:42.against you. If you think about it the ical cycle goes it is 18 months
:27:43. > :27:47.before a general election, therefore we cannot make change. Then around
:27:48. > :27:51.the Hustings, politicians go around and promise things to their local
:27:52. > :27:55.populations that things will not change. And then you have a period
:27:56. > :27:58.afterwards where people say, we made these promises, we can't make change
:27:59. > :28:01.happen. Then you have a year inbetween those two things where you
:28:02. > :28:06.can make change. That is no way to run a health service. That is why, I
:28:07. > :28:09.think, we need NHS England. It is also not what happened, of course.
:28:10. > :28:13.After the last election, this coalition came in and made all sorts
:28:14. > :28:17.of changes that they hadn't talked about? Not about the delivery of
:28:18. > :28:22.healthcare. It was about the reform to the NHS system as a whole. Be
:28:23. > :28:25.honest now, after all the changes you have been through in the NHS,
:28:26. > :28:33.when this Government came in and suddenly announced a lot more
:28:34. > :28:36.changes, what did you think? My immediate response was I have been
:28:37. > :28:41.through a lot of these structural changes before. They seldom deliver
:28:42. > :28:44.what people expect and they create a lot of issues around people taking
:28:45. > :28:47.their eye off the ball. So what I had to do, and part of my
:28:48. > :28:51.responsibility is to help the Government come to a sensible set of
:28:52. > :28:58.conclusions that were implementable. Were you dismayed? I did say that it
:28:59. > :29:01.was a very large set of changes. I did think that we would spend more
:29:02. > :29:05.time than we needed to looking at ourselves rather than thinking about
:29:06. > :29:10.services and the way we need to change. It was unhelpful really? It
:29:11. > :29:14.has done a whole series I think of very helpful things. It has brought
:29:15. > :29:16.in general practitioners and clinicians into planning and
:29:17. > :29:22.organising services in a way we never would have done before. It
:29:23. > :29:26.saved us for this parliament ?5. 5 billion to invest in frontline
:29:27. > :29:31.services, and it has created an organisation, NHS England, capable
:29:32. > :29:36.of looking beyond the cycle. But hard choices are going to have to be
:29:37. > :29:39.made? You raised the question there of long-term conditions, and you
:29:40. > :29:45.mentioned your own case of diabetes, you say it was a consequence of bad
:29:46. > :29:50.eating and stress and other things. If people choose to eat badly, if
:29:51. > :29:53.they choose to smoke, if they choose not to exercise, there is going to
:29:54. > :29:58.come a point, isn't there, when people are going to say it is not
:29:59. > :30:01.the tax-payers' responsibility, you have personal freedom but you must
:30:02. > :30:05.live with the consequences? There are millions of people who want to
:30:06. > :30:10.change and do something about it. We as an NHS need to help and support
:30:11. > :30:15.them. You presumably didn't realise what the consequences of your
:30:16. > :30:19.lifestyle were? I did realise the consequences of diabetes, but like
:30:20. > :30:23.plane people there were a whole set of reasons why I decided I would
:30:24. > :30:26.carry on the way I did. What I learned through patient education,
:30:27. > :30:29.through the technology available, to the support of GPs, that it is
:30:30. > :30:36.possible to change your lifestyle and that is what I have done. It is
:30:37. > :30:41.too late? It is not too late for me. I can already, in the year that I
:30:42. > :30:45.have been diagnosed I have stablised by blood sugar. Most of my signs now
:30:46. > :30:49.are in the right place and so I can continue to work on it, and I won't
:30:50. > :30:55.develop those complication described in the film. Was that stress linked
:30:56. > :31:01.to the Mid Staffordshire problems? Clearly the issues around Mid
:31:02. > :31:06.Staffordshire were traumatic for the NHS as a whole. And still are. And
:31:07. > :31:11.you? Of course, I was chief executive of the NHS from 2006, I
:31:12. > :31:15.worked in the West Midlands for a while. I saw some of the
:31:16. > :31:19.consequences of that up front. It is what will be written on your
:31:20. > :31:24.tombstone, of course, isn't it? In the circumstances we find ourselves
:31:25. > :31:26.in, I think people make their own judgments about people's
:31:27. > :31:31.contributions, but if you think about what the NHS has delivered
:31:32. > :31:37.over the last seven or eight years it is absolutely remarkable the
:31:38. > :31:40.improvements in access, the attack on healthcare associated infection,
:31:41. > :31:46.you know, tens of thousands of lives that we have saved through cancer
:31:47. > :31:51.and coronary heart disease. Undoubted lie there are issues --
:31:52. > :31:56.undoubtedly there are issues, and we need to learn from them. One of the
:31:57. > :32:00.great thing about the Francis Report is it gives us the opportunity to
:32:01. > :32:04.learn. One of the things I learned is that openness and transparency
:32:05. > :32:07.and not being defensive, all of those things, being open to people
:32:08. > :32:12.who want to raise issueses is a really important part of renewing
:32:13. > :32:19.the NHS. And you obviously thought about resigning at one point?
:32:20. > :32:22.Clearly. When I... Do you think it would have been better if you had?
:32:23. > :32:29.When I think about it, there were two reasons I decided not to resign.
:32:30. > :32:32.The first one was I started on the road of trying to improve the
:32:33. > :32:38.quality of care, making quality much more the organising principle of the
:32:39. > :32:42.NHS and I want to see that through. When the Francis Report came out we
:32:43. > :32:47.were right in the middle of the biggest set of reforms the NHS had
:32:48. > :32:51.ever seen. I said at the time there were so large you could see them
:32:52. > :32:55.from space. I thought it would be irresponsible to walk away at that
:32:56. > :33:00.particular time. You have been in the NHS how many years? 36 years. 36
:33:01. > :33:06.years in the NHS, if you come back in 36 years time, or anyone looks at
:33:07. > :33:10.the NHS in 36 years time. Will it be an organisation we can recognise
:33:11. > :33:15.from today's template? I think the basic principle of being universally
:33:16. > :33:21.available free he it point of use will be the way we will see it. It
:33:22. > :33:25.is the way of the future, with genetics and the knowledge we will
:33:26. > :33:29.have about risk factors for the future. Having a system which shares
:33:30. > :33:32.risk across a whole population is much more likely to be successful
:33:33. > :33:37.than one based on private health insurance. Thank you very much
:33:38. > :33:42.ir-David. -- Sir David. Aberdonians were
:33:43. > :33:47.treated to not one but two cabinet meetings in their area. What joy
:33:48. > :33:51.joy! In their public appearances the Prime Minister argued that the oil
:33:52. > :33:54.industry was better governed by a big country rather than a small one
:33:55. > :33:58.and the Scottish First Minister said the opposite. It reflects their
:33:59. > :34:02.claims on Scottish independence. David Cameron's visit to the land of
:34:03. > :34:07.some of his ancestors was a publicity stunt. Emily Maitlis
:34:08. > :34:15.watched it. # On the road again
:34:16. > :34:17.# Just can't get to get on the road again
:34:18. > :34:23.I'm in the car park and the First Minister hasn't arrived.
:34:24. > :34:26.They blamed the traffic for the embarrassingly late arrival of
:34:27. > :34:31.Scotland's First Minister for his interview. Who can say they weren't
:34:32. > :34:35.right, the Aberdeen traffic can be terrible on any day of the week and
:34:36. > :34:40.today was no ordinary day. Rush hour happens on the road and out at sea,
:34:41. > :34:44.the pilot ships earlier this morning were ferrying supplies to the oil
:34:45. > :34:47.rig, oblivious to the efforts politicians of all persuasions were
:34:48. > :34:51.putting into deciding their industry's future back on dry line.
:34:52. > :34:57.This morning Aberdeen is bracing itself for not one cabinet meeting
:34:58. > :35:02.but two. Lucky old it! This truly unremarkable spot marks the halfway
:35:03. > :35:06.point of a curious convergence, three miles to my left Alex
:35:07. > :35:10.Salmond's cabinet meeting, three miles to my right David Cameron's
:35:11. > :35:14.cabinet is meeting. The two will never meet though one road joins the
:35:15. > :35:17.two. You might call it coincidence were it not for the publication
:35:18. > :35:23.today of an independent report into future of oil and gas in Scotland. A
:35:24. > :35:29.future each side claim will be rowsier with them. Alex Salmond has
:35:30. > :35:33.claimed North Sea oil could be worth ?300,000 a person if Scotland were
:35:34. > :35:36.independent. It accuses the Westminster Government of bluff,
:35:37. > :35:39.bluster and bullying in coming here and telling the Scots what to think.
:35:40. > :35:43.There is a difference between delivering message on high or
:35:44. > :35:47.sending his Chancellor or Foreign Secretary up to Scotland to tell us
:35:48. > :35:50.what to do. There is a difference between jetting into Scotland and
:35:51. > :35:53.jetting out than having a real democratic debate about the future
:35:54. > :35:58.of the country. But Westminster says that's too optimistic and an
:35:59. > :36:06.undeterred David Cameron began his day aboard an oil rig, supporting
:36:07. > :36:10.the British Government's commitment to extraction of oil. We have got
:36:11. > :36:13.behind this industry and will continue to stay behind this
:36:14. > :36:18.industry to get the maximum benefit out of it. The maximum benefit for
:36:19. > :36:23.all the UK, including Scotland. So we went off in search of more broad
:36:24. > :36:27.shoulders and found them on Danny Alexander, possibly the only member
:36:28. > :36:34.of the cabinet to have come south from his constituency in Inverness.
:36:35. > :36:38.He was visiting Trans Ocean, it trains people all over the world who
:36:39. > :36:44.what to expect deep below the sea. Your cabinet has been accused of
:36:45. > :36:54.bluff, bluster and bullying, of flying in here on "Scare Force One".
:36:55. > :36:58.If you go west you can hear from the master of bluff, Mr Salihamidzic.
:36:59. > :37:03.David Cameron has put himself centre stage in the debate, it delights
:37:04. > :37:08.Alex Salmond. Could he be doing more harm than good? Isn't the problem
:37:09. > :37:12.that David Cameron is a southern softie and Englishman and an
:37:13. > :37:17.Eatonian and not helping your cause at all? He may be all of those
:37:18. > :37:21.things, the most important thing is he doesn't have a vote. He's not
:37:22. > :37:26.someone who will cast a vote on the 18th of December, for independence.
:37:27. > :37:30.Is he better out of this argument? As Prime Minister of the UK he's the
:37:31. > :37:33.right to have a view and set it out to people. Then it was time to leave
:37:34. > :37:39.the politicians and the simulators and head down to the beach. This is
:37:40. > :37:44.Sunset Boulevard, OK in Aberdeen. And even here I seem to see warnings
:37:45. > :37:48.of the political log-jam that has opened up over this city. Alex
:37:49. > :37:53.Salmond is a formidable politician, even his enemies recognise his
:37:54. > :37:58.force, but a pattern has been emerging over recent weeks from the
:37:59. > :38:03.London end, a change in tempo and willingness to play the game. It is
:38:04. > :38:11.supposed to put Westminster back into the driving seat over the
:38:12. > :38:16.referendum debate. You can't help thinking that they are having fun
:38:17. > :38:20.with this with Alex Salmond, with the currency ruled out and the
:38:21. > :38:23.difficulty of joining a euro that brought a smile to their face probe
:38:24. > :38:27.Blairex and now the whole future of oil and gas they are suggesting
:38:28. > :38:36.could be under threat in an independent Scotland that went off
:38:37. > :38:41.on its own. The interesting thing will be to see how Scotland's First
:38:42. > :38:47.Minister reacts, he has hit back at the no-currency union and saying
:38:48. > :38:51.Scotland can go it along, calling it sterlingisation. Westminster has
:38:52. > :38:55.started to call him "the man without a plan", but underestimate him at
:38:56. > :39:04.your peril. Alex Salmond is never without a plan for very long. John
:39:05. > :39:09.Cleese once wondered if God didn't want us to eat animals then why did
:39:10. > :39:13.he make them out of meat? Very funny say vegetarians who consider meat
:39:14. > :39:19.akin to murder. Now a number of sensitive souls in the market town
:39:20. > :39:23.of Sudbury, on the borders of Essex, have apparently forced a butcher to
:39:24. > :39:26.take down displays that remind them precisely what meat is. They are not
:39:27. > :39:31.necessarily vegetarians but they provide an indication of how very
:39:32. > :39:34.far, even people in mainly rural areas are from what were once
:39:35. > :39:38.organic businesses of every day life. We report, I should warn you,
:39:39. > :39:48.if you are a fan of Bambi you better look away now. Some wherein a quiet
:39:49. > :39:54.market town in Suffolk what to some people is a scene of horror. JBS
:39:55. > :40:00.Butchers has been selling game here for years, from entire carcasses of
:40:01. > :40:06.venison, to partridges, to furry rabbits shot in the local fields. It
:40:07. > :40:09.is this fancy window display that seriously roughlies feathers. It
:40:10. > :40:13.takes the staff here an hour to create this every morning, just not
:40:14. > :40:18.this morning. A fiery local campaign has forced the dead animals out of
:40:19. > :40:24.the shop window and into the fridge in the back room. "I too have been
:40:25. > :40:32.disgusted at the multiple display of multi lated carcasses" wrote one man
:40:33. > :40:36.to the local paper. The assistant manager says he has been fielding
:40:37. > :40:40.calls of support from across Europe. We had a phone call from a couple
:40:41. > :40:56.who live in France and they read it on their website and they were fully
:40:57. > :41:02.behind us. So that was night. We had a gentleman in Lancashire ring us
:41:03. > :41:07.asking us to send a hare to him. It is a bit of an eye-opener, tiring
:41:08. > :41:13.but nice. These are wild rabbits? Yeah. These were all running around
:41:14. > :41:19.in one of your fields somewhere. Like Watership Down? That is what I
:41:20. > :41:26.should put on it! There are plenty in the trade who say this is not a
:41:27. > :41:31.one-off, and in today's world he of shrink-wrapped ready meals we have
:41:32. > :41:36.gone soft. At the local pub our rabbits are skinned, diced and
:41:37. > :41:40.fried, the owner said every chef on his books used to be able to do
:41:41. > :41:46.this, now it is a specialist skill. A lot of customers will want you to
:41:47. > :41:50.take any semblance of the meat having ever been alive away from it
:41:51. > :41:54.before it goes on to their plate. For you is that something that has
:41:55. > :41:58.changed over time, have we become more squeamish as a nation?
:41:59. > :42:02.Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. We don't have to know where
:42:03. > :42:06.anything comes from. It is just there for us in the supermarket.
:42:07. > :42:10.Excuse me, have you got a second? From the BBC, we want someone to try
:42:11. > :42:15.our rabbit. After an hour this afternoon though, we couldn't find a
:42:16. > :42:19.single person who would speak out against the butchers. It is part of
:42:20. > :42:24.life. They have to learn that is where rabbit stew comes from,
:42:25. > :42:28.rabbit, Peter Rabbit, who gets shot if he eats mummy's cabbages in the
:42:29. > :42:31.garden. Yeah. I don't have a problem, it is important people know
:42:32. > :42:36.where the food comes from, rather than thinking it appears vacuum
:42:37. > :42:40.packed in supermarkets. It might not be to everyone's taste, but in this
:42:41. > :42:45.market square the idea of knowing and seeing exactly what you eat
:42:46. > :42:52.isn't putting anyone off. I would eat that every day. Superb. Now to
:42:53. > :42:59.discuss this rapidly vanishing story I'm joined by the Sunday Telegraph
:43:00. > :43:03.food critic Zoe Williams and Jay Rayner, who has written a book all
:43:04. > :43:07.about food security. What will we make of what was the initial premise
:43:08. > :43:11.of going there the butchers who had to remove their display? I'm
:43:12. > :43:15.surprised that men making their living wielding sharp knives put up
:43:16. > :43:19.with it. I'm surprised they took them down. Meat comes from animal,
:43:20. > :43:23.I'm looking at this and thinking pork scratchings, that is the kind
:43:24. > :43:29.of chap I am. We need to know meat comes from animals and that is it.
:43:30. > :43:35.What do you make of it? By sheer coincidence I interviewed these guys
:43:36. > :43:38.a few months ago they are in Tim Yeo's constituency, and I asked them
:43:39. > :43:42.what they think, and they were only interested in rabbit. They said
:43:43. > :43:50.there was a weird divide, you get people from Molford buying game that
:43:51. > :43:54.cost a lot of money, and people from Sudbury buying anything to chuck in
:43:55. > :43:57.a soup, they never see or refer to each other. There is a complete
:43:58. > :44:03.class divide in the butcher. And that is what's going on. If most of
:44:04. > :44:09.the animal is to be eaten, hasn't that always been the case? Sure, but
:44:10. > :44:15.what you find is there is an offence taken which is just then privilege.
:44:16. > :44:19.The act of taking offence gives you a stronger voice than the act of not
:44:20. > :44:21.taking offence. If you are not taking offence you are not saying
:44:22. > :44:28.anything at all. There is an argument that we have sanatised meat
:44:29. > :44:32.because we buy it in supermarkets under cellophane. There is a lot to
:44:33. > :44:36.be said for buying your meat from local butchers, particularly if they
:44:37. > :44:40.show you the whole animal first and you can point to it and say you want
:44:41. > :44:44.that pig cheek. I think there is so much class cross-current going on.
:44:45. > :44:46.We talk about going to the proper butcher and supporting your local
:44:47. > :44:50.shop, you are really talking about people with money and time. The
:44:51. > :44:55.reason meat has been sanatised, you know life has been. If you had this
:44:56. > :45:05.in a supermarket, it feels funny doesn't it? It really smells! It is
:45:06. > :45:09.the. The rabbits smell! It had a long journey from Suffolk. If you
:45:10. > :45:14.had it in a supermarket it wouldn't sell. Where as a packet of sasauges
:45:15. > :45:17.that could be the same stuff but different shape would sell? What you
:45:18. > :45:22.are talking about then is expertise and time. I wouldn't have time to
:45:23. > :45:27.turn that into a sausage. I don't know about you. If people who have a
:45:28. > :45:31.relatively you know, if people who do cook from scratch wouldn't have
:45:32. > :45:35.time, nobody would. That is not the point about the story, the issue is
:45:36. > :45:42.people not seeing animals as animals. So it is going to take very
:45:43. > :45:46.skilled butchers to turn it into pig cheeks and crispy pigs ears, which
:45:47. > :45:50.are lovely. The point is looking your dinner in the face. I went to
:45:51. > :45:54.work in an abattoir to see what it is about and see the animals killed.
:45:55. > :45:58.I felt as a meat eater it was what we have to do. We have to face up to
:45:59. > :46:01.the realities. It is an ugly business. The thing about
:46:02. > :46:05.squeamishness, there is a purpose, if you look at it and it makes you
:46:06. > :46:08.feel circumstance you are identifying with the pig. There is a
:46:09. > :46:13.human purpose and beauty in thinking yourself in the position of the dead
:46:14. > :46:18.animal. Did you feel sick in the abattoir? No I didn't. I'm not a
:46:19. > :46:21.sentimental man. But I suppose I knew what to expect. It was
:46:22. > :46:26.startling, particularly when a pig is not the same as a sheep or the
:46:27. > :46:30.same as a beef animal. Species changes everything, scale changes
:46:31. > :46:34.everything. Not in taste either. I know that bit, that is why I have a
:46:35. > :46:39.job. It was quite striking, and it is startling when they are removing
:46:40. > :46:43.them and putting them on spikes and that, I'm not sure everybody could
:46:44. > :46:49.do it. I think people need to engage in the process. If they can't engage
:46:50. > :46:52.in that, and on this I have a lot in common with the vegan movement. If
:46:53. > :46:55.you can't accept what it is you are doing you have to think about why
:46:56. > :46:58.you are doing it, whether you are prepared to eat it? That is fair
:46:59. > :47:02.enough. The whole process of eating meat, if you were actually to be
:47:03. > :47:05.confronted with the reality of it, that you are breeding things for
:47:06. > :47:08.your own pleasure, which you then cause enormous Payne, you can't
:47:09. > :47:15.confront the truth of it. Everybody looks away at some level. I don't
:47:16. > :47:19.know if it is about pleasure than need? Of course it is not, come off
:47:20. > :47:24.it. What would you not eat? There is nothing I won't eat. Nothing? To be
:47:25. > :47:27.honest I'm not fan of rabbit, only because I don't like the taste of
:47:28. > :47:34.it. You would eat anything else? I wouldn't eat a dog! That's the
:47:35. > :47:41.thing. Zoe has a line in the sand. It is the same thing we are subject
:47:42. > :47:45.to cultural issues. Would you eat a dog? No because I live in Britain
:47:46. > :47:53.and it doesn't culturally eat dogs. Would you eat any kind of carnivore?
:47:54. > :47:56.A pig is a carnivore and eat lots of them, it is your cultural
:47:57. > :48:03.relationship with lots of animals. Would you eat a horse? I have, not a
:48:04. > :48:13.whole one. That is disappointing? It is a bit. You probably have this
:48:14. > :48:20.week, have you had a burger? Yes! Sorry! Where is this going? Same
:48:21. > :48:23.place the story in Sudbury. There are interesting arguments about how
:48:24. > :48:26.we get our meat and how we engage with that process and our
:48:27. > :48:32.willingness to go to the high street butcher even if you are short on
:48:33. > :48:35.time. Thank you both very much. That as all tonight, they say all
:48:36. > :48:40.political careers end in fail arcs some start that way too. Footage
:48:41. > :48:44.unearthed from the BBC archives shows the House of Commons speaker,
:48:45. > :48:49.John Bercow, in 1975, competing less than successfully in the BBC
:48:50. > :48:56.children's programme, Crackerjack. Crackerjack. Crackerjack! Let's meet
:48:57. > :49:00.the lads, they have broomstick handles, they have to get the rings
:49:01. > :49:04.on to the handle, as many as possible at one time and put them on
:49:05. > :49:10.the posts at the end here. Let's meet the lads, John, Philip,
:49:11. > :49:16.Nicholas and Kishok. Not using your hands wry to get as many on as
:49:17. > :49:20.possible. Look at this. You must work in a curtain shop. Your prize
:49:21. > :49:41.is a Crackerjack Tuesday promises to be a day of
:49:42. > :49:44.sunshine and showers across the British Isles, breezy throughout, as
:49:45. > :49:45.a rough rule of thumb, the