04/07/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning. This is The Daily Politics. Who and what will the

banking scandal hit next? Yesterday, it claimed its biggest scalp, Bob

Diamond. He claimed he was hounded out by politicians, regulators and

the Bank of England. This afternoon, it could be payback time, when he

gives evidence before the select committee in the Commons. We can

expect other parts of the establishment, not least Labour

politicians, in government at the time, to be engulfed. We can expect

events in the Square Mile to dominate PMQs, with David Cameron

and David Miliband are attempting to make political capital. We will

have all the action. Britain's biggest rail enthusiast will be

telling us why a High Speed 2 should not hit the buffers. We must

build High Speed 2 - simple. And we will be discussing why matter

matters. All that to come before one o'clock today. And a very

special welcome to the new director general of the BBC. He is a very

nice man. A very, very very nice man, I would say. He would be even

nicer if he could get the wi-fi to work in the studio. Anyway, Mr

Redwood's, welcome aboard. You have no idea what is in store for you!

Anyway, with us today, two beams of parliamentary protons that will

hurtle around the studio at close to the speed of light. I speak of

course of Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, and Caroline Flint, the

Shadow Energy Secretary. But first, from the origins of the universe to

the masters of the universe... Did you see what I did there? Bob

Diamond resigned yesterday as chief executive of Barclays. Mr diamond

will be interrogated, at least I think that is the word, by the

Treasury Select Committee this afternoon. How did we get to this,

Jo? The crisis began last Wednesday, when the FSA handed down a record

�290 million fine to Barclays for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR

rate by lying about the interest they were paying on loans. Notes

taken by Bob Diamond show that during a telephone conversation in

2008, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England allegedly

encouraged Barclays to lower their submissions for the LIBOR. Just

after that, the submissions plummeted. The fixing is thought to

be much more widespread than just Barclays. Other institutions will

be under the spotlight as well. At the weekend, the chairman of

Barclays, Marcus Agius, was the first victim of the crisis. He was

joined yesterday by chief executive Bob Diamond, who announced he, too,

was resigning following pressure from politicians and from the Bank

of England. David Cameron initially ruled about a snap inquiry, but

changed his mind this week, announcing a parliamentary inquiry

into rate rigging, to begin as soon as possible. But Labour says this

is not enough, it wants a broad, judge-led inquiry. MPs will vote on

the decision tomorrow. We will be joined in a moment by the business

editor of the Times. And here in Westminster, we will be joined by a

Labour's John mam, a member of the Treasury Select Committee. He has

taken time out from preparing for the session this afternoon -- John

Mann -- his questioners for Bob Diamond. What will be your first

question? What is the difference between Barclays and dead fish?

Both Worton from the head. The bank will go unless this rotten core is

sorted out. So, you're looking for a cull of all the top people at

Barclays? The entire culture of the bank has to change. But what do you

want to find out from Mr diamond? want to find out why the culture

was there, what were the other banks doing on this, because he is

in a position to name other banks? And I want to hear from him what he

thinks should happen to make sure that there are proper sanctions to

stop him and others doing this again. Will you be asking him why

the Bank of England gave him a very strong steer to lowball the LIBOR

rate? That is one issue which will come up. It is a big issue,

particularly for your party. It is a big issue for everyone. You were

in power at the time. I can assure you, next week we will be calling

in the Bank of England and others about this. What about Gordon

Brown? We will be more than happy to call in politicians are as

necessary. Whoever needs to be called in... I am just trying to

work out who you will call in. First, we have got to hear what Bob

Diamond has to say, and then, without question, we will bring in

the Bank of England. But this record fine was up until July 2008,

and Bob Diamond will not get away this afternoon with shifting the

blame elsewhere. He led this bank, and this is all about what happened

for three years. There will be criminal prosecutions as well as

huge civil cases. This has got enormous implications for this bank

and all British banks. You would appear to be curiously incurious

about wanting to know who the senior Whitehall officials were,

who were urging the Bank of England to urge Barclays to reduce the

LIBOR rate. Don't worry, we will call in everyone who needs to be

called in. I am certain the Bank of England will be there. But one

thing at a time. We do not want the politicking to get in front of

sorting out the crisis in British banking. The entire existence of

Barclays is at stake. That is the complaint against the Government,

that you're playing politics with this. It is quite clear that from

Cameron and the Chancellor down, you have Brown, Bulls and the

others in your sights. It is a political revenge match. We need to

find out how far it went and whether indeed it was directed from

Whitehall, at least to some extent. All of those questions need to be

answered, and we need to do something about it. We have got a

Banking bill going through the House of Commons at the moment. We

can be legislating within six months. The issue for the Tories is,

who were the senior Whitehall figures? The one that we have been

briefed on non-stop would be that question. I don't think the

Treasury committee would want to sidestep that issue. But we know

that the other banks are all being investigated, it is their turn next,

there is no mystery in this at all. Which is why we have said that it

should be a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses, which is

why we want them to report quickly, and that is why we want to change

the legislation, so it cannot happen again. Let me go to the

business editor of the Times now. Can you hear me? No? There is a

danger that this is going to rebound badly on Labour. I think we

have been clear that we made mistakes in government. Whilst we

brought in regulation, more than we had in the 1980s, it clearly was

not enough. The truth is that all politicians have to answer for that.

At the time, George Osborne was saying we were being too tough. I

have to say in response to your question to John earlier about

Labour politicians at this time, Alastair Darling, Ed Balls, Lord

minor and the Baroness have been absolutely categoric, they did not

have conversations... They have not been absolutely categoric. No, she

is absolutely clear that they did nothing to have conversations

regarding meddling with the rate of LIBOR. Would you agree that if

Labour politicians or their advisers were found to be complicit

in the low balling of LIBOR, that would be a huge scandal? All the

people I have mentioned have categorically said that was not the

case. They have not. If we found out that they were not telling the

truth and Labour was found to be low balling LIBOR, would that not

be incredibly serious? This is why Labour has said we need a judge-led

inquiry, which has more disclosure powers than a parliamentary inquiry

would have. That would mean everybody concerned, including the

people that John has mentioned, a judge-led inquiry, like we have

seen with Leveson, can get to information which other forms of

inquiry cannot. Politicians, bankers, regulators, should then

come before that board to answer questions. Let me see if we can get

through to the Times now, we usually get through to Baghdad

quite quickly! If you were on the Treasury Select Committee this

afternoon, what would you be asking Bob Diamond? I think you would want

to know whether Paul Tucker told him who are these senior figures

within Whitehall actually were. The ones that told him to lowball LIBOR,

that is the key question. But it is unlikely, is it not, that Paul

Tucker would have told him? He makes it clear from the

contemporaneous note that he is getting a lot of calls from a very

high level within Whitehall about Barclays' LIBOR submissions being

too high. We know that immediately after that conversation, Barclays'

LIBOR submissions fell off a cliff, something had happened. Exactly. It

is quite clear, as we now know from the documents that Barclays

released yesterday ahead of the select committee today, the person

who was running the rates desk at Barclays Capital at the time, Jerry

del Missier, assumed from the e- mail he had received from his boss,

Bob Diamond, that the Bank of England had given the go-ahead to

submit lower LIBOR rates than had been the case. Is it your view that,

assuming the contemporaneous note is accurate, and we have no reason

to believe it was not accurate, it was done at the time - is it your

view that it was government policy at the time to make sure that LIBOR

stayed as low as possible? I think we have to go back to the events of

October 2008. Quite frankly, everybody would have been doing

this, as Bob Diamond makes clear. That is clearly what was discussed

between him and Paul Tucker at that time. Bob Diamond made it clear

that everybody was low balling LIBOR rates, it was not just

Barclays. So, would that have been done with the connivance of

Whitehall? Who knows? But it should probably not be a hanging offence

in any case. Potentially the alternative would have been a

collapse of the banking system. Don't forget, Lehman's had gone

under in the state's one month earlier, right had needed to go in

to rescue HBOS in a merger, and it is quite possible that had the

market taken fright, there could have been a run on Barclays as well.

So I think it is the lesser of two evils, to be honest. The LIBOR rate,

the London Interbank Offered Rate, is very important, because it sets

the rate at which banks borrow from each other, and what banks borrow

from each other then determines the rates they charge us. It is an

important thing, and the whole world, other interest rates, take

their lead from the LIBOR rate. But if other banks were low balling

LIBOR, and Barclays wasn't, because its rates had been market-driven,

and if Bob Diamond gets a steer from the Treasury and the Bank of

England that they should fall in line with the other banks, then

government and regulators are complicit. Yes, they absolutely are.

Without question. It is a series of IFS, but absolutely, which is a

major issue. But let's not forget the other major issue, which is

Barclays traders under Bob Diamond profiting by fiddling the rates.

Those are two issues, both huge issues, we should not ignore either

of them. Quite right, there was a separate issue happening earlier of

the traders themselves low balling, or raising, LIBOR, depending on how

their books were closing at the end of the day. Is it your contention,

the contention of the Government, that senior Labour figures were

involved in this? We simply do not know the answer to that. We need to

wait until this inquiry has taken place. If you look at the notes, it

makes it very clear that senior figures within Whitehall were

responsible - by the that is politicians or officials, we do not

know. We do not have all the notes. The Bank of England refused to give

the notes to me today. How could they do that, John? Do you want me

to have a word with them? I will have a word with Mervyn and Paul

Tucker. Ed Balls has been categorical, that he had nothing to

do with it whatsoever. Let's just run a club of him now and see what

he had to say this morning. At no point did I have any conversation

with Mr Tucker at all, at any time when I was a Treasury minister or

adviser, or subsequently to that, when I was a Cabinet minister. I

had no conversation with anybody about the LIBOR market during any

of those periods, and at no point in any of the time when I was a

minister or adviser were concerns That's pretty clear, Grant Shapps?

He's one of the individuals. I don't know. He was not in office at

the time. Let's not try to put words into anyone's mouth. We don't

know it's the case. It's correct to have an inquiry. What we do know

from the note is that senior figures within Whitehall were

putting pressure on. George Osborne has thrown mud around and hoped

that it will stick. Actually, that is really unhelpful. That's why we

do need something which has some authority and why a judge-led

inquiry means everyone is held to account. Chris Leslie on 6th March

asked Mark Holborn about LIBOR. He said nothing. There are a series of

questions to eke out what your government did or did not do in the

last two years, when it's been your watch, to actually get a grip on

some of the situations. We all have to, as politicians, take

responsibility. Do you think the Conservatives have been

manipulating LIBOR? No, but what they may have done is avoid some of

the issues, where we have mechanisims and clearly at Barclays

and others, despite the regulations, they've broken those and stepped

across the line. We all, as politicians, have to deal with this,

because whether it's MPs with expenses, whether it's the media

and the banks, these are institutions that we have to work

to make sure the public trust. agree. One thing we know for

certain, one of the first things that Gordon Brown did was to create

the tripartite system of regulation, which made it very, very difficult,

whether the FSA, the Bank of England or the Treasury, who were

doing the regulation in the City and that's where a lot of the

problems come from. Ian King, Bob Diamond, love him or loath him, he

did create the only decent global investment bank Britain's ever had,

all the rest have been Pygmies. The only one to take on the Americans,

will we miss him? I think he will. He's an undoubted talent. He'll be

snapped up by someone on Wall Street fairly quickly, should he

wish to continue working. He's a man who put Barclays on the world

stage. A lot of people in Wall Street really respected him for

that. Also, respected the name of Barclays in the process. Thank you

very much. I'm glad we got the communications there to the distant

time zone that is Wapping. Thank you very much for taking time out

John, we look forward to this afternoon. I've Now, in January

last year, Caroline Spelman announced Government plans to sell

of parts of the Uk's public forests. Booked my seat. The announcement

sparked outrage and over 500,000 people signed a petition calling on

the Government to scrap the plans. The Environment Secretary spent

weeks defending the idea, but what a difference a few days make. The

panel set up by the Government to look into the policy published

their final report today, saying that public forests must not be

sold off. I'm sorry, we got this one wrong, but we have listened to

people's concerns. It's quite clear from the early responses to the

consultation that the public and many honourable members are not

happy with the proposals we set out. The panel published their report

today, saying that they must not be sold off. The Government says it

accepts the recommendations and this morning confirmed it would

halt plans to set off state-owned forests. The Right Reverend James

Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, headed the report and he joins us now.

Trees are essential to life and part of common heritage. People

love the forest, but what we have to do now is value them for the

other things that they give us, clean air, clean water, carbon

storage and protecting our wildlife. Couldn't that have been done and

I'm sure many would agree, in private ownership too? It's not

being done. 82% is in private ownership. Only 81% -- only 18% is

public forests but they deliver over 40% of the access and 60% of

the timber supply. That's a remarkable testimony to the public

forest. It's quite a small proportion. People forget when

there was the row, it's only one fifth, I think it works out. Who

will pay in terms of the future upkeep? It will be the taxpayer to

keep them going? We are talking about �22 million. Nine kilometres

of carriageway costs �160 million. It's a no-brainer by comparison.

What we are saying is if there are public benefits then that's a

legitimate call on the public purse. Until we find another way of paying

for them and the Government is set up two important committees, the

Natural Capital Committee and a Task Force and they are working out

how you might pay for the public benefits. It's difficult to put a

price on it, isn't it, in terms of the value? It's hard to do when you

are talking about forests? course it is, but the moment your

home is flooded, you'll be asking questions why it is happening and

trees are an important protection. Grant Shapps, do you think it was

all a waste of time putting forward the proposals? Was it misguided or

misconstrued? It taught ministers a lesson that I've certainly taken

forward, which is be careful what you put in the consultation. It was

one of the options in consultation. It was massively and clearly

unpopular and I think you have to think twice before you list a set

of options, even if it's not going to ever be the one that goes

through. The other to say is it was never about money. Everyone thought

it was, but in fact it wasn't. It's not for the public benefit that

comes from it, it's not an enormous sum of money and nothing to do with

keeping that department's budgets right. It wasn't required for that

reason. It was just looking at whether there were better ways to

manage the forests and in fact I think the report today is terrific.

It's got all the right ideas in it and it's smart stuff to follow.

you think lessons were learnt, but was the consultation wrong, or was

it just that there was such an outcry about the idea of so-called

privatising the forests? It's an emotive issue and it's clear to me

that sometimes the Commission do need to sell bits to buy others and

I think you reflect on your report today. It's very emotive. People

get enormous benefit and pleasure from the forests and in terms of it

being instructional, it makes me think carefully about any of the

options that I outline in consultations to make sure I would

genuinely be happy with any of the ones that came out the other end.

What happens now? You have got the two reports or the two studies

being done. When will we hear from them? Caroline Spelman and I think

she should be given credit for doing the right thing and putting

it out to an independent panel. She has today said she will respond in

January. We are having a stakeholders' meeting and 100

people signed up to this. A huge public debate needs to continue

about the value of woods and forests and I hope the Government

will respond in the light of that debate. Thank you very much. Next,

a media power couple, never off the front pages and inseparable for the

past five years. Style icons to millions. I know what you're

thinking, but, no, I'm not talking about me and Jo, I am, of course,

describing the fairytale marriage of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. But

the dream came crashing down over the weekend as Katie Holmes filed

for divorce citing irreconcilable differences. With millions at stake

you'd think their lawyers would be having a field day. But they don't

care about the houses, the cars and the shoes. The only possession they

really care about is gaining custody of their prized Daily

Politics mug. But if you want your own mug, you don't need fancy

lawyers, you just need to enter our Guess the Year competition. We'll

remind you how to enter in a minute, but let's see if you can remember

when this happened. # Panic on the streets of London...

# We did it calmly and cordially. # I wondered to myself... #

# Don't leave me this way # I can't survive

# I can't stay alive... # # System addict

# I never can get enough... # # We don't have to take our clothes

# To have a good time, oh, no # We could dance and party all

night... # # We're absolute beginners... #

There's nothing delicate about the To be in with a chance of winning

the mug send your answer to our e- mail address: you can see the full

terms and conditions on the website. It's coming up to midday. We'll

look at Big Ben. There it is behind me. For those of you who haven't

switched across, there will be a lot of drums across the Thames,

because it's the Prime Minister's questions, the Bob Diamond edition.

Nick is with us. It will be one way or another, won't it? Absolutely,

because there's a who done it in terms of Barclays. Yes, we know

that there's an issue of who did it in the bank and who knew. Yes

werbgs know thanks to a memo yesterday, that he was suggesting

that the Bank of England were pressureising Barclays to sort out

the LIBOR. But we also know that the same memo says that senior

Whitehall figures, not named, not specified whether ministers or

officials, were putting pressure on the Bank of England to put pressure

on Barclays to do it. From a high level? What is intriguing is the

speed with which people have been rushing to the cameras, who were in

the last Labour Government to say, whoever did it it wasn't me.

Alistair Darling says, "It wasn't me." I don't imagine anybody in the

treasure could have done it, that's what he is saying. Lord Myners was

saying, "I didn't know anything about it." Baroness Vadera in the

House of Lords, was effectively Gordon Brown's fix-it woman for the

City. Former banker who gets enormous credit from officials, we

ought to say, for sorting out many of the problems when the credit

crunch happened in 2008. She said, "Yes, I was involved in all sorts

of conversations about the LIBOR rate, but those were policy

decisions, trying to make credit work in the economy. They certainly

weren't about rigging the system." In other words, the Conservative

Party are saying, where was Ed Balls in all of this? He regards

this as a cheap smear. They regard it as a legitimate series of

questions about a guy who was very close to Gordon Brown and knew

where a lot of the bodies were buried, because he was a former

City minister. When you see them clash at Prime Minister's questions,

in a sense you can almost forget the details unless you love them.

What is going on is a battle for credibility and reputation. The

Tories want to destroy Labour. They want to make the debt crisis the

equivalent of the winter of discontent at the end of the 70's.

Very high stakes? Indeed. If we remind ourselves of the context at

the time in the autumn of 2008, this was a Government and a Bank of

England that had basically dined out on cheap credit. The cheap

credit had become the motif of the authorities and of the Government.

It is also time when the interbank markets, the lending between banks

was in danger of drying up. At the two together and it stands to

reason that Government wanted to keep LIBOR low? That that was the

policy? Absolutely. The great fear, what we tend to think of was a

banks crisis was a credit crunch. The fear was that the banks

couldn't lend to each other and therefore couldn't lend to you and

me and businesses to keep them alive or get them to expand. Yes,

of course, Government, Treasury, Bank of England, banks wanted to

find a way to bring the costs down in order to get more money out of

the door. People keep saying that is different from rigging it.

Rigging it in order for some rich bankers to say, "We've made a fast

buck. I'll do a favour." As in one of the e-mails. These things are

different. Remember, there were two kinds of rigging of this key

interest rate. There was the earlier rigging by Barclays'

traders, to make their books look better, to bank a profit at the end

of the day. For themselves. Yes. A lot of people think not only have

the traders been fired, but a lot of them think it's criminal and

they should be collared. That's one set. That is different from the

bank committing a LIBOR rate. Again, we had a Government and bank that

wanted to keep the rate low and you had others that were obliging. The

one that didn't was Barclays, that set the rates by the markets. And

suddenly they are lent on to say why don't you fall in line with

everybody else. Critically, Barclays, but boasting at the time.

They said they didn't need Government help. Over to the

I'm sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the

three British servicemen who were killed in Afghanistan over the

weekend. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the

people who were killed in this tragic, appalling incident. They

will never be forgotten by our nation. This morning I had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further

I'm sure at the whole House will want to associate ourselves with

the Prime Minister's remarks, as well as sending our deepest

condolences to the families of the crew from RAF Lossiemouth who were

lost earlier in the week. Mr Speaker, food prices rose by more

than 4% between March last year and this year. I understand why, so,

can the Prime Minister spare me the lecture and tell the House what he

is doing about food inflation. I join the honourable leader -- the

Honourable Lady about what she said about the tragic accident involving

the crew from RAF Lossiemouth. The circumstances remain uncertain,

that it is clearly a very serious incident. More details will be

released by the RAF in due course. It is a reminder of the risk that

our service personnel take not only one on active service, but when

undergoing vital training for that service. On the issue of inflation,

with food, I would make a point that inflation is now falling in

this country, which is extremely good news. In terms of food

inflation, it is obviously absolutely vital that the prices

faced by people in the shops are not too hard on their budget. But

the way to keep inflation down is to have a responsible Monetary

Policy, which is what we have. Nicholas Soames! Mr Speaker, would

my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that whilst these serious

banking difficulties must be dealt with, it is vital that we retain

the central importance of the City of London, in recognising that any

reforms must be proportionate, and not damage such a brilliant asset.

I think my Honourable Friend makes an important point. We have got to

get to the bottom of what happened, but in doing so, we should bear in

mind the remarks of Richard Lambert, who ran the CBI successfully for

many years, and who carried out an investigation for the party

opposite, and he said that the LIBOR scandal means that the

required changes have to be tougher, which is the argument for a short,

sharp enquiry. Going back to square one would be a serious mistake, he

says. Nothing could be more urgent than a stable banking system, he

says. We must get to the truth, but we should listen to these expert

opinions as well. Mr Speaker, Cannes join the Prime Minister in

paying tribute to the three servicemen who died in the most

tragic of circumstances. Our hearts go out to their family and friends.

I also join the Prime Minister in the remarks he made about the

incident at RAF Lossiemouth. The banking scandal has revealed

traders cheating, the misselling of insurance to small businesses, and

it comes on top of other scandals in the banking system and the

continuing bonus merry-go-round. How can the Prime Minister convince

people that a parliamentary inquiry is a better way of restoring

people's confidence than a full, independent, forensic and open,

judge-led inquiry? First of all, let me say, on the substance of the

issue, there is no disagreement between us. This banking scandal is

appalling. It is outrageous, frankly, that homeowners may have

paid higher mortgage rates, and small businesses may have paid

higher interest rates, because of what was probably illegal activity

in the City. People want to know that crime in our banks and

financial services will be pursued and punished like crime on the

streets. As well as that, I think people want rapid action to make

sure this cannot happen again. In my view, the most important thing

about any inquiry is that it is swift and incisive, set up as fast

as possible, gets going as fast as possible, reports as fast as

possible, transparent and open at every stage. That is why I favour a

republic, parliamentary inquiry rather than a judge-led inquiry. I

want us to legislate on this, starting next year. Mr Speaker, I

understand his concerns about speed, but there are concerns also that

the inquiry which is being talk about is far too narrow, focusing

just on the scandal of Flyball, when we know the problems go much

wider regarding the culture and practices in the City. But I

believe there is a way forward we can agree upon, a to part, judge-

led inquiry, which is instructed to report by Christmas on LIBOR, and

the second part of it reporting over 12 months regarding the much

wider area of the culture of the industry. That satisfies his

requirement for speed, but also the necessary requirement to look at

the wider practices of the City - will he agree to my proposal?

always look and listen carefully to proposals from all sides of the

House. On the issue of the structure of banking and the future

of banking, of course, we set up the vicar's inquiry, which reported,

and we are going to implement the Vickers Report, which will for the

first time separate investment banking from retail banking. That

is a major step forward. Secondly, the parliamentary inquiry we are

proposing is wider than he says, it is going to look at the culture of

banking. Thirdly, clearly, the Serious Fraud Office are still

considering whether to launch a criminal investigation. While that

is happening, there are dangers in opting for a judge-led inquiry,

which might not be able to get under way. So, as I say, if you

want to do this as fast as possible, to get action as fast as possible,

I think the way we suggest his right. But we clearly heard the

vote in the House of Lords last night, where they voted against a

public inquiry. We have made time available on Thursday, which has

not happened before, for an opposition motion to be debated and

voted upon, and then a government motion to be debated and voted upon.

Frankly, what matters more than the process is the substance, getting

on with it. So, I hope we get acceptable results on Thursday.

Speaker, we were in a jacket the same position a year ago, when

initially he rejected the idea of a judge-led inquiry into the press

scandal -- we were in exactly the same position -- where he changed

his mind. He said, I do not believe there is any better process than an

inquiry led by a judge. He went on - with the whole thing pursued by a

team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts. Mr

Speaker, why is it right to have this judge-led approach to the

scandal in the press, but wrong for the scandal in the banks? I think

there is a profound difference between the circumstances of the

Leveson Inquiry, and the circumstances with this inquiry. Of

course, the Leveson Inquiry followed a whole series of

unsuccessful and failed inquiries. On this occasion, we have had a

very successful inquiry from the Department of Justice in America,

and the Financial Services Authority, which have uncovered the

wrongdoing. Now, what is required is swift inquiry, swift action and

swift legislation, and that is what you will get from this government.

Mr Speaker, I don't think the Prime Minister has understood the depths

of public concern, the depths of the lack of confidence there has

been. He says that the inquiry he proposes can be completed within

essentially four months, but that it can go as wide as it likes. It

is simply not realistic. I say to him that I have listened to his

concerns and I have proposed a way forward. I ask him again, a two-

part inquiry, with a judge, completing on a turntable set by

the Chancellor, by Christmas, on LIBOR, and then looking at the

wider issues about the culture and practices of the City. I do

understand the public concern about this issue, which is why I want us

to get on with it. Frankly, it is this government which is going to

legislate to split the bank -- to split the banks, as the Vickers

Report suggested. It is this government which has introduced the

bank Levy, and we have also introduced the most transparent

regime for pay and bonuses in in the financial centre anywhere in

the world. As evidence that this House of Commons is getting on with

it, we're going to see Bob Diamond questioned upstairs by the Treasury

Select Committee, this afternoon. I would say to the Honourable

Gentleman, we are having a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow, a

vote on his motion, and one on the government for ocean. Clearly, if

the opposition motion wins, there will be a full, independent public

inquiry. I would urge him to say now that if the government motion

is carried, he will co-operate with a full parliamentary inquiry.

Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister gets it about the depth of

public concern. I hope he will reconsider his position. But he

mentions the Vickers Report, and he says they are implementing it. I

say this to him - the Vickers Report said this about one

important issue which has come out in the last couple of weeks, about

the way in which high street banks had sold dodgy product to small

businesses. They said that should never be allowed to happen again.

But after lobbying by the banks, the Government rejected this very

basic recommendation of the Vickers Report. In the light of the recent

scandal, with small businesses damaged, will he know U-turn and

implement Vickers Report in full? First of all, I am not going to get

a lecture in getting it from a party that was in office for 13

years, when all of these things took place. On his specific

question about the Vickers Report, let me repeat, this inquiry was set

up by this government, and it will be implemented by this government.

Under it, complex derivatives will be included in the ring-fencing for

investment banking, they will not be part of the retail banks. But

let me say this to him - if he wants a quick resolution to this,

he must accept the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons. I am

prepared to do that, why isn't he? Order! Government backbenchers who

have been here for some years ought to have grasped by now that it his

time for them to pipe down and try to be good boys if they can.

Speaker, if he wants a history lesson, this is what he told the

City of London on 20th March 2008 - as a free-marketeer by conviction,

it will not surprise you to hear me say that the problem of the past

decade is too much regulation. Doesn't it say it all about the

double standards? And whenever these scandals happened, he is slow

to act, and he stands up for the wrong people. The question people

are asking is, who will act in the national interest rather than the

party interest? His is a party bankrolled by the banks. If he

fails to order a judge-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion

- he simply cannot act in the national interest. I have to say,

Mr Speaker, everybody can see what is happening here. Order! Members

must come down. I said it to government backbenchers, I now say

it to opposition backbenchers - that the answer be heard. The party

opposite want to talk about absolutely everything apart from

their record of 13 years. I have to say, Mr Speaker, we may have found

the Higgs boson particle, but Labour have not found a sense of

Today is hugely significant for British scientists with the

announcement of the Higgs Boson discovery. 6,000 scientists worked

on it, 700 from the UK, with a major contribution from the north-

west, a constituent of mine, head of particle physics at Liverpool

university led the ATLAS. Can the Prime Minister confirm this

Government's commitment to science and institutions in the north-west?

I think the honourable lady is right, to raise this issue and the

immense British contribution there has been to the extraordinary

breakthrough, not least Higgs himself and extraordinary works,

done in the north-west. It's a very big step forward and congratulate

everyone involved. This Government's commitment to science

is without any doubt, not least because while we have made

difficult cuts, we have preserved the science budget. In the last 15

days we have witnessed chaos in the Ulster Bank. Direct debits continue

to be removed and the bank is owned by RBS. We, the people, have an 82%

share, therefore the Government has a major say in what happens in the

bank in Northern Ireland. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to

the 100,000 Ulster Bank customers that they will have a direct input

from the Prime Minister and Government to address this issue?

quite understand why he raises this. What happened isn't acceptable.

Clearly, it's an operational matter for the bank, but the Financial

Services Authority has been monitoring this very closely. The

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke yesterday to the

chairman of RBS. The lessons must be learnt, but I can tell him that

RBS has said it will reimburse any customer for penalty charges or

overdrafts fees, anything incurred from these difficulties. To be

blunt, my constituents in Lancaster and Fleetwood in businesses are

losing faith in their banks. What they need from the Prime Minister

is a reassurance that there will be no more political skeletons in the

cupboard left by the Labour Party. What matters for his constituents

and frankly everyone in this House is that we get to the bottom of

what happened as quickly as possible. We have had a vote in the

House of Lords. We'll have a vote in the House of Commons. Then we

need to get on with it. We are sent to the House to hold the inquiries,

to find the facts, to pass these laws. Let's get on with it.

Yesterday, 117 manufacturing jobs were lost in my constituency on a

rising trend of unemployment in North Wales. Could the Prime

Minister confirm to the House that the GDP figures last week showed

that the Government's performance was worse than expected? It

requires change and actually is the cause of his Government's policies?

No, I very much regret any loss of jobs, including in his constituency,

particularly as it comes at a time when since the election we have

seen 800,000 extra jobs in the private sector. I'm very concerned

about the economic performance in Wales, which over the last decade

or more, has actually fallen further behind the United Kingdom

and I think we need to work very, very hard with the Welsh Assembly

Government to try to make sure that we are making Wales more

competitive. A key part of the Health Bill is that clinical change

must be led by clinicians and patients. In my own hospital in

Eastbourne, the majority of consultants have said they have no

confidence in the proposed clinical change by the Trust, by the vast

majority of the public and they share that lack. Will the Prime

Minister confirm that the local trust has to listen to all these

people in Eastbourne? I can absolutely confirm that. Clearly,

changes shouldn't go ahead unless there's proper listening to local

clinicians and local people. That's how the Health Service should

operate. The Health Secretary will be making an announcement shortly,

but the good news is if you look across the Health Service,

inpatients and outpaish ept waiting times are down and we have the best

-- outpatient waiting times are down and rates of infection are

down and the Health Service is doing well. The Prime Minister will

be aware that the Crown Office in Scotland has confirmed it's been

carrying out investigation led by the serious crime division in

allegations that several banks, including state-owned RBS has

provided false information to financial markets. Does the Prime

Minister back that investigation and given the scale of the crisis,

given the scale of public anger, will he back the need for a full,

independent judge-led inquiry and crucially will he give us a free

vote in the House tomorrow? I think there are two important things here.

First, we should allow all of the investigative authorities to carry

out their investigations and take them wherever the evidence leads

them. That is true for the Serious Fraud Office and for the Financial

Services Authority. We need to make sure they have the resources

necessary. We have to consider the nature of the inquiry and the

problem, I think, with the suggestion, is as these

investigations are on going it's easier to hold a rapid

investigation within Parliament than to set up an investigation

outside Parliament. What message would the Prime Minister send to

the emergency services, local authorities and communities across

the north-east that swung into action so effectively when the

region was hit by flooding last week? The first thing I would say

is a huge congratulations and thank you to the emergency services. I

saw for myself, not in his area, but when I was in West Yorkshire,

the work that was done there. I think the other thing to note is

whenever these things happen there is an incredible coming together of

community and social action to help people who have been flooded out of

their homes and I'm sure everyone on all sides of the House will want

to thank people for what they've done on other's behalves. On the

question of a European referendum, is it the policy of the Prime

Minister to be indecisive or is he not sure?! I wonder how long in

front of the bathroom mirror that one took?! The point is this, I

think there are two things that wouldn't be right. First, to hold

an in and out referendum now. That's not the right approach.

Second, to rule it out for all time. I've no idea what his party's

policy is. Would my Right Honourable friend agree that

central to any reforms of banking must be the point of view of

ordinary punters two things, first, the proposals which we are already

working up to ensure people can move accounts quickly, cheaply and

easily and secondly, an absolute guarantee that governments never

again will bail out banks? I think my friend makes two very important

points. On the first, being able to move your bank account, that will

be in place later this year. On the issue of bailing out banks, what we

need to do is put in place mechanisims so that banks can fail

without calling on taxpayers to support them. That resolution

regime, which for 13 years was left untouched by the party opposite,

has been dealt with by this Government. The euro now has a

solid record of destroying jobs and democracy throughout Europe. The

Prime Minister is failing to repatriate any powers or resources

to this country. When is he going to stop dithering and allow the

people in this country to have a referendum on the euro -- on the

European Union, to decide whether to -- stay in or get out of that

mess? Firstly, we have actually repatriated one power, which is we

have got out of the bail out that the last Government put us into.

That is saving us billions. I think if he takes that view he should be

sitting on this side of the House rather than that side. I want to

draw the attention from banking for one moment and to the opposition,

to more important matters. Children's lives in my constituency.

Five children in my constituency have been involved in an accident

in a crossing outside St Peter's school in Heysham. I know it's a

County Council matter, but I would like the assistance of the Prime

Minister to help me trying to get a crossing outside the school.

think he's entirely right to raise such a case, where so many people

have lost their lives. I will certainly look at what he says and

as he says, it's a matter for the County Council, but if I can help

him to put his case, I will be pleased to do so. Leicester is

feeling the brunt of the Prime Minister's double-dip recession

with the sad news today that yet another business is going under

with the loss of local jobs. In this context, was the Prime

Minister as disappointed as I was at the figures last month that

showed lending to small businesses down by 1.7 billion and is it now

not clear that the Chancellor's credit easing policies aren't

working? Firstly, the credit-easing policy is going to make available

�20 billion of extra loans. Some of that money is already available.

The Merlin scheme saw lending to small businesses go up in 2011.

There is a difficult situation when you've got banks that are very

nervous about the economic situation. But the Treasury and the

Bank of England and through the Merlin agreement, we are doing all

we can to get money out of banks and into hard-pressed businesses.

If, as a result of this shameful banking crisis bank executives are

dismissed or forced to resign, and the boards of their banks fail to

act appropriately, will the Government do it's best to try to

ensure that the delink wepbts are not able to walk awhat -- the

delink wepbts are not able to walk away with their pay? It would be

wrong if people were leaving under these circumstances were given some

vast payoff. It would be completely inexplicable to the British public

and I very much hope that doesn't happen. In terms of what the

Government can do, what we are going to do is legislate so that

all pay deals are put to shareholders in a binding vote and

those deals should include any severance payments. Again,

something the party opposite 13 years to do, we'll do in two.

the richest 1,000 persons in Britain made gains of �155 billion

in the last three years of austerity, why won't the Government

charge those gains at capital gains tax rates, which would bring in

around �40 billion? Enough without any increase in public borrowing at

all to generate a million or more jobs, which is a better way to cut

the deficit through growth rather than through the Chancellor's

failed slump. I hate to remind the Right Honourable gentleman, but he

was a minister in the Government where the last Government's capital

gains tax rules meant that people in the City were paying less in tax

than their cleaners were paying in tax. What we have done is actually

lift the rate of tax to 28%, so actually we have a fairer system.

Pupils I met recently at Horsham primary school told me in their own

creative ways that they liked to learn together. But they know that

many children in other countries never get that chance. As the chair

of the UN's high-level Panel on the Millennium Development Goals how

will the Prime Minister restart efforts to make sure all girls and

boys around the world get to go to school? He raises an important

point, which is that send my friend to school campaigns that many of us

will have seen in our quepbss is a brilliant way of teaching young

people the importance of showing responsibility for others on the

other side of the world. Our aid is currently supporting 5.3 million

children in primary education and by 2014 we hope to up that to 9

million people, so the Government is playing its part, but we want

all of civil society, schools, parents and teachers to join us

with this great effort. In addition to what the Prime Minister said

earlier in relation to the Ulster Bank crisis in Northern Ireland,

where households, individuals and businesses are denied even basic

banking facilities, can the Prime Minister, along with the Chancellor,

talk to the HMRC to ensure that some flexibility will be shown to

households, individuals and businesses in terms of liabilities

there, so people can be helped through cashflow problems that may

exist as a result of problems they didn't create? I will look at what

the honourable gentleman says. RBS have said that they will make sure

people don't lose out in terms of banking charges, but the point he

makes about the HMRC I'll discuss with the Chancellor. I welcome the

Government's commitment to women and girls the heart of its

development policy, as the toibgio conference on the future of

Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister -- Tokyo conference

on the future of Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister

make the aid conditional on the protection of hard-won rights of

women and girls, which he knows are under attack? She makes a very

important point. What we see in Afghanistan is whereas in 2001

there were less than one million children attending school and there

were no girls attending school in 2001, today, we have got 6 million

children regularly attending school in Afghanistan and two million of

them are girls. I will is listen carefully to what she says about

our aid programme and discuss it with the Secretary of State. It's

important that we attach conditions and have real transparency and

proper results from our aid. I it's the only way we can take people

with us as we continue to expand our aid budget at a time of

economic difficulty at home. She is absolutely right to raise this

issue, because if we want a stable and prosperous Afghanistan and a

safe Afghanistan, we need an Afghanistan where the role of women

is properly respected. Can I give the Prime Minister the opportunity

to answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my friend from

Glasgow Central? If the Prime Minister believes in the

sovereignty of Parliament, will he confirm tomorrow will be a free

vote across the House? There was a vote last night in the House of

Lords when Labour peers were heavily whipped to vote for the

Labour position. I have a clear view. The Government has a clear

view, but the whole of the coalition has a clear view about

the right way ahead. There will be a motion for the Labour Party,

which you can vote for. And a motion for us, which we can vote

for and I hope and let me put this one more time to the Leader of the

Opposition, I will be bound by any a vote for a full public inquiry,

will he be bound if the House votes for a Parliamentary one? If he

can't answer that question people will take a very dim view of an

opposition party that stands in the way of an inquiry because they

don't want their dirty washing done in public. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Olympics are a great opportunity to bring our nation

together. Therefore, does the Prime Minister share my dismay at the

plans of some union leaders to disrupt the summer's events?

think he makes an important point. London. The Right Honourable

gentleman likes to talk about standing up to vested interests.

What have we heard from him on the trade union movement? Absolutely

nothing. The whole country will be listening to that. We want a

strike-free Olympics and Labour should talk to their pay masters

about it. We all witnesses the storms last week across the country.

In my own village it hit the headlines, because of floods. We

are all grateful to the police, the fire brigade, the County Council,

and the mountain rescue service, but will the Prime Minister confirm

that the Government will be there with real money? Of course we will

be there to do that and we are investing around �2 billion in

future flood defences. Of course, all the emergency services have

done an excellent job and they remain ready to carry out further

work if necessary. I also think the Government should lend a very

sympathetic ear to those local councils and local organisations

that are in particular setting up hardship funds to help families,

perhaps who don't have insurance or perhaps cannot avoid the excess

when it comes to actually dealing with the problems that they have. I

have said to the Department of Communities and local Government,

we should be generous in helping people get their lives back

together. Would the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the news that

over �1 billion has been raised in the last six months to startups in

our science sector? More than in the last three years. This is a

massive statement of confidence in our policies to make Britain a

place to do business? I think my honourable friend, who has a close

interest in the industry, he knows a lot about what he speaks, one of

the successes with the EU patent court coming to London, is that the

patents that cover life sciences, pharmaceuticals and those

industries, that is going to be in London too and that is actually

tens of many, many jobs and millions of pounds of investment

into this industry and our capital Metrical Bob Diamond was dominating

PMQs there. -- naturally. First of all, let's hear what you thought

about it. Yes, all of the e-mails talking about that issue. This one

says, nothing but a scramble for the higher moral ground from Labour.

Ed Miliband is playing the only card they have, say it enough, and

people will start believing it. This one says, wasn't Ed Miliband

an adviser when the banks were let off the leash? This one says, Ed

Balls was remarkably quiet today. This one says, Ed Miliband is wrong,

we do not need an inquiry, we need action. Let the serious Fraud

Office pursue any criminal action immediately. This one says, we do

not need a cover-up, we cannot trust this to the politicians. It

is vital to clean the decks, we need to get rid of the dirt. And

this one says, I can fully understand the reticence regarding

a judicial inquiry. Mr Cameron has got himself into an awful muddle

over this, and has been completely outflanked by Ed Miliband today,

with this two-speed review proposal. Miliband comes across as

increasingly statesmanlike and honest.

Towards the end of the exchanges, they got to the kind of, I will

take no lectures from you, but most of it was dominated by another

argument about process, about what kind of inquiry to have - how do we

proceed on this, will the vote in the Commons determine it? That's

what David Cameron was trying to find out, will Labour go along with

the parliamentary inquiry, even if they lose the vote? Of course, the

opposition is extremely likely to lose the vote, on Thursday. Those

exchanges were lower key, a more substantive, Ed Balls was not

shouting out, George Osborne on the other side was lower-key than he

often is. It follows, I can reveal, a conversation which happened

yesterday on the telephone between the Prime Minister and the Leader

of the Opposition. The Prime Minister rang the Labour leader to

discuss this inquiry. Ed Miliband, I am told, essentially said, if you

want a cross-party consensus, you're going about it a pretty

funny way, because Labour were angered, really, by the attempt to

put Ed Balls in the dock, for failing to regulate the banks. What

was interesting, I thought, was that the Prime Minister was trying

to sound none parties and, I will listen to your suggestions. -- non-

partisan. And Ed Miliband was trying to respond to what he had

heard. He was saying, you say it has got to be quick, so I will

suggest a to party inquiry. It was only at their end that you saw the

raw politics. -- two-part inquiry. The Tories are determined to

portray Labour as the party that failed to regulate the bankers.

Both sides are being pretty brutal. What will Labour do if it loses the

vote in the Commons? At the moment we're focusing on the case for a

judge-led inquiry. We will just have to see tomorrow what happens.

I will not be dragged into speculating. The Prime Minister has

said that if the House votes for a judge-led inquiry, which is what

you want, then there will be one. So, if the House votes for a

parliamentary inquiry, will you co- operate? We will have to see.

will know tomorrow. And will say this, if that is the decision of

the House tomorrow, we will never believe that a parliamentary

inquiry would have been as good as having a judge-led one.. I know

that, but I am trying to find out what you will do. You will probably

lose the vote, so, what we you do? Well, we will have to have that

discussion. At the moment, you do not know? At the moment we are

focusing on the most important part of the debate, a judge-led inquiry.

I have asked you and you will not answer, that's fine, maybe you have

to speak to Mr Miliband, maybe he does not even know. Clearly, labour

is worried because they were in power at the time, and there was

clearly manipulation of the LIBOR rates, and government could have

been complicit. But if you look at where we got to by then, you had a

set of regulations which were loose and carelessly -- and clearly did

not work, come the crisis. In the record, I can find no official

Conservative statement of you calling for the regulations to be

tightened - can you give me one? One thing which most concern this,

and it is on the record, is the fact that the regulation of the

banks was split up in a very complex way across the Treasury,

the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. And

back then, we said, this is going to lead to trouble, and we pulled

them back together. But that is about the structure of the

regulation. I understand that he did not too much like the structure

of the tripartite arrangement, but even given that, Mr Miliband is

able to produce a file of your party calling for even light of

regulation. You were wrong, weren't you? I don't think the issue is...

If you will let me answer the question. And just saying, it is

true, isn't it? He has already asked me the question, you do not

have to ask me as well. What we're talking about here is good

regulation, it is not about a light touch or not. Good regulation is

about not having the tripartite system. I thought the Exchange

today was fascinating. Ed Miliband is calling for a judge-led inquiry,

I suspect whilst desperately hoping that it is a parliamentary one.

Because what will be under investigation here is what your

ministers were doing. That is completely not true. He must be

hoping that we can have a Parliamentary Review, secretly.

Where do we go with this? I suspect the public just want an inquiry,

they do not really care what kind it is. There was a poll last night

which suggested the public wanted a judicial -- a judge-led inquiry.

But where does Westminster go on this? You will get a vote. You will

get two votes tomorrow. Because of the parliamentary system, Labour

will lose that vote. They will then have a simple choice - do they vote

against it in the inquiry? If they do, the man asked to chair it says

he will not carry on with that job. Every instinct tells you that

Labour will try their best but in the end they will go along with the

parliamentary inquiry. But there is still an interesting question -

what do they vote for it or do they abstain, in a theatrical statement,

which says, this is not what we wanted, but we will not allow you

to accuse us of trying to block an inquiry, because that is not oppose

an objector. My last thought is, there must be a tiny little thought

in Ed Miliband's head, that I could really bring the house down. In

other words, Labour could vote against it. He will probably see

that as a trap set for him by the Tories. But each day this has gone

on, what has been really striking to me is, Ed Miliband has hardened

his position, not softened it. He thinks he is on a roll, he thinks

he has got David Cameron in the wrong place, he thinks public

opinion is on his site, so he could still press that button. Now, to

something a little different. Kylie, Rick Astley, Bananarama, Mel and

Kim - no, not our next guests, but all acts which were helped into the

top 10 by our next guest, Pete Waterman. Jeremy get in behind the

Government's controversial plan for a new high-speed rail line between

It seem I life I have loved railways. In fact, I started my

career in 1962 at Wolverhampton in the steam depot. It was not until

that closed in 1963 that I considered the music industry as a

career. I have always believed in public railways. In 1968, British

Rail introduced a new electric train service into Euston from

Birmingham. The time was one hour and 20 minutes, coming down from

two hours. I lived in Coventry at the time and I was just joining the

record industry. I did it in 58 minutes. The new high-speed train

service will be in Birmingham in 45 minutes - that's progress. You do

not need to be a railway enthusiast to believe in HS2, because railway

innovation and economic growth go hand in hand. Gone will be the

North-South divide, because land sipping -- because HS2 will change

the United Kingdom for ever. What happened the last time we built a

brand new railway? The Industrial Revolution. As a northerner, I am

not insensitive to the problems of building a brand new railway,

particularly for the people but lose their land and their homes.

But we simply can't put no more trains on our network, we are full.

The country must go forward, we must build HS2 - simple. The

current HS2 deal is proposed to go from Birmingham straight to

Manchester with no stop. Where we would like to see it modified is a

stop at Crewe, which would open up the whole of the north-west, and 6

million more people. You could then get a high-speed train to Lancaster,

Preston, Liverpool, North Wales and Chester. So, Prime Minister, put

that on your route map. Pete Waterman joins us now. We are also

joined in the studio by the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council,

Martin Tett. He is also the chairman of the 51m group of

councils are opposed to the new nine. It is going to cost �32

billion, and much more to buy the trains and pay for the running

costs, all of this to save 35 minutes - is it worth it? It is not

about time, it is about history. This will change Britain once-and-

for-all. It is as simple as that. You cannot look at railways in

military terms. We never have, we never should do. So, it is not

about money or saving time, it is about an Industrial Revolution,

about moving forward? I respect Pete Waterman, but when you look at

spending �30 million -- �32 billion on a railway line, to save 25

minutes for wealthy businessman, I'm not sure that is good value for

money. I can remember when people were just as passionate about

Concorde, about the Millennium Dome - but you have got to have a good

business case. The business case for this has absolutely fallen

apart since January. What do you say to that? It has never had a

business case, you do not need a business case, it is only

politicians need business cases. You build railways, they change the

world. I lived in Coventry, it used to be one hour and 20 minutes,

which went down to 58 minutes. Would you feel like that if you

lived in the Chilterns? I live in Cheshire, and I have got the M56

less than a mile from my back garden. I live there because I can

get to Runcorn or Warrington station in 10 minutes. Respect, but

if you are going to spend �32 billion of taxpayers' money, at a

time of austerity, when, as a local councillor, I am having to make

tough decisions, seeing libraries closing, hospital wards reduced,

these are really tough decisions to defend on the doorstep, so you need

to have a business case for spending this amount of money. The

business case of this project has absolutely collapsed. But even at

the Transport Select Committee, the chairman concluded that High Speed

2 could be a catalyst for economic growth, helping to rebalance the

economy and to bridge the North South divide, that would be part of

answering your concerns, would it not? The Government has tried to

cost that in in the numbers they are producing, what they call their

cost-benefit analysis. When they first announced it, they were

saying that for every �1 invested, you would get more than �2 in terms

of benefits. That has gone down to 1.6, and further down to 1.2. And

if you come to the latest forecasts, it is well down below one. This is

not just about the speed or the business case, it is as simple as

this - we have not built railways at a substantial level since the

Victorian times. This country now has a massively bigger population.

The railway system will be completely full by 2020, we need

another line. We support High Speed 2. The first one came under Labour,

down to the channel, that was a good decision. But I am worried

that the Government will be stepping back from making sure it

goes beyond the Midlands, further up, and the point is that we should

have warned bill which brings these together. And it is about that all

South divide. As a Yorkshire MP, I want to make sure we have a fair

chance to get to be balanced economy, and the railway system is

The Government's argument moves around like jelly. Once it was

about speed and now capacity. It can be about both, but the speed

argument falls apart if you accept that businessmen spend time working

on trains. The issue on capacity is interesting, because we have been

trying to get the details from the DFT about what the factors on the

trains are and they've consistently refused to tell us. If they have an

argument on capacity, if Grant will give a commitment they'll release

the information on what the load factors are, then they've got a

case. I run trains and let me tell you, I cannot get timings from

Network Rail for a steam train until the night before, so I run a

steam special and on the day I don't know if I've got a path.

about capacity? We need the project in this day. If we want to build an

economy is action fit for the 21st century and enables us to be a

better, bigger economy, to help our citizens grow our way out of the

global problems, you cannot do that without significant investment in

infrastructure and that is something we need. If the DFT would

give us the information. It's all fascinating. What you can't

disagree with is significant infrastructure hasn't been built

for many, many years and it's time to do something. Grant shapz, two

things, you say it's definitely going to go ahead. How can you

allay fears about it? It was never planned for the Queen's Speech. It

will come in next year. The other thing, HS2 was sold by your party

as a way to get rid of more runways in the south-east. The Government

seems to be changing its mind on airport capacity. Does that mean we

won't need HS2? You need two. You need to have ports in and out of

the country, because we are a trading global nation. We also need

to move people around within the country. We need more airport

capacity in the south-east. Make the decision to make sure it's

going into the north as well. We need the jobs starting in the north

as well as the south. I know. should be extended beyond both.

It's to extend and go up both sides of the country. Two builds. These

things take a long time to build. I'm going to have to leave it there.

I'm sure we'll meet up again. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Paul tucker from the Bank of England said he now is anxious to

appear before the Treasury Select Committee as quickly as possible,

because he has some very important things he want to say. Now, this

morning a very important announcement was made. At a seminar

in CERN1, the ATLAS and CMS experiment teams presented their

preliminary findings in the search for the long-sought-after Higgs

particle. Both experiments observe a new particle in the mass region

around 125-126 GeV. They say they've observed in their data

clear signs of a new particle at the level of five sigma. The

results, we must stress, are preliminary, but they say it is a

boson and not just that, it's the heaviest boson ever found. The next

step is to find out if the properties are as expected, or if

they are the final missing ingredient in the standard model of

particle physics. Or could it be something more exotic altogether?

Well, we can speak now to the most intelligent man in the Commons, the

former scientist, Julian Huppert, to tell us just what exactly that

all means, as I haven't got the foggiest! It's the fundamental

particle that gives everything mass. It's taken 45 years to see it in

action. It's a very exciting time for science. Thousands of people

have been working on, many from the UK. It's nice to make a theoretical

prediction and find what you are looking for. What is it called the

God particle? Because it does have this amazing role in making sure

that everything has mass, that things fall and are attracted to

each other. It's one of the key things that means that matters

behaves the way we are all used to. Thank you very much. Good to get

straight answers from a politician. Just bash that. Caroline, hit it.

There's the winner. The year was 1986. I've got to apologise,

because we put the wrong film up on the website. It didn't correspond

with what we showed in the programme. Apologies. On the day we