29/03/2012 Newsnight

Forget the pumps, worry about the reactors. Is the real crisis that

the lights are in danger of going out?

Has Britain got an energy strategy, as the nuclear option unwinds, is

time running out. It is disappointing, I won't

pretend otherwise, there is momentum behind nuclear new build

in the UK. Will it be the Government, consumer or environment

that ends up paying, we ask the experts.

We are already back in recession, says the OECD, should the

Government be more worried about that than petrol cans and pasties.

The three Musketeers were on the train to ask if an elected mayor

would make a difference. Of all the cities Birmingham looks most likely

to vote to get a mayor, they will get more powers if they do so,

which powers. Should the UK add plea bargains to their armoury in

the fight against terrorism. We have been speaking to the head of

the FBI. The more I'm in the business I believe that sources and

wires are essential to address terrorism.

Good evening, at the petrol pump there is panic, at home higher

bills. In the North Sea a leaking gas rig, and now plans for a they

generation of nuclear power station lie in tatters, two companies have

pulled out. The Government as attempts to reduce carbon emissions,

while restructuring or energy consumption are looking for

strained and contradictory already. Can you keep everyone happy and

keep the lights on, or will someone pay a heavy price.

In energy economics it is known as the trilemma, it is one of the

thorniest issues facing the Government, how to secure security

of our energy supply, at a price that supports the economy, without

damaging our global environment. The elusive solution that provides

a mixed energy supply, and reduced demand, that will keep Britannia

afloat, without alienating the consumers, who have to pay for it

all, through their bills. Hopes of a stable energy policy

took a hit today, as two of the big six energy giants, pulled out of a

joint venture to build new nuclear reactors in the UK, here in North

Wales and Gloucestershire. The man who was Business Secretary under

Gordon Brown, and who now works as a spokesman for the nuclear energy

industry, conceded it wasn't a good day for nuclear power. It is

obviously disappointing news, that both these companies have made the

decision, on purely commercial grounds, and I understand and

respect that, we do have two consortia still actively pursuing

nuclear new build plans in the UK. That is tremenduously important and

will be important for the UK going forward. Now we have to find,

hopefully, a buyer for this particular consortia, the Horizon

Project, so the plans in North Wales go ahead. It is disappointing,

I will clearly not pretend otherwise. There is momentum behind

nuclear new build in the UK. The Government is committed to ensuring

that is maintained. So are we. For sale, then, the chance to build

two nuclear tour plants. Any takers?

Or is gas the answer? In his budget last week, George Osborne delighted

the industry with incentives that might mean a new dash for gas.

Gas is cheap, and has much less carbon than coal, and will be the

largest single source of electricity in the coming years. My

right honourable friend, the Energy Secretary, will set out our new gas

generation strategy in the autumn. This week's gas leak on the he will

began platform in the North Sea, is a stark reminer, as Britain taps

ever more marginal energy reserves it gets harder and riskier,

firefighting ships were on the scene today amid fears of an

explosion. On shore, there is much excitement

about shale gas, but they are still waiting for the decision from

Government on whether extraction, by hydraulic fracturing, or

fracking, can restart, after it caused two earthquakes near

Blackpool. Here in a London hotel today, more evidence of the

environmental part of that trilemma. Just this week the Government

delayed a decision, that has already taken four years to debate,

mandatory reporting, by business, of carbon emissions. Sustainability

analysts, who have rated the carbon foo footprint of scores of FTSE 250

companies, say that delay is already damaging Britain's

competitiveness. Businesses will be reluctant to invest for the future,

to invest in new technology, to invest in sort of operational

efficiencies that are required, to see how they might transition to

the low-carbon economy. They will be less likely to invest in

research and development, and develop any products and services

for the future. And therefore, potentially, not be as competitive

as some of our other countries could be in this particular space.

With a new question mark over any nuclear Rennaissance in the UK, and

safety and environmental risks linked with any renewed dash for

gas, Britain's cleaner energy companies reckon they have spotted

a chance. Six of Britain's leading wind energy providers are launching

a fightback, an ad campaign that argues wind power should play a

larger part in Britain's future energy supply. They say that unless

renewables play a bigger role, then the rush we are seeing for this

kind of energy, petrol at the pump, will be echoed elsewhere in the

system. With growing numbers of consumers desperate to get hold of

gas and electricity that simply isn't on-line when they want it.

Renewables are important, for our diverse tee, and for providing jobs

for the next ten years. Renewables will lead to lower cost of energy

for the UK consumer, because gas price also carry on increasing.

rests on the shoulders of this generation to find a way through

the energy trilemma, successfully juggling the economy, energy

security, and the environment. Or risk handing the next generation an

energy system that doesn't deliver. We have Peter Lilley, the co-

founder of the campaign Plain Stupid, and Tom Burke, who has

advised three environment secretaries. Thank you for coming

If we look, first of all, at the nuclear pull-out, does it leave

Britain's energy strategy in crisis? It leaves the policy in

crisis but doesn't leave Britain in crisis, because the policy, to a

large extent, was based on a complete mistake, that we were

running out of generational capacity, and we needed nuclear to

fill that gap. Reality is we are closing down gas-fired power

stations at the moment because there is not enough demand for them.

So Britain is not in bad position, but the policy is in a complete

mess. You mean we are fine without the nuclear power stations?

don't need nuclear power station, even if you were very optimistic

and started building a new nuclear power station some time next year,

you would be in the middle of the next decade before generating any

electricity from it. It was always a mistaken policy.

Do you think that's right? Do you think the whole idea that we put

all our energise into the new nuclear and that was a complete

mistake? Theoretically the new existing nuclear power stations

will be decommissioned, they may be extend, but they have decommission

dates. Quite a lot of coal-fired stations will be illegal under

European Union rules. Unless we will use less electricity we will

need more xasty. The cheapest way is more gas, which produces half as

much carbon as coal and oil. The only way you can meet carbon

commitments, if you think it is important to reduce or eliminate

carbon emissions and producing electricity that is nuclear, is the

way to go. You say "if" we think it is important? You don't? I don't

think it is nearly as important people do, I don't know the science,

but I trained in physics, but the economics built up on the back of

the carbon fears I don't go along with. We are back to fossil fuels?

The fear is we are rushing towards a very gas-dependant future. We

will end up with a huge amount of our electricity and heating coming

from gas. Gas is hugely expensive, household energy bills went up by

�175 on average last year. Almost all of that driven by gas. It is

highly polluting, and most imported. It seems madness we would go down

that route when we could make renewable energy the cornerstone of

our energy strategy like Germany has. Renewables are way more

expensive than gas? Not true. this country at this stage? Gas is

the main reason why bills have gone up. And gas is hugely. That is a

different point. Gas and fossil fuels have gone up a lot, that is

the main reason bills have gone up. But if we were to switch to wind

and sol la, then our bills would be much, much -- solar, then our bills

would be much, much higher. That is not true. Why the need to subsidise

them? Let's be clear of nuclear subsidies. You have to remember how

bad this decision is for the Fukushima clear industry. What has

been said, is even -- the nuclear industry is. It was said even with

the subsidies it wasn't going to be economically viable. Let's clear up

the fossil fuels versus renewables, this is key. Where would consumers

get a cheaper deal going forward? Exactly, that is why Peter is wrong

to say it is the only option. The key thing for consumers is to

separate global energy prices and bills. The way to do that driving

energy efficiency forward by demand reduction and running the energy

system more efficiently, focusing on driving bills down. We have

exactly the wrong priority in the current proposed reform of

electricity markets, which will try to increase supply expensively,

however you do it, instead of thinking how you do it. The fact

Tom avoided answering the question gives the game away, renewables are

far more expensive than fossil fuels. Do you think people will

have to change the way they live? doubt very much, I think we are

moving towards a situation where the price of gas may come down, we

will switch to more gas production, that will happen to reduce the

level of carbon emissions, it will reduce the costs. If we find we

have large reserves of shale gas, as they have in the states.

have conceded the main reason why bills have gone up is the price of

gas. Why would you want to become more dependant on expensive,

imported gas. It is less expensive than renewables, and there is a

prospect, that we have large reserves of shale gas, which in the

states is halving the price of gas. Exxon disagree, British Gas

disagree, Deutsche Bank disagree, they all say shale gas is unlikely

to bring down costs for consumers. We have seen it bring down costs.

Your analysis depended on what you call more efficiencies, which,

reading between the lines, means people using less energy, or

insulating the loft? Do more energy efficiency and make better use of

your generating capacity. households or a country? As a

country. Not just as households, but businesses as well. We will use

renewables, we are legally committed to generating 35% of our

electricity from renewables. We are going to use gas, I have no problem

with us using gas. Frankly, the Chancellor disagrees with both

these guys, we saw it in the package, that gas is cheap. I don't

know quite where they think it is such an expensive option. What is

so frustrating s the Government have been bending over backwards to

try to make nuclear work, offering all sorts of hidden supsidies, now

the nuclear dream is falling apart, and all the time they could have

been investing in renewable energy like other countries, this is a

blooming global he industry, we are falling behind and not xoting with

these countries, because the Government -- competing with these

countries because the Government has put all their eggs in nuclear

or gas. We have gone for two of the worst options as opposed to the

obvious middle one? The idea you can run a modern economy on wind

that blows sometimes and then not, and sun that goes in at night.

Germany does it? It is reining back on its subsidies and it is only a

small share. This summer the German Government is expecting to get 40%

on some days of its total. On some days, what about the others. Let me

finish. Sorry. 40% of its electricity some days from PVC

polar alone. In nuclear capacity we lose 24% of it to unplanned outages,

it is just as intermittant as solar. Even in Germany the sun doesn't

shine at night. It is very important. I'm saying that is

proving a point, which is you can't rely on it? He's not proving a

point. The point is we have a grid that can manage losing 24% of its

electricity, nuclear, without any problems, because you manage all

the sources of energy on a grid are intermittant. I don't think any of

us realise how steeply household bills will rise with gas. The

Government stuck out a press release on Saturday before the

budget, saying gas power plants could say at the current carbon

levels to 2045, that is under the radar, that will be a huge cost.

don't get the cost you are making. Why should gas be a huge cost?

Because gas bills are going up, all the bills are going up? If you

replace an expensive fuel by a more expensive fuel, they go up more.

You can't pretend that these other sources of electricity, are less

expensive, and still demand supsidies for them. By any

calculation you have to have supsidies for wind, you need twice

the subsidy of offshore wind. You even need subsidy for nuclear.

Government has lost its appetite for renewables? The Chancellor

doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about renewables, the

point is, he's putting his eggs into the gas basket, but his own

independent advisers on climate change, say that for the UK to stay

within our carbon budgets, that all three political parties say they

support, then we have to have the power sector decarbonised by 2030,

he wants gas plants operating with high emissions until 2045.

The Press Pack was in full cry today, sniffing out which cabinet

minister has or hasn't chowed down on a pasty, and which has or hasn't

filled a Gerry can full of petrol. But humming in the background is

the big story. This country's slow economic recovery. Today the

Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the EOCD,

predicted we are in a double-dip recession, given their record of

predictions, perhaps that was good news for George Osborne. Do you buy

this? It is a dizzying array of predictions. What is puzzling some

people in Government, they do take it seriously, but they are also

looking at other indicators published after the OECD put their

note out, which shows things are tipping up. The PMI is ticking up,

and this service sector is going up. Very technical, but lots of people

have been watching since January, that some of these figures going up

north rather than south. The chatter, we even did on this

programme, a film about "oh my gosh we have found some growth". There

is beginning to be chatter more upbeat against the general

background of gloom. More upbeat than before. Last September there

were people in the cabinet who were saying these indicators are so bad

we do need to look at Plan A minus. That is not true moment. If we were

to get, in three weeks when the real figures come out, that real

"R" recession, that won a massive boom for the op session, at a time

when this Government -- opposition, at that time when the Government is

not having a great time. This graph gives us a longer view of the

history of how quickly we have out of recessions, or economic gloom in

of recessions, or economic gloom in the past. We are the lower blue

line, I can't really make it out, maybe the viewers can a bit better,

this is because of the pace Which? We are deleveraging at the moment.

This is the particular -- with which we are deleveraging moment.

This is the particular debt we had going on, and undoing that debt

will take a long time. The economists we will set on to that

in a moment. Bringing you back to the political point, it would be a

blow to the Chancellor if it were true, but would it alter his

policies? No way. That was brief. You don't think it will change at

all? I think this is has all been about the bond markets, it if it

became that serious and find way to signal to the bond markets that

they were doing what they said all along, they would have done it last

September. They knew this period was going to be choppy. Mervyn King

said it was a zig zag year, and it is proving to be.

I'm off again. The British economy, is it a soft pastey roll or sausage.

We have Ann Pettifor, who wrote a paper on the economic consequences

of George Osborne and my other guest. Does it feel to you, Ann

Pettifor, like we are in recession? It feels as if we are bumping along

It feels as if we are bumping along on the bottom. I'm not sure the

OECD have got this quarter right, we haven't even our own number. The

fact is whether or not they have got it right, we are not recovering,

we are stagnant. The Government talks about the economy being

stable, it is just stagnant, and it has been since the summer of 2010.

Why do you think it is taking so long for us to recover? This is not

a typical recession. Normally when you go into recession from a boom,

poplg are flush with cash. We went -- people are flush with cash. We

went in with Governments borrowing cash, including oun, individuals --

own, individuals borrowing money, and when the banks go bust before a

recession you get a different outcome. What is historically named

as a depression, the debt deflation makes it hard to recover. The fact

is our Government is focusing on public borrowing, that really isn't

half as serious as our private debt. I think it was shown, it is the

private debt not deleveraged. We are the most indebted nation on

earth. The private sector is more indebted than Japan. Who is that?

The banks, private firms, corporations, households. In the

United States they have started deleveraging that, paying down or

foreclosing on their debts by 15%, we haven't. So people are burdened

by this debt, dumped on us by the banks, in the credit boom, and

nobody is doing anything about it. But the focus is entirely on

something else, which is the public sector debt. It is very ironic that

Gordon Brown talked about us importing this problem from America,

it was America where it all started, and now they have decoupled from us,

and they seem to be on the road to recovery and we are not. Where did

that come from? That is because Gordon was talking nonsense.

they encourage a fiscal stimulus and spent money? I think policy

response, America has always had a more flexible economy than us. They

had more willing employees and people moving more, naturally their

housing market is not the same as our's. It doesn't have, outside the

major centres in New York, land doesn't have a great value, it

finds a clearing level more easily than in the UK. We didn't import

the problem from America. This was a problem across the developed

world, in the west, where people basically, our debt grew, far more

rapidly for a large number of years, than our economic growth. It was

fuelled by debt. We were not unique in that, neither was America.

is because our finance sector is out of control, and the Government

is not doing anything to restrain the finance sector. The finance

sector is still about speculative lending. It is not about investing

in infrastructure, energy efficiency, investing in the things

that will create jobs. The whole austerity problem is completely

misplaced? It is misplaced because all the other sectors are crippled

by debt, they are not able to invest and spend, that leaves only

the Government. There is no growth, and actually. What would explain

there is no growth. Because we are not investing in the places where

people can actually:? If you have too much debt to begin with at

every level. We agree we have too much at the public and private

level. We don't agree with the public level. I would. What was

said about the bond markets is absolute rubbish, that is what the

Government is saying. We don't depend on the bond markets for our

borrowing, but the Bank of England. The Government boroughs from itself

at a very low rate of interest. The Bank of England has financed the

Government's deficit since 2010. it is that easy, why don't we just

let the Bank of England print enough money to pay off all our

bebt debt and we will be free tomorrow. We are not asking the

Bank of England to print off money to pay debts, we are asking the

Bank of England to give the Government the finance it needs to

spend. There is a difference between spending on welfare

benefits and on infrastructure and investment, which nobody is doing.

Least of all the Government. policy terms, does what the

Chancellor laid out in last week he is budget, make our recovery

easier? I don't think it does. wouldn't call it a budget for

entrepeneurs? I would suggest nothing can. When you get in this

position there is no magic way out. In the 1930s, we didn't sit back,

we didn't sit on our hands and say. John MaynardCan, he's work was not

published until 1961. The point is, we didn't sit on our hands and

allow unemployment to rocket upwards and output to slump, and

businesses to go bust and families to go bankrupt. John Maynard Canes

didn't publish his work until 1936. I would like the Government to

spend not on welfare but infrastructure, which would create

the income to restore the banks to stability.

Today, the minister responsible for encouraging more councils to have

elected mayors told Newsnight that he hoped they would one day be more

powerful than cabinet ministers. It seems a more attractive proposition

than being a member of Ed Milliband's shadow cabinet, Liam

Byrne said he would quit to run for mayor in Birmingham, if they

decided they wanted one. Will public figureheads make any

difference, and will they have any real powers to change things. Our

political editor and her infag teeingable producer have been in

You heard of the Great Train Robbery, this is the great train

givaway. We are travelling to Birmingham with three of localisms

real fans, they will explain to people what they will get if they

vote for a mayor. Grb if they vote for a mayor.

The three mayoral Musketeers, are confident of the Prime Minister,

and the original architect of how mayors could work, Peter Clarke who

has nursed it through, Michael Heseltine, and Lord Donaldson, who

has championed mayors, and -- Lord Adonis, who has championed mayors.

I did what powers would they get? What would Birmingham demand if

they get an effective leader. Alex Salnond does not wonder what

Whitehall will do for me, he thumps the table and says this is what I

want. We need those people in cities. The City Council of

Birmingham has a budget of �4 billion a year, it has

responsibility for 400 schools and huge other responsibilities.

not give the powers to elected councils, why not why one

charasmatic figure? That is the view of councils, the situation is

not broken, why fix it. The situation is not fine, there are

not leaders who are nationally known, there is a situation of one

of compromise, loaders emerge from discussions behind closed doors,

every decision goes to endless committees. The result is Whitehall

has a virtual monopoly of decision making. What do you say to cities

who look like they are not interested in this exercise? There

is only one referendum in a city so far, London, huge majority in

favour. Who in London would turn the clock back now and not have a

mayor? Virtually nobody. A city that wants to get left behind, what

can one do about it, if they opt to be left behind, that is up to them.

People will make their call on whether or not they want to travel

with Lord Heseltine, when there are referendums in ten cities, up and

down the country, on the 3rd of May. The Institute for Government, asked

YouGov if there was any appetite 37% didn't know or care. Then the

institute asked a question intended to bring out whether current

council leaders were big figures in Despite such polling results, there

is still considerable dissent. sounds exciting to have a Boris and

Ken contest, but in practice, politicians are not perfect people.

We have checks and balances, but people don't do exactly what they

should do, and there needs to be a checks and balance. The idea of

giving somebody total power for four years wrong.

Sir Thomas at wood here is cet did -- credited as one of Birmingham's

earliest MPs. Here they hope future mayors will be more powerful than

cabinet ministers. Choosing one directly elected guy means it is

the people who chose what happens. There is one person identified, it

diminishes the significance of councillors, they don't like it.

The Mayor of Birmingham will be a more significant figure than

members of cabinet. It will be a hugely political post. If you have

somebody sitting there as Mayor of Birmingham, a household name, and

won an election across the second largest city in the country, you

are not in a position to say no to them. If the Prime Minister says

you may have a God case we won't give you power of the welfare

budget -- a good case, but we won't give you power of the welfare

budget? The Prime Minister has said the mayors will sit around the

table with him twice a year, and they can put the case. If you are

at that cabinet meeting and the mayors are united in demanding a

certain set of powers, I'm sure they will come out and talk to you

and other broadcasters, I think it would be very difficult for a Prime

Minister, unreason below, to be refusing powers that ought to be in

the hands of cities and mayors. Those in Government Des operate to

see a new platoon of mayors across the country, know this is probably

their last chance in a generation to pull it off. Somewhere like here,

Birmingham, is a poster child for the policy. People here are up for

it. There are places like Nottingham and Wakefield, where

they are slower on the uptake. If you are in Government and pushing

this policy, you want a number of cities to go to it so mayors become

the normal, not an oddity. Which new powers to wrest away from

Whitehall will be up to these new politicians. Central Government

doesn't yet know what cities like Birmingham will take back. The head

of the FBI has said Britain should follow the US lead and allow

terrorists to make plea bargains. It claims it can help for the

capture of other terrorists through the information they yield. Would

it lead people to say what they thought prosecutors wanted to hear.

From an ethical perspective should we choose national security over

natural Jews is it T Pips Taylor, who has catch -- justice.

Peter Taylor has been in America watching the spies.

America's domestic Intel against service, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, has a history of running human sources, often wiring

them to make secret recordings. more I'm in this business, the more

I believe sources and wires are absolutely essential to address

espionage, and terrorism and the like. It is adapting that long

history of using sources and wires to threats of today that have been

the challenge. The FBI has one particular tool in its armoury to

counter terrorism, that is used far more liberally and extensively than

in the UK. It is called, a plea bargain, a process in which a

suspect agrows to co-operate, in return for a much shorter -- agrees

to co-operate, in return for a much shorter sentence. The question is,

would the UK benefit from adopting a similar system. For us, in the

area of terrorism, it is an essential tool. To have a system

whereby there is an incentive to provide information.

At their headquarters, in Virginia, the FBI use role playing exercises

to train their special agents. We were given rare access to see how

they are taught to turn and recruit sources. And how to use a plea

bargain as an incentive. Do you want me to get information. I tell

you what I want to do, I want you to hang out with the same people

you have in the past, and do the same things you have always done.

But just, under direction from us. If I do what you are asking, what

about these charges? I can't promise you anything, but, I want

to help you out in every way I can. I want you to help me out in every

way you can. It is a give and take relationship. So you are saying,

you could keep me out of prison? I'm saying I'm going to try.

anybody finds out I'm doing this, there is a lot of people who will

kill me, you know that. Woods Clive Woodward trains the new recruits to

- Martin Woods trains the new recruits to plea bargain, but to

use it carefully. The best way to recruit someone is to hold

something over them. As was played in today's sin Nair yo. You have a

criminal charge over someone -- scenario, you have a criminal

charge over one you have leverage over them. People think

interrogation is finger pointing, screaming, they don't expect

someone to be emtheyic and sympathetic to their cause --

emtheyic and sympathetic to their cause and come with honey. That is

what we teach in our training sessions. One of the most useful

people in the war against terror was a young American Muslim, who

would eventually agree to a plea bargain with the FBI. He openly

boasted before a television camera. When Americans come in with the

mind set to clean, my Muslim brother and sisters, I will kill

every American I see in Afghanistan. Mohammed Babar had helped set up a

terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, attended by many

British would-be Jihadists, including this man, Kazi Rahman.

can't wait to see British soldiers on the battlefield and see them run,

I'm happy to kill hem. Is Two years after the interviews, Mohammed

Babar flew back to New York. Remarkably, even this fiercely

committed Jihadi, could be induced to become a human source.

Over six months he told the FBI everything. What he had done, who

he had trained with in Pakistan, and the attacks they were planning.

Mohammed Babar was to prove a human source that Intelligence Services

dream of. He was critical, he's an individual

who had both the access and capability to get into groups that

simply would not have exist without him. In return for a much shorter

sentence, he agreed to co-operate and reveal everything. Instead of a

life sentence, he served just five years, and is now at liberty. Such

dramatic reductions are typical in America. But, for many in Britain,

such deals raise the uncomfortable prospect of seeing convicted

terrorists walking free. The director of the FBI believes

MI5 and the British police stand to gain an intelligence windfall,

should plea bargaining operate as it does in America. He points to

the hundreds of convicted Islamist terrorist prisoners in British

jails. Whose heads are full of vital intelligence. Which they are

unlikely to divulge, unless they are given an incentive to do so.

think my brothers and sisters in the UK, don't have that same access

to intelligence. Do you think the UK would benefit from doing the

same? I do. If they had access to the information in the head of a

number of persons who have been arrested over a period of time, as

to where they went for their training, whether it be Pakistan or

some place else, who was involved in the training, what other plots

were in training. They would be a benefit to those agencies to have

access to those intelligences. Britain has reaped huge benefit

from the FBI's plea bargain with Mohammed Babar. In 2004, in an

operation code named Crevice, British intelligence secretly

filmed a suspect in a lock-up, checking the fertiliser stored for

a massive bomb. The suspected targets included a nightclub and a

shopping centre. The man under surveillance was the leader of a

British terrorist cell, and had trained in Pakistan alongside Babar.

As part of his plea bargain, Babar gave evidence in open court,

evidence that proved critical in the conviction of five members of

the cell. All were given life imprisonment. It prevented the

people who were being charged with that crime from claiming that they

were just opportunists that they were momentarily enraged by

something that had happened in the world. It showed how they had been

training and planning and preparing to mount a terrorist attack here in

the UK for quite a long time. Kazi Rahman was arrested for

attempting to buy weapons and sentenced to nine years.

Babar has also given evidence against terrorist suspects in the

USA and Canada. So, if plea bargaining can be so

successful, why don't we adopt the American system? In America the

prosecution and defence reach a formal agreement and then put it to

the judge, with a recommendation on sentencing. Which he can accept or

reject. By contrast, in the UK, the prosecution and defence can

encourage the judge to take account of the defendant's assistance. But

they can't make a specific recommendation on sentencing. So,

unlike in America, the accused has no clear idea of what he will get

in return. For many years it is something that

those of us involved in law enforcement, here in the UK, have

been wondering whether there might be some movement on. If somebody is

going to be asked to really compromise the rest of their life,

in terms of potential safety and security, there has to be something

in exchange. Do you think we should do plea bargaining as in America.

think we have to be hugely careful, there is the risk of people giving

false evidence in exchange for a discount on their sentence. That's

something we have to be vigilent about. If we could find some way of

offering something more in exchange than we currently have, which is

actually very little, then I think that could only be a good thing.

Tentative steps have been made towards American-style deals, with

the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005. But, there is

still a long way to go before Britain benefits from the wealth of

intelligence potentially to hand. Director Muller's words will

probably fall on welcome ears at MI5, Scotland Yard, and the Home

Office. You can see the first part of Peter Taylor's new series,

Modern Spies, on BBC on Monday night. We have the Conservative

Party MP, Patrick Mercer and Keith Vaz here to argue it out. They know

how to spend their Easter break! We are grateful chaps. You heard from

the head of the FBI saying the UK would benefit, if there was even

the remotist chance this could foil terrorist plots in the country, why

wouldn't you chance it? You have to be very careful, exactly as Peter

Clarke has said, he has a lot of experience in counter terrorism

work. I'm not in favour of the further Americanisation of our

legal system. We have two different systems, our's works very well, it

is an issue of guilt or innocence. Once you start to make it into a

shade of innocence and guilt, it becomes very difficult. I think

that though there is examples of information being helpful, it isn't

a consistent set of examples. I think we need to be very careful

indeed. And very careful means, don't do it? Keith's making good

point, but all I can say, it wasn't called this or anything like as

formal. I saw this in Northern Ireland on endless tours over there,

when we managed to turn someone, when we managed to arrange

something with the judge, which was the exception, rather than the rule,

it was inevitably useful. Not necessarily because of the

intelligence we received, but because of the very important

message that it sent to his, they were all men in my case, to his

colleagues. So the psychological whistle-blowing really?

psychology of it, to the rest of the terrorist networks, here is

someone in police or military custody, and they are singing, they

are coughing. What are they saying? What do the victims say to that,

look at this case, a man who should have been serving a life sentence,

having five years and then being free, a terrorist? Absolutely. It

is unpalatable, I accept that, it is difficult to make people, the

public, understand exactly what's going on. The points that I'm

making are very seldom referred to. The fact that once this individual

is in custody, here we are, he has done a deal. What message does that

send to his colleagues. The message is, he has informed, he has told

people what is going on, he's a liability. Patrick has huge

experience, not just in Northern Ireland but in counter terrorism.

There is a but coming! The problem is s as he knows in a

trial like the Supergrass trial in Northern Ireland, �4 million of

tax-payers' money, Robert and Ian Stewart walked free, and 12 people

were able to go off. It is sometimes used as a threat. We had

interesting evidence from David Birmingham to the select committee

on extradition, what he said was he pleaded guilty because he knew if

he didn't there was a sentence of 300 years coming his way. He

believed the only way to deal with it was plead guilty. Prosecutors

are lazy too, they don't have to produce as much evidence, and there

is a danger of false evidence. these things have to be balanced

out much the points made are well thought out. Particularly with

Islamic fundamentalists, who are on the point of killing hundreds of

thousands of people. That changes things, particularly when someone

has been arrested very early in the commission of an alleged crime, it

makes it a whole different ball game. There is a hypocrisy, if you

look at how we have profited any way, from plea bargaining in the US,

Operation Cef Crevice, -- Operation Crevice, we are the happy

recipients. We should continue to be so. Without offering anything in

return? It is different judicial system, you have already started to

have it in serious and organised crime. You have the Goodyear

directions, can you go before a judge and say you will plead guilty,

and your sentence is known to you before the matters proceed. If you

have a situation where you are able to, in a sense, manipulate the

system, you could be giving all kinds of information out, which

won't necessarily be information that is going to be helpful. It is

such a powerful tool, many of us, you and I discussed it on the home

affairs commit year, several times, it is such an important thing, it

it is one of the conclusive things you can do to a terrorist. As I say,

not just the individual whom you may or may not sentence, but the

message it spreads to all colleagues. You have been trying to

get this considered for years. The Home Office is very resistant to

this, do you think you can change their minds? I don't think I can

change anything. If men and women of reason get together, and I

persuade people like Keith Vaz to support me, I think we can. I think

Patrick is moving in a direction, and the Government is moving in

this direction, but we need to be very, very cautious indeed. What we

don't want to do. What is your starting point? There are already

starting points, the Goodyear directives and the way we deal with

queens' evidence, they are all there. If we get the whole of our

criminal justice system overtaken by plea bargains, 87% of -- 97% of

convictions in America are done by plea bargains, my worry is you

start with counter terrorism and then to other aspects of law,s a

slippery slope. If anyone will convince them, Captain mers will do

it. Reduced in seniority, Major, if you like. Let's take you through

the papers, on the front of the FT, you have our top story, the setback

Also interesting, George Osborne to challenge Labour on spending, and

challenge Labour to match a detailed coalition programme of

cuts, stretched into the middle of next parliament. In the Times, a

fuel crisis made in Downing Street. The owner of a store in Bournemouth

carries his last six gerrycans to sell to motorists. Entrepeneurship

That's all we have time for tonight. Today the Bluegrass musician, Earl