:00:32. > :00:35.Morning. Welcome to a special programme today. The News of the
:00:35. > :00:41.World is closed, but James Murdoch is back in Westminster. He's giving
:00:41. > :00:46.evidence to the Commons as we broadcast. He started at 11am. He's
:00:46. > :00:51.going to continue, we understand, until about 12.30 or even 1pm. We
:00:51. > :00:55.are watching and we'll bring you all the highlights as we get them.
:00:55. > :01:03.Interest rates on Italian bonds breached 7%. Germany tries to
:01:03. > :01:07.scotch talk of a break-up but can the eurozone provide? Spending on
:01:07. > :01:10.cancer treatment increased during the Labour years, so why are
:01:10. > :01:15.survival rates still worse than other countries? We are will be
:01:15. > :01:21.asking a leading cancer expert. Commerce, education and the - what
:01:21. > :01:24.is the third one there? Let's see! Nobody helping him there. Rich
:01:24. > :01:34.Perry has a senior moment in last night's debate, but is it possible
:01:34. > :01:40.to survive the political gap? -- gaffe? All that coming up in the
:01:40. > :01:44.next hour. We are extended today. It is all going to be pretty
:01:44. > :01:47.uncomfortable for James Murdoch, who has been called back to
:01:47. > :01:50.Parliament to appear again before the media Select Committee to
:01:50. > :01:55.answer more questions about exactly what he knew and had he knew it,
:01:55. > :02:00.about the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World. Over the
:02:00. > :02:03.past few days, new evidence has surfaced about undercover
:02:03. > :02:07.surveillance operations also carried out by the News of the
:02:07. > :02:11.World. The committee will also ask him about inconsistencies between
:02:11. > :02:15.the evidence that he gave in the summer, at the special hearings
:02:15. > :02:19.that we brought to you live then, and the statements of subsequent
:02:19. > :02:22.people who had worked for the News of the World. The red top may be
:02:22. > :02:28.gone, but the headlines have continued to haunt the Murdoch
:02:28. > :02:32.empire. Today, James Murdoch, son of Rupert, is back in the spotlight
:02:32. > :02:36.at the Select Committee, who are asking him about developments since
:02:36. > :02:40.July. This week we learned a private investigator was paid by
:02:40. > :02:44.the News of the World to track the movements of more than 100 figures,
:02:44. > :02:48.including Prince William, David Beckham and Boris Johnson and the
:02:48. > :02:53.lawyers of the hacking victims. The committee are likely to ask did he
:02:53. > :02:57.know about this? It is also likely they'll want to ask Mr Murdoch
:02:58. > :03:07.about a letter they published in August from the pap area former
:03:07. > :03:11.Royal Editor Clive good -- paper -- paper's Royal Editor Clive Goodman.
:03:11. > :03:14.Back in July, James Murdoch said he didn't ask more questions about
:03:14. > :03:18.hacking because Harbottle and Lewis said evidence was limited, but
:03:18. > :03:21.since then the legal firm has said it provided very narrow advice in
:03:22. > :03:25.relation to an employment claim and it did not provide News
:03:25. > :03:29.International with a clean bill of health. Mr Murdoch's already been
:03:29. > :03:33.asked by the committee again what he knew about the four Neville e-
:03:33. > :03:38.mails, which appear to show a senior reporter at the News of the
:03:38. > :03:43.World knew about phone hacking - something which Neville has denied.
:03:43. > :03:49.In July, James Murdoch said he wasn't aware of the e-mail when he
:03:50. > :03:52.signed off a payment for Gordon Taylor, but the denial was
:03:52. > :03:58.contradicted by Tom Crone and editor Colin Myler. The committee
:03:58. > :04:04.began questioning Mr Murdoch a short time ago. The chair began by
:04:04. > :04:08.asking him about that Neville e- mail. Do you want to say whether or
:04:08. > :04:14.not you still assert that you had no knowledge of the e-mail? Yes.
:04:14. > :04:24.Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and to all the committee members.
:04:24. > :04:31.
:04:31. > :04:36.On a number of occasions to Mr Taylor and his lawyers. The meeting
:04:36. > :04:40.which I remember quite well was a short meeting and I was given at
:04:40. > :04:45.that meeting sufficient information to authorise the increase of the
:04:45. > :04:51.settlement offer that had been made, or offers, and authorised them to
:04:51. > :04:55.go and negotiate that settlement. I was given no more than that.
:04:55. > :05:05.Certainly evidence was described to me that indicated that the company
:05:05. > :05:06.
:05:06. > :05:13.would lose the case if it litigated, but the nature of the full Neville
:05:13. > :05:17.-- of the "for Neville" e-mail, any wider spread of evidence, none of
:05:17. > :05:20.these things were mentioned to me including the detail and substance
:05:20. > :05:24.of the leading counsel's opinion that had been sought by them and
:05:24. > :05:28.received by them earlier. It was only sufficient information to
:05:28. > :05:31.authorise them to increase the settlement offers that they had
:05:31. > :05:35.already made. Even if it wasn't described as the "for Neville" e-
:05:35. > :05:45.mail, were you made aware of the existence of an e-mail that
:05:45. > :05:47.
:05:47. > :05:52.contained the transcript of voice Yes. I think this is an important
:05:52. > :05:56.point to be very, very clear on it, if I may. The e-mail that is now
:05:56. > :06:00.known as the for Neville e-mail was important for two reasons. On the
:06:00. > :06:04.one hand, it was important because it was a transcript of voicemail
:06:04. > :06:11.interceptions that were made on behalf of the News of the World and
:06:11. > :06:14.that was seen as evidence and as sufficient to conclude that the
:06:14. > :06:21.company would lose the case. There was another part of that e-mail
:06:21. > :06:25.which was important, which was it was so-called "for Neville." And
:06:25. > :06:30.that it named another journalist in that e-mail and that second part,
:06:30. > :06:36.that importance, was not described to me in any detail or at all and
:06:36. > :06:41.it was not described as the "for Neville." E-mail. No documents were
:06:41. > :06:46.shown to me at that meeting or given to me or prior. It is now
:06:46. > :06:50.your position that you weren't made aware of the existence of an e-mail
:06:50. > :06:56.that was extremely damaging to your defence that nobody else was
:06:56. > :06:59.involved? Yes, and I think as I testified in the summer to this
:06:59. > :07:05.committee, I was made aware that there was evidence that the
:07:05. > :07:09.transcript existed and it was on behalf of the News of the World. It
:07:09. > :07:12.is double importance that it was that e-mail and also perhaps the
:07:12. > :07:16.beginning of suspicion that other individuals were involved at the
:07:16. > :07:21.News of the World was not described to me and the e-mail was not shown
:07:21. > :07:26.to me either. Did you not see a copy of the e-mail? No, I did not.
:07:26. > :07:30.Were you aware of the legal counsel's opinion that had since
:07:30. > :07:36.been obtained? I was aware that leading counsel's opinion had been
:07:36. > :07:41.obtained, but it was described to me as to do with damages and the
:07:41. > :07:45.estimate of damages were the case to be litigated and lost. It was
:07:45. > :07:49.not shown to me, the leading counsel's opinion, nor described to
:07:49. > :07:56.me, the other things in the opinion that I know has been provided to
:07:56. > :08:02.you, that were not to do with damages. Finally, there was - we
:08:02. > :08:06.have since learnt from Farrahs that there was a previous meeting which
:08:06. > :08:10.you had with Colin Myler for which Tom Crone supplied a brief at the
:08:10. > :08:17.end of May. Do you remember that meeting? I think you are referring
:08:17. > :08:25.to a note that Mr Piker Farrahs wrote, describing a conversation he
:08:25. > :08:30.had had with Mr Crone. I have now seen this note, which I hadn't seen
:08:30. > :08:34.before. In that note Colin Myler suggests or says to Mr Piker that
:08:34. > :08:39.he spoke to James Murdoch. He does not say there is a meeting. He
:08:39. > :08:42.refers to a conversation that he had with me that he alleged had
:08:42. > :08:49.with me. We do not recall that meeting or conversation or
:08:49. > :08:52.telephone call or what it might have been and as I testified, the
:08:52. > :08:57.first substantive and only substantive meeting that I recall
:08:57. > :09:02.in conversation about the matter was 10th June meeting with Mr Crone
:09:02. > :09:06.and Mr Myler. I can't rule out whether or not he called me or got
:09:06. > :09:10.me in the hallway or something like that, for a brief conversation.
:09:10. > :09:14.claim that you didn't know the detail of what was going on in your
:09:14. > :09:20.company, so do you think that internal evidence about phone
:09:20. > :09:24.hacking for example, was kept from you? It's clear to me that in 2008,
:09:24. > :09:31.for example, the information that I received around the Taylor case was
:09:31. > :09:36.incomplete. It is also clear to me that in 2009 upon allegations
:09:36. > :09:40.arising in a newspaper about the Taylor case, that the full extent
:09:40. > :09:44.of the knowledge within the business or the evidence within the
:09:44. > :09:49.business as well as at the - with the Metropolitan Police was not
:09:49. > :09:55.made clear to me. That's something that I'm very sorry for. Who should
:09:55. > :10:03.have told you about it? I think it's important to remember that
:10:03. > :10:06.after the resignation of Mr Coulson, Mr Hinton brought Mr Myler in as an
:10:06. > :10:10.outside person who had a responsibility and remit it both
:10:10. > :10:13.clean up the issue and investigate the issue and move the company
:10:13. > :10:18.forward and the newspaper forward in a way that made sure that these
:10:18. > :10:22.things couldn't happen again. If he had known, if he had known, which
:10:22. > :10:25.is an if, that there was wider spread criminality or evidence or
:10:25. > :10:31.sufficient suspicion of that, I should think he should have told me
:10:31. > :10:35.those things. After the arrest of Rebekah Brooks we were given legal
:10:35. > :10:38.advice and prohibited from going down a certain route with our
:10:38. > :10:42.questions, so can you just confirm to me that you have not been
:10:42. > :10:45.arrested or you are not currently on bail and you are therefore free
:10:45. > :10:49.to answer all the questions I'm going to put to you? I've not been
:10:49. > :10:53.arrested or currently on bail. I am free to answer questionsened I
:10:53. > :10:56.would like to. I should say, though, that to the extent that questions
:10:56. > :11:00.relate to matters of criminal investigation or relate to
:11:00. > :11:03.individuals that are currently arrested on bail or under criminal
:11:03. > :11:08.investigation, that some of those things would be inappropriate for
:11:08. > :11:14.me to answer. I understand that. You have said you have now read the
:11:14. > :11:18.committee submissions from Julian Pike and Tom Crone, that is right?
:11:18. > :11:21.The recent submissions, yes. would like to ask you a series of
:11:21. > :11:28.questions about the documents for which I would be grateful for a yes
:11:28. > :11:33.or no answer. Do you accept that Mr Crone prepared a detailed
:11:33. > :11:38.memorandum concerning the Gordon Taylor case which he sent to Colin
:11:38. > :11:42.Myler and Mr Pike? He prepared a mum dumb, but it was substantially
:11:42. > :11:47.narrower and did not raise tern things in that memorandum that the
:11:47. > :11:55.leading counsel's opinion raised. That is a critical point. That is a
:11:55. > :12:01.question? -- yes? I would question your characterisation of the detail.
:12:01. > :12:06.He did send a memorandum? Yes, on 24th May. Do you accept it was
:12:06. > :12:09.prepared by Mr Cone and Colin Myler in advance of the discussion with
:12:10. > :12:12.you? I don't know that. I would assume that is the case and
:12:12. > :12:19.certainly some of the things were discussed with me in the
:12:19. > :12:25.conversation with Crone and Mr Myler on 10th June. That is a yes?
:12:25. > :12:30.Do you accept that the memorandum discloses widespread criminality at
:12:30. > :12:35.the News of the World and were in Cron earbgs words were fatal to
:12:35. > :12:40.your case and your position was perilous? Mr Krone did use the
:12:40. > :12:49.words around the evidence being fatal to our case, but again, at no
:12:49. > :12:52.point in that memorandum was it mentioned Mr Thurlbeck, with wider
:12:52. > :12:56.spread criminality with respect to phone hacking and the crucial
:12:56. > :13:01.details from leading counsel had been left out in the memorandum of
:13:02. > :13:07.24th. That is a yes. I don't think it is. I think you are trying to
:13:07. > :13:09.put words in my mouth. I think the memorandum was prepared. It did not
:13:09. > :13:13.discuss those crucial elements of widespread criminality and
:13:13. > :13:17.certainly did not mention those individuals involved. Do you accept
:13:17. > :13:21.you met Colin Myler on 27th May to discuss the Taylor case? You have
:13:21. > :13:26.said that you weren't sure whether it was a meeting, but you accept
:13:26. > :13:30.there is a conversation? No, as I answered the chairman's question
:13:31. > :13:34.earlier on, I am aware of the note of a conversation with Mr Myler.
:13:34. > :13:38.Neither he nor I recall that conversation. A conversation or
:13:38. > :13:42.telephone call could have happened, but I neither accept nor deny that
:13:42. > :13:48.it occurred. I have no recollection of it. The only substantive meeting
:13:48. > :13:53.that I occurred on this subject was 10th June with Mr Myler and Mr
:13:53. > :13:57.Crone. You accept in Mr Pike's note that Colin Myler believed there was
:13:57. > :14:01.a conversation and that he relayed the message that you wanted to take
:14:01. > :14:04.the view of an external QC before deciding what action to take? You
:14:04. > :14:09.accept that that document exists? accept that the document exists,
:14:09. > :14:13.but I don't think it says what you are characterising it as saying. Mr
:14:13. > :14:17.Myler and Mr Crone had already instructed leading counsel at that
:14:17. > :14:24.point and this is an important point. It was not me who told them
:14:24. > :14:27.to instruct leading counsel. They had already done that. Mr Myler -
:14:27. > :14:32.neither he nor I recall that conversation or what the
:14:32. > :14:36.conversation was about at that point. Did you mislead your
:14:36. > :14:41.committee in your original testimony? No, I did not. If you
:14:41. > :14:47.didn't, who did? As I've said to you, or written to you and I've
:14:47. > :14:52.said publicly, I believe this committee was given evidence by
:14:52. > :14:56.individuals either without full possession of the facts, or now it
:14:56. > :15:03.appears, in the process of my own discovery and trying to understand
:15:03. > :15:07.as best I can what actually happened here, it was economical. I
:15:07. > :15:12.think my own testimony has been consistent. I've testified to this
:15:12. > :15:15.committee with as much clarity and transparency as I possibly can.
:15:15. > :15:19.Where I haven't had direct knowledge in the past, since I
:15:19. > :15:22.testified to you last time, I have gone and tried to seek answers and
:15:23. > :15:28.find out what happened and where the evidence is and what is there
:15:28. > :15:33.and that's what I'm here to do. it Mr Crone, a respected lawyer for
:15:33. > :15:37.many years and in-house legal adviser who misled this committee?
:15:37. > :15:42.As I wrote to you and I issued a public statement, certainly in the
:15:42. > :15:50.evidence that they gave to you in 2011, with respect to my knowledge,
:15:50. > :15:56.I thought it was inconsist tent and not right. I dispute it. You think
:15:56. > :16:03.Mr Crone mislead us? It follows that I do. And Mr Myler? I dispute
:16:03. > :16:07.it. Do you think Mr Pike misled us with his recollection of events?
:16:08. > :16:12.don't have a reason to believe that, but nor do I have direct evidence
:16:12. > :16:16.otherwise. The last time you appeared before us, you said that
:16:16. > :16:20.the critical new facts as the company saw them only emerged from
:16:21. > :16:26.the civil trials at the end of 2010, is that right? To my attention,
:16:26. > :16:30.that is correct, yes. We know this is completely untrue and we know
:16:31. > :16:36.critical new facts received by 2008, so who told you that it was only in
:16:36. > :16:42.2010 that the company became aware? Well, certainly I became aware of
:16:42. > :16:47.those critical facts in 2010, after the due process of the civil trial
:16:47. > :16:53.had uncovered some of the police evidence in discovery by those
:16:53. > :16:57.civil claimants. Who was it who told you? Previously, I received
:16:57. > :17:01.assertions from Mr Myler and from Mr Crone that there was no new
:17:01. > :17:05.evidence and that as you had received those assertions as well,
:17:05. > :17:10.in 2009 and later. You also said that you sympathised with the
:17:10. > :17:14.frustration of the committee and you said it was "a matter of real
:17:14. > :17:19.regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be gotten to
:17:19. > :17:23.my understanding faster." You now know that is untrue. It is a matter
:17:23. > :17:28.of concern and I think what I have tried to describe earlier with
:17:28. > :17:34.respect to how I think about what we can do differently and how we
:17:34. > :17:38.can improve and what happened here, I think the amount of transparency
:17:38. > :17:42.between what was known by certain individuals or at least what was
:17:42. > :17:45.seen by them, and leading counsel's opinion and so on, if that had been
:17:45. > :17:51.more transparent to me I think that would have been very important and
:17:51. > :17:57.very helpful. It was not. That is a matter of great regret. The correct
:17:57. > :18:01.position is that the facts emerged in 2008 and this committee was
:18:01. > :18:06.mislead? The facts did not emerge. Certainly individuals were aware.
:18:06. > :18:13.Leading counsel's opinion was there and the "for Neville." E-mail was
:18:14. > :18:18.there. I was not aware of those things. Even if 2009, when a
:18:18. > :18:21.newspaper made allegations about those things, the company relied,
:18:22. > :18:26.and I testified to this fact and written to you, and I'll say it
:18:26. > :18:30.again, the company relied for too long on repeated assertions and
:18:30. > :18:33.assurances as to the quality and the rigour and scope of the
:18:33. > :18:38.internal investigations that have been carried out previously and I
:18:38. > :18:42.think relied also on the assertions and reassurances made publicly by
:18:42. > :18:47.the police, who had all the relevant information that no new
:18:47. > :18:52.evidence was found. Within 24 hours of the 2009 allegations, for
:18:52. > :18:55.example. That is James Murdoch giving evidence. We can talk to our
:18:55. > :18:58.reporter Vicki Young, who has been following that evidence. Is it
:18:58. > :19:02.still the case that James Murdoch is essentially sticking to his
:19:02. > :19:06.central claim that he was not made aware of the except of phone
:19:06. > :19:09.hacking at the company and in fact it was kept from him? Absolutely.
:19:09. > :19:14.He is effectively saying that he was kept in the dark. This is a man
:19:14. > :19:17.who is fighting for his reputation and he's been accused either of
:19:17. > :19:21.incompetence, or of a cover-up and he's certainly fighting for his
:19:21. > :19:24.life, if you like, when it comes to his business and his reputation.
:19:24. > :19:28.Interesting that he has said he has reflected on all of this and says
:19:28. > :19:31.the company was wrong in the way it responded to allegations that they
:19:31. > :19:35.were too aggressive and quick to deny things, because they just took
:19:35. > :19:39.the view that these were all politically motivated allegations.
:19:39. > :19:43.He said that really they should have heard the alarm bells more,
:19:43. > :19:47.but interesting also that he's pointing the finger of blame and
:19:47. > :19:52.specifically has talked about Colin Myler, the editor and Tom Crone,
:19:52. > :19:55.the legal adviser, saying that they didn't come to him with evidence
:19:55. > :20:00.that they had evidence that was circulating. When he was asked who
:20:00. > :20:03.misled the committee, he said it follows that they did mislead the
:20:03. > :20:06.committee. He says his own testimony was consistent, but he
:20:06. > :20:10.says that some of the evidence was economical and he didn't have
:20:10. > :20:20.direct knowledge, but he really did feel that the other two had mislead
:20:20. > :20:22.
:20:22. > :20:25.Now we have that contradiction, but have we also learnt about a
:20:25. > :20:30.conversation that was had with Neville Thurlbeck who claims Tom
:20:30. > :20:33.Crone told him that James Murdoch had seen that critical e-mail?
:20:33. > :20:37.was the fascinating moment where Tom Watson, the leading Labour MP,
:20:37. > :20:41.who has been at the forefront of all this, said he wasn't going to
:20:41. > :20:44.tell everyone this today but he now reveals that he has spoken to
:20:44. > :20:49.Neville Thurlbeck and he went through a whole conversation he had
:20:49. > :20:52.had with the former senior reporter. According to Tom Watson, he said
:20:52. > :20:56.that Neville Thurlbeck was told by Tom Crone that that e-mail would
:20:56. > :21:00.have to be shown to James Murdoch and in fact that Tom Crone came
:21:00. > :21:03.back to him and said, "I did show it to James Murdoch." The problem
:21:03. > :21:09.with this is that Tom Crone has been in front of the committee and
:21:09. > :21:11.he said he didn't show the e-mail to James Murdoch so we have more
:21:11. > :21:15.contradictions here. This is obviously continuing and the
:21:15. > :21:20.problem is that there is no written evidence to back up any of this. We
:21:20. > :21:24.are in a position where it is one person's word against another.
:21:24. > :21:29.Thank you. Since that, we can report that Tom
:21:29. > :21:35.Watson finished up by asking James Murdoch if he knew the meaning of
:21:35. > :21:43.the word "Mafia". James Murdoch replied he is not an afficionado -
:21:44. > :21:50.that is an Italian word! Apparently, Mr Watson compares Rupert Murdoch
:21:50. > :21:55.as a Mafia boss. Some people saying that he resorted to this abuse, Mr
:21:55. > :21:59.Watson, because he hadn't quite managed to nail James Murdoch in
:21:59. > :22:05.the forensic questioning. So let's see if we can do a bit better
:22:05. > :22:10.without James Murdoch. We have got Paul Connew, Deputy Editor of the
:22:10. > :22:19.News of the World and Steve Barnet, Professor of Communications at the
:22:19. > :22:24.University of Westminster. We have now learned this morning that James
:22:24. > :22:29.Murdoch knew of the Neville e-mail but did not ask to see it or to
:22:29. > :22:33.understand its full contents. Knew that they had leading counsel's
:22:33. > :22:40.opinion on the Taylor case which they had to settle, QC's opinion in
:22:40. > :22:47.fact, but it didn't ask to see that either? Is that credible? It is
:22:47. > :22:50.quite extraordinary. Having worked with Tom Crone, he would always
:22:51. > :22:54.give you frank and candid advice, I find it hard to believe that he
:22:54. > :22:57.wouldn't have shown it to him. He may not have done. Or that James
:22:57. > :23:01.Murdoch should have asked for it? Indeed. James Murdoch came here
:23:01. > :23:06.this morning knowing he was going to walk away, probably seriously
:23:06. > :23:12.wounded, but as long as he wasn't fatally wounded, that was the
:23:12. > :23:16.intention. The lack of forensic barrister amongst their members,
:23:16. > :23:20.they didn't ask what would the motivation be for Tom Crone and
:23:20. > :23:26.Colin Myler to withhold the full picture from James Murdoch. After
:23:26. > :23:30.all, what this e-mail revealed, and what the legal advice revealed, was
:23:30. > :23:34.dynamite under a crisis that could scupper the BSkyB deal - and in
:23:35. > :23:38.fact did - damage the company's reputation. Why would they not have
:23:39. > :23:44.been totally candid with the chairman? That bewilders me. What
:23:44. > :23:49.is the answer to that? About whether it is credible or not?
:23:49. > :23:56.why would Mr Crone and Mr Myler not give James Murdoch the full picture
:23:56. > :23:59.unless, of course, you may speculate they had been told not to
:23:59. > :24:03.give them the full picture because it would be better if he didn't
:24:03. > :24:08.know the full picture? That is a very good conspiracy theory. Not
:24:08. > :24:12.sure I would buy that. It is speculation? I personally wouldn't
:24:12. > :24:18.buy that. James Murdoch hinted in part of his evidence where he said
:24:18. > :24:23.it may not have been in their interests to tell me. If I have a
:24:23. > :24:26.reputation as someone who gets rid of - someone brought up the word
:24:26. > :24:31."cancer" - they knew I would have taken drastic action, possibly
:24:31. > :24:38.their jobs might have been on the line... There is also another thing
:24:39. > :24:43.missing from this equation - the role of the person between Myler,
:24:43. > :24:47.Crone and the chairman, the Chief Executive. Was she not involved in
:24:47. > :24:52.any conversations? Max Clifford claims that Rebekah Brooks was the
:24:52. > :24:55.person who negotiated a �1 million settlement with him over lunch. So
:24:55. > :25:00.was that not run by James Murdoch? Perhaps it wasn't. In that case,
:25:00. > :25:04.what the hell was going on there? When James Murdoch appeared in the
:25:04. > :25:09.summer, he made constant reference to they had proceeded on a certain
:25:09. > :25:15.course because of the advice of leading counsel, so it's a very
:25:15. > :25:19.American way of doing things. American businessmen don't move
:25:19. > :25:23.without leading counsel sitting by their side and advising. Doesn't it
:25:23. > :25:27.become incredible, or inexplicable that when he's then being asked to
:25:27. > :25:32.settle what turned out to cost them �1 million on the Taylor case that
:25:32. > :25:37.they had leading counsel's advice and he didn't even bother to ask to
:25:37. > :25:41.see it or read it? And therefore that raises the question - and I'm
:25:41. > :25:47.surprised this wasn't put rather more starkly in the interviews -
:25:47. > :25:51.was it not - even if we believe you, is this not frankly rank
:25:51. > :25:54.incompetence? If you are there waiting for QC's advice, you have
:25:54. > :26:04.suggested that is what we should be waiting for, what does the Chief
:26:04. > :26:08.Executive do? You read that advice. You read it word-for-word. Is it
:26:08. > :26:13.not suspicious that this leading counsel advice didn't just give
:26:13. > :26:15.advice that you have to settle with Mr Taylor of the professional
:26:15. > :26:24.Football Association, though it definitely did give that advice,
:26:24. > :26:29.but it made it clear in the opinion of the QC hacking was rife? Exactly.
:26:29. > :26:32.The problem here is the money, �1 million here, �700,000 there,
:26:32. > :26:35.should have been less important than the widespread reputational
:26:35. > :26:39.damage. For that reason, it is hard to understand why he wouldn't have
:26:39. > :26:45.been shown that. We don't know if he was or wasn't. If he wasn't, it
:26:45. > :26:50.is quite extraordinary. If nothing else, James Murdoch emerges from
:26:50. > :26:55.this like a man lacking an enquiring mind. Why have these
:26:55. > :26:59.points not been put directly to James Murdoch? Is this a proper
:27:00. > :27:03.forum? Is this a good forum for this forensic interrogation? It's a
:27:04. > :27:08.group of MPs - I think they have done a very good job. I think one
:27:08. > :27:11.of the things this Select Committee has done is raised the issue and
:27:11. > :27:17.raised Parliament's profile in a way that most Select Committees
:27:17. > :27:21.don't. What it's not equipped to do is to have that kind of courtroom
:27:22. > :27:26.forensic interrogation that you would get from an experienced QC.
:27:26. > :27:33.Now, I don't think Parliament is an appropriate place to do that. But
:27:33. > :27:39.we are missing that kind of probing. They don't have forensic skills.
:27:39. > :27:45.are being asked to believe that when James Murdoch took over from
:27:45. > :27:49.Les Hinton, they never discussed the Goodman case which resulted the
:27:49. > :27:53.News of the World going to jail along with the private detective.
:27:53. > :27:59.Having been an editor myself, it is not every day one of your
:27:59. > :28:03.journalists goes to jail. That wasn't discussed and he never asked
:28:03. > :28:10.Les Hinton about it. We are being asked to believe by his testimony
:28:10. > :28:18.settlement without asking to see any of the documents, any of the
:28:18. > :28:21.relevant documents? Exactly. There is something else, too. At the
:28:21. > :28:26.Goodman-Mulcaire original trial, the trial judge expressed the view
:28:26. > :28:29.this was only the tip of an iceberg, yet no-one was proactive about
:28:29. > :28:34.doing anything internally to find out whether the judge was talking
:28:34. > :28:39.off the top of his head or what the hell was going on. If this
:28:39. > :28:43.committee is incapable - but what we know today - is incapable of
:28:43. > :28:48.pinning James Murdoch down on these vital parts of his testimony, are
:28:48. > :28:52.we going to get anywhere? Well, if you mean are we going to get to the
:28:52. > :28:57.absolute truth about who said what to whom and who knew what, where we
:28:57. > :29:00.might get somewhere is through the Leveson Inquiry where people are
:29:00. > :29:06.going to be giving evidence under oath and will be subject to that
:29:06. > :29:10.kind of interrogation. That's true. I do think that - I don't want to
:29:10. > :29:15.criticise this committee too much because Select Committees - you
:29:15. > :29:20.have seen them in action - they are not the appropriate place to probe
:29:20. > :29:24.the forensic truth when frankly two people are saying you lied, you
:29:24. > :29:29.lied, and they are accusing each other. James Murdoch's fate will
:29:29. > :29:35.depend on three things: One is what this committee says in its report,
:29:35. > :29:39.when ever that is issued. It may be more damning than their interview
:29:39. > :29:42.technique. The second thing is the Leveson Inquiry. The third thing is
:29:42. > :29:48.the outcome of any criminal trials. Right. The fundamental issue that
:29:48. > :29:51.is at stake here - I want to finish on this. The reason why these
:29:51. > :29:55.questions are pertinent is was James Murdoch involved in a cover-
:29:55. > :30:03.up to settle with those who knew they had been hacking so that they
:30:03. > :30:06.covered up the fact that it was far more widespread than the rogue
:30:06. > :30:10.reporter defence. Do you believe he was? I believe there was a cover-up
:30:10. > :30:14.which began before he was in that position as chairman. He continued?
:30:14. > :30:18.I think he was involved in the continuation of it. Although the $1
:30:18. > :30:22.million question is was he knowingly involved in that cover-up
:30:22. > :30:25.or did he lack the inquisitive mind that made him ask the right
:30:25. > :30:28.questions? Was he involved in the cover-up? We are being asked to
:30:28. > :30:32.take his word against the word of one of his editors and against one
:30:32. > :30:36.of his respected lawyers. I think given the choice, I know which side
:30:36. > :30:39.I would fall. That is not James Murdoch? No. I think he has a
:30:39. > :30:44.serious problem. Thank you. We will keep across this, Jo.
:30:44. > :30:49.We will come back to it at the end of the programme. Unsurprising the
:30:49. > :30:52.Bank of England has kept interest rates at 0.5% today. That isn't a
:30:52. > :30:57.surprise. They are printing more money?
:30:57. > :31:04.No. It may have to buy Italian debt!
:31:04. > :31:10.The Italians will be grateful. The Germany they are 1.72%, in the UK,
:31:10. > :31:14.2.17%. In Italy, the annual cost of borrowing has reached 7.25%. It's
:31:14. > :31:19.an interest rate that is thought to be unsustainable in the long-term
:31:19. > :31:25.as Italy would have to spend too much of its income servicing a huge
:31:26. > :31:29.debt - �1.5 trillion worth of debt in fact. Angela Merkel has had to
:31:29. > :31:34.scotch speculation that plans are being put in place for the break-up
:31:34. > :31:39.of the eurozone. The Prime Minister warned a precarious situation we
:31:39. > :31:43.are in. What is happening in Italy is a warning to any country, any
:31:43. > :31:47.government, without a credible plan to deal with excessive debts and
:31:47. > :31:52.deficits, that you need a plan and you need to stick to that plan if
:31:52. > :31:59.you want to keep interest rates low so your economy can grow. But there
:31:59. > :32:03.is another issue, too. The future of the euro. Italy is the third
:32:03. > :32:07.largest country in the euro. Its current state is a clear and
:32:07. > :32:11.present danger to the eurozone and the moment of truth is fast
:32:11. > :32:15.approaching. If the leaders of the eurozone want to save their
:32:15. > :32:19.currency, then they, together with the institutions of the eurozone,
:32:19. > :32:28.must act now. The Prime Minister there. Let's get more on this from
:32:28. > :32:31.the economist, Vicky Pryce. Italy has paid record rates to sell five
:32:31. > :32:34.billion euros. Does this change anything for Italy? Absolutely.
:32:34. > :32:38.It's obvious they are not going to be able to continue to finance
:32:38. > :32:42.their debt. We have to remember that a lot of the debt they have at
:32:42. > :32:46.present, which they are funding and repaying, is on much lower interest
:32:46. > :32:49.rates so this is a development that's happened recently which has
:32:49. > :32:54.pushed yields up significantly and the difficulty that Italy is now
:32:54. > :32:58.having raising money. But of course, what they raised today was small
:32:58. > :33:02.beer, really. Next year, they have over 300 billion to refinance. If
:33:02. > :33:07.the markets have not stabilised by then, they will be in serious
:33:07. > :33:10.difficulty. That is why everyone is looking at the ECB to buy more
:33:10. > :33:15.Italian debt and try and sort of calm the markets down. That is what
:33:15. > :33:19.I wanted to ask you. In terms of possible short-term solutions, the
:33:19. > :33:23.one that you just outlined, the European Central Bank buying up
:33:23. > :33:27.vast quantities of Italian debt, is that likely? Will the Germans allow
:33:27. > :33:31.that to happen, do you think? will have to allow it to happen.
:33:31. > :33:34.There is no solution in the short- term, until you do something
:33:34. > :33:39.radical with the stability fund and raise the amount of money it has to
:33:39. > :33:45.be able to intervene. The ECB will have to act also as lender of last
:33:45. > :33:49.resort. There will be serious problems with Italian banks. We
:33:49. > :33:54.have to bear in mind Italian debt, if you added everything together
:33:54. > :33:59.that Greece owes, that Portugal, Ireland and Spain together owe, it
:33:59. > :34:06.is less than what Italy owes. So it is a big problem and it's the one
:34:06. > :34:10.issue which is spooking the markets that since the agreements back in
:34:10. > :34:15.July for the bail-out fund, there hasn't been any real detail coming
:34:15. > :34:19.out in terms of how it is going to be increased. The other option is
:34:19. > :34:23.the break-up of the eurozone, whatever the Germans are saying
:34:23. > :34:28.publicly. It seems to be a real option. Do you think that now could
:34:29. > :34:33.happen, that Italy and Greece are pushed out of the eurozone? That
:34:33. > :34:37.would be very unlikely. The repercussions for the whole of
:34:37. > :34:41.Europe will be significant. Frankly, imagine having Germany and France
:34:41. > :34:45.on their own? They are very different economies. But the euro
:34:45. > :34:48.has stayed reasonably well because of the periphery countries so
:34:48. > :34:52.Germany will have a very uncompetitive exchange rate. That
:34:52. > :34:58.is a very simple thing if you look what the banking system is going to
:34:58. > :35:01.do. It is a disaster. Thank you. We are joined by the chair of the
:35:01. > :35:05.European Parliament's committee on economic and monetary affairs, the
:35:05. > :35:09.Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles and the Conservative MEP Matthew
:35:09. > :35:14.Hancock. If the eurozone continues down this road, how bad will the
:35:14. > :35:19.recession be next year in Britain? It's a very serious problem that we
:35:19. > :35:23.can see in the eurozone. The European Union growth figures out
:35:23. > :35:29.this morning highlighted that this... Tell us them? This is a
:35:29. > :35:34.serious problem. Well, they were forecast rather than the absolute
:35:34. > :35:38.figures. Sure. We know the OECD has forecast 0.3% growth for the
:35:38. > :35:45.eurozone next year. That was before either events in Greece or Italy
:35:45. > :35:50.overtook that forecast. What do we think it will be? Well, look, I'm
:35:50. > :35:56.not a forecaster. You mentioned the forecast. What are they? You can
:35:56. > :35:59.remind me of the actual figures at the end of the programme. I have
:35:59. > :36:05.seen them. I don't precisely remember them. Let me go back to
:36:05. > :36:09.the more general point. Yes. Which is as things are heading now, the
:36:09. > :36:13.eurozone is undoubtedly heading for a recession. If there is a
:36:13. > :36:18.recession in the eurozone, how bad will the recession be in Britain?
:36:18. > :36:21.Well, I don't accept the premise of your argument that there will
:36:21. > :36:26.necessarily be a recession here. What I do accept... Even if there
:36:26. > :36:30.is one in the eurozone? We have been on this programme many times
:36:30. > :36:35.and we have talked about how serious the knock on consequences
:36:35. > :36:39.would be from a break-up of the euro and from the lack of
:36:39. > :36:44.confidence. The "credit crunch" of the banks losing money because all
:36:44. > :36:48.of the government bonds they own being worth less than they were is
:36:48. > :36:52.very serious and that will have a serious knock-on impact here.
:36:52. > :36:56.me ask Sharon Bowles, you must - I'm surprised he doesn't accept it
:36:56. > :36:59.- you must accept if the eurozone goes into recession, we go into
:36:59. > :37:04.recession? The world goes into recession. Yes. The last time I
:37:04. > :37:09.looked we were part of the world! So I don't think you can single out
:37:09. > :37:12.the UK and say that we are going to survive when everybody else doesn't.
:37:12. > :37:16.This is very serious. That is why minds have been so exercised about
:37:16. > :37:19.it at G20. It is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so
:37:19. > :37:24.exercised about it. Steps that the Government has taken have made us
:37:24. > :37:29.stronger in terms of our banks and everything. Unless we manage to get
:37:29. > :37:35.a solution and we are in this situation now that there is only
:37:35. > :37:42.one unpalatable to many countries solution which is the ECB. You mean
:37:42. > :37:46.by that... That kicks the can down the road too. You are saying the
:37:46. > :37:53.European Central Bank should start to act like a bank of, a lender of
:37:54. > :37:58.last resort and buy Italian debt? Well, buy it big time. Right. Have
:37:58. > :38:03.you spoken to Mrs Merkel about that? The Germans won't accept this
:38:03. > :38:06.at the moment. Some Ministers that I have spoken to think that well in
:38:06. > :38:10.another three months they will, I don't think the markets will give
:38:10. > :38:15.them three months. Do you think Germany is being dragged
:38:16. > :38:19.reluctantly in this direction? it is something the ECB could do by
:38:19. > :38:27.a majority decision. They may have to make that step, bold though it
:38:27. > :38:32.is. It is not the kind of step the ECB is happy to take without near
:38:32. > :38:36.unanimity but they may have to. We are in times where there is no
:38:36. > :38:41.other alternative. Either we have the big blow-up now, or you delay
:38:41. > :38:44.it in some way by ECB intervention and have time to do some other
:38:45. > :38:48.measures at leisure and hope that you find some way from stopping the
:38:48. > :38:52.blow-up that will happen in another ten years because we haven't fixed
:38:52. > :38:56.the problem. We now have an Italian crisis whereby it looks - the
:38:56. > :39:00.Italians got their debt away this morning, it was a small amount, as
:39:00. > :39:06.Vicky Pryce said, but they had to pay through the nose for it. It was
:39:06. > :39:10.only year debt. They had to pay 6% interest rate for one year. That's
:39:10. > :39:15.2% lower than yesterday. That was for ten-year bonds, not for one-
:39:15. > :39:20.year bonds. You pay higher... the one-year bond yesterday was 8%
:39:20. > :39:25.and today it was 6%. This is progress of sorts. This is getting
:39:25. > :39:29.the debt away and you don't pay as much but it's still a lot. If it's
:39:29. > :39:33.going to need a bail-out and there is no bail-out fund, which there
:39:33. > :39:40.isn't, and if nobody wants to buy their debt which they don't and the
:39:40. > :39:44.ECB won't, what happens? It's - if governments can't finance what they
:39:45. > :39:49.owe and what they are spending, then you are in a serious situation
:39:49. > :39:57.because they don't have the money. Of course, governments all have
:39:57. > :40:03.short-term cash at hand to get through from day-to-day. As Sharon
:40:03. > :40:07.says, you can't keep kicking this down the road forever. The irony is
:40:07. > :40:12.that Italy's primary deficit, that means the deficit before they pay
:40:12. > :40:16.all their interest costs, actually is zero. They don't have a deficit
:40:16. > :40:21.if it weren't for the massive interest costs they are paying.
:40:21. > :40:25.They do pay these massive costs. That is like saying Washington DC
:40:25. > :40:29.is a safe city if you don't include the murder rate? If they get a grip
:40:30. > :40:35.on their borrowing costs and if they have a plan to deal with their
:40:35. > :40:38.deficit, get competitive, and also having a government and a Prime
:40:38. > :40:41.Minister would be... Getting competitive might be the problem
:40:42. > :40:46.with the growth rates being downgraded again? I think what's
:40:46. > :40:50.being said, and it is true, they are more like an island than a
:40:50. > :40:53.Greece in the sense -- more like than Ireland than a grease in the
:40:54. > :40:58.sense they do have a big industrial -- Greece in the sense they do have
:40:58. > :41:03.a big industrial base. They will be able to take a precautionary loan
:41:03. > :41:10.from the IMF but it would have to be bigger... A lot bigger than the
:41:10. > :41:19.IMF has resources. That would only be a putter on a measure until the
:41:19. > :41:25.eurozone could make some more Is it British Government policy,
:41:25. > :41:29.with the backing of the opposition, has it been to call for greater
:41:29. > :41:38.fiscal union within the eurozone? Is it also our policy, or do we
:41:38. > :41:44.have a view of whether that union should be with a pareed down
:41:44. > :41:50.eurozone? I think as it stands now is the safest for our economy,
:41:50. > :41:54.because any country would have a huge implication for our economy if
:41:54. > :41:58.they left, so a stable eurozone is the best thing for our economy.
:41:58. > :42:02.that what David Cameron said he is trying to put "an emergency brake
:42:02. > :42:10.on a tighter eurozone."? He's always been very clear that they
:42:10. > :42:16.need both to deal and resolve the Greek situation and to have a
:42:16. > :42:22.credible plan to deal with their firewall. I know all that, what I'm
:42:22. > :42:26.trying to establish is, does he want a - why is he against a
:42:26. > :42:29.tighter eurozone, because many economists will say it doesn't
:42:29. > :42:33.matter what fiscal union you have, if the eurozone contains Greece it
:42:33. > :42:38.ain't going to last? It's a question of whether they will do
:42:38. > :42:44.some caucusing and deal with other things and whether you are going to
:42:44. > :42:48.have caucusing on the single market and of course the UK is very
:42:48. > :42:52.against that and indeed - Do you think there should be a tighter
:42:52. > :42:57.eurozone? There needs to be in the sense of to do with the fiscal
:42:57. > :43:02.union, but you have to make sure it doesn't have negative spillover.
:43:02. > :43:07.Does it not make sense if you are going to have a tighter fiscal
:43:07. > :43:11.union, that it's among countries that are sympathetic in their
:43:11. > :43:16.economies? Not necessarily. There are parts of southern Italy that
:43:16. > :43:21.are very uncompetitive compared to northern Italy and they were in the
:43:21. > :43:26.lira for ages and think of the deep south of the United States. But the
:43:26. > :43:31.Italian Government was making massive fiscal transfers from Milan
:43:31. > :43:35.to Sicily and the Germans will not. It implies the transfers. That is
:43:35. > :43:41.the only way to work. You have put your finger on the reason why.
:43:41. > :43:45.didn't know I had done that. It is. The only solution is so tight that
:43:45. > :43:48.it's a transfer union as the Germans have always feared. That's
:43:48. > :43:53.why I'm wondering whether the club med countries can still be part of
:43:53. > :43:57.it. One of the reasons given by the Government for their overhaul of
:43:57. > :44:01.the NHS in England is that Britain is the sick man of Europe when it
:44:01. > :44:04.comes to cancer treatment, with survival rates that compare badly
:44:04. > :44:09.to others, but Labour say that argument has been demolished by a
:44:09. > :44:13.report published this week. Adam's been investigating the row over one
:44:13. > :44:15.of the most emotive issues in politics. David Cameron launching
:44:15. > :44:18.breast can sear awareness month recently. Britain is good at
:44:18. > :44:24.fighting that disease, but doesn't compare well internationally when
:44:24. > :44:28.it comes to other types of cancer. One of the reasons given for their
:44:28. > :44:31.re-organisation of the NHS in England. We have been part of an
:44:31. > :44:34.international benchmarking exercise for some years now and we lag at
:44:35. > :44:38.the bottom of the league table when it comes to the best performing
:44:38. > :44:42.countries when it comes to cancer survival rates. The only area where
:44:43. > :44:46.we are closing the gap is on breast cancer. The others we are improving,
:44:46. > :44:51.but not as well as others. He's talking about this data, published
:44:51. > :44:55.in the Lancet last year, which shows that when it comes to for
:44:55. > :44:59.instance, colon cancer, Britain is last among these countries when it
:44:59. > :45:02.comes to the percentage of patients living for five years since
:45:02. > :45:05.diagnosis. This is a very complicated area, where there is
:45:05. > :45:09.disagreement about what should actually be measured. For example,
:45:09. > :45:12.the paper was published this week, which looked at the number of
:45:12. > :45:18.people dying from various cancers, rather than the number surviving.
:45:18. > :45:23.It found a very different picture. Perhaps the most exciting finding
:45:23. > :45:26.is that compared with other countries, looking at the ten major
:45:26. > :45:29.western countries, we have reed our deaths more than anybody else --
:45:29. > :45:33.reduced our deaths more than anyone else. He also found that the
:45:33. > :45:37.billions spent on cancer by the last Government were spent far more
:45:37. > :45:43.effectively than in other countries. That casts doubt on the coalition's
:45:43. > :45:48.claims, according to this former Health Secretary. They have claimed
:45:48. > :45:51.that poor cancer services justify this dangerous upheavel of the
:45:52. > :45:56.Health Service. I'm afraid one of their arguments has been utterly
:45:56. > :46:00.demolished by this research. Government disagrees, saying death
:46:00. > :46:03.rates are a crude measure and don't tell us much about the performance
:46:03. > :46:07.of the NHS, but where everyone is agreed is whatever statistics you
:46:07. > :46:12.study, things would improve massively if the public were more
:46:12. > :46:16.aware of cancer symptoms. The subject of a big campaign to be
:46:16. > :46:19.launched in the new year. Joining me now is the leading cancer expert,
:46:19. > :46:23.Professor Karol Sikora. Can we just get back to whether Britain is the
:46:23. > :46:28.sick man of Europe in Thames of cancer survival rates, because we
:46:28. > :46:32.had two very conflicting accounts there. What is your view? How do we
:46:32. > :46:36.compare? My view is it is still the sick man of Europe. Huge resources
:46:36. > :46:46.have been pumped in and we are still at the bottom of the pile,
:46:46. > :46:46.
:46:46. > :46:53.but it has improved, but it has improved in Europe as well. Another
:46:53. > :46:58.expert tis says that we have improved the most -- specialist
:46:58. > :47:03.says that we have improved the most recently. The death rate is the
:47:03. > :47:09.totality of the situation. They go down if less people get cancer and
:47:09. > :47:12.that's what has been happening. It takes time to reduce cancer, but
:47:12. > :47:15.it's working. Lifestyle, trying to make people do healthier lifestyles.
:47:15. > :47:20.The other very interesting fact that didn't come out in your shots
:47:20. > :47:23.there, was if you look at the one- year survival and compare it to the
:47:23. > :47:26.five-year survival, Britain is really bad. Five years not so bad.
:47:26. > :47:29.What that means is people are presenting late. They are coming
:47:29. > :47:33.when the cancer has already spread. Isn't that the key, that's not to
:47:33. > :47:37.do with the amount of money or the amount of treatment that has gone
:47:37. > :47:43.in, it is what Adam mentioned, we just don't go to the doctor early
:47:43. > :47:47.enough when we have got a lum or rash? Or there -- lump or a rash?
:47:47. > :47:51.Or there isn't a downstream process. If you are thought to have cancer
:47:51. > :47:55.and the GP makes the diagnosis and sends the patient under the two-
:47:55. > :47:58.week rule and they are processed rapidly, but the other sector of
:47:58. > :48:03.patients, the 56% that don't present that way, they are stuck
:48:03. > :48:08.and waiting in a queue for a biopsy and it could take six months before
:48:08. > :48:12.the diagnosis is made. Public education, what are the symptoms
:48:12. > :48:16.and fast tracking. The public health campaigns have worked,
:48:16. > :48:19.smoking has dropped and maybe diet is a potential problem in terms of
:48:19. > :48:22.obesity, but what about the Government's NHS reforms? Do you
:48:22. > :48:26.think that will have an impact on survival rates? Most of us have
:48:26. > :48:31.been around for many years and we don't understand the reforms. What
:48:31. > :48:38.is it they are trying to do? It seems to be a hotch-potch of
:48:38. > :48:42.interventions. Some people think it is privatising the NHS. There is no
:48:42. > :48:46.doubt that the reforms do make sense. The difficulty is that we
:48:46. > :48:49.are at a time when we are cutting the budgets of most hospitals by
:48:49. > :48:53.10%. The reforms, the GP commissioning, that would help?
:48:53. > :48:59.think so. You think it would have an impact on survival rates, but
:48:59. > :49:04.taking the money out, that is not? What we have got already is
:49:04. > :49:08.postcode prescribing for cancer drugs and for access to high
:49:08. > :49:12.technology, such as modern radiotherapy. Even to teams of
:49:12. > :49:16.surgeons that are very good at dealing with something. They have
:49:16. > :49:19.to be lucky and go to the right referral path, or you have to have
:49:19. > :49:22.the knowledge. You are saying the coalition's reforms are not going
:49:23. > :49:28.to have a positive impact overall on cancer survival rates. What
:49:29. > :49:34.about spending on drugs? It's a fudge. So much is spent on the NHS,
:49:34. > :49:38.but NICE approve the drugs, but then there is a new drugs fund, 200
:49:38. > :49:43.million, so what tends to happen, the patients that are educated and
:49:43. > :49:47.know about the drugs get the doctor to fill all the forms in, to get
:49:47. > :49:50.the committees that decide to approve the drugs. It is not - it's
:49:50. > :49:53.a recipe for complete postcode nonsense. Everyone is going to get
:49:53. > :49:59.different types of services in what is a National Service. We all pay
:49:59. > :50:03.the taxes and expect the same. A much better way is to come up and
:50:03. > :50:07.instead of trying to fudge it, this is are the drugs we can afford and
:50:07. > :50:10.these are the ones we can't. Everyone gets the same. Although,
:50:10. > :50:14.the spending, the figures show, they are much lower here on cancer
:50:14. > :50:17.drugs tan places like France. If we spent a bit more, wouldn't that
:50:17. > :50:21.make sense? 200 million wouldn't probably cover it. Half a billion
:50:21. > :50:24.would. Then we would be up to France's level. That is probably
:50:25. > :50:30.not contributing to the higher death rate from cancer, the higher
:50:30. > :50:35.death rate from an existing cancer. Can I just ask you, you did the
:50:35. > :50:40.assessment of Abdel Baset Ali al- Megrahi. He is still alive. How has
:50:40. > :50:42.he managed to survive, two year laters or more? He's been on
:50:42. > :50:48.experimental drugs. Including one that was developed in the UK and
:50:48. > :50:52.it's not available on the NHS, which is quite ironic. Isn't it. He
:50:52. > :50:55.has survived because of drugs that we can't get here? My opinion
:50:55. > :50:59.wasn't taken into account by the Scottish Government. Nine doctors
:50:59. > :51:06.looked at it and they all said three months. They were using
:51:06. > :51:10.standard NHS practice in Glasgow in 2008. Thank you very much.
:51:10. > :51:15.We'll return to the main story - while we have been on air, James
:51:15. > :51:18.Murdoch has given evidence to the Media committee and as we mentioned
:51:18. > :51:24.earlier Tom Watson was rebuked by James Murdoch for his description
:51:24. > :51:28.of News International. You must be the first Mafia boss in history who
:51:29. > :51:36.didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise. Mr Watson,
:51:36. > :51:41.please, I think it's inappropriate. Mr Chairman. Vicki Young has been
:51:41. > :51:46.watching the evidence session for us. Someone has just tweeted saying,
:51:46. > :51:53."James Murdoch is currently on your screens appearing in a sequel. I
:51:53. > :51:56.have no idea what anybody did last summer." Is that fair? James
:51:56. > :52:00.Murdoch wasn't impressed with the description there of his company,
:52:01. > :52:05.he says, bound by silence and the code of silence, according to Tom
:52:05. > :52:09.Watson. There is an element of different people's recollections
:52:09. > :52:12.and accusations and we are ending up in a position where it is one
:52:12. > :52:18.person's word against the other. James Murdoch is fighting for his
:52:18. > :52:20.own reputation, willing to point the finger of blame. He was saying
:52:21. > :52:24.that Tom Crone and Colin Myler gave misleading evidence to the
:52:24. > :52:27.committee. He says his own evidence has been consistent and he says
:52:27. > :52:32.that's not the case with the the others and he says they have been
:52:32. > :52:35.misleading and their evident has been economical. We have a position
:52:36. > :52:41.here now where people are fighting with each other in order to get the
:52:41. > :52:45.blame off themselves, I guess. there any killer question or set of
:52:45. > :52:49.questions that lead people to believe that James Murdoch was
:52:49. > :52:53.involved in a cover-up? I think what is interesting is the picture
:52:53. > :53:00.that he's painting of himself, of why he didn't seem to know the
:53:00. > :53:03.truth. He says that he was in charge of this huge observation and
:53:03. > :53:06.-- organisation and it covered Asia and he relied on executives and he
:53:06. > :53:10.claims he was kept in the dark. He says it was the scale of the
:53:10. > :53:13.business, so he relied on the people, that he didn't know every
:53:13. > :53:17.single detail and still the matter over how much he knew about the
:53:17. > :53:20.documents circulating that seemed to suggest that tacking was more
:53:20. > :53:23.widespread. He says quite simply that he just wasn't given the full
:53:23. > :53:28.details out of all of that. Tom Watson, Labour MP, saying today
:53:28. > :53:32.that he himself has spoken to Neville Thurlbeck, the former
:53:32. > :53:35.senior reporter and he apparently says that Tom Crone, the legal
:53:35. > :53:38.adviser, did show documents to James Murdoch, even though Tom
:53:39. > :53:42.Crone in the committee says that he didn't. You can see the committee
:53:42. > :53:47.could go on for a long time. We'll have to leave it there. The