10/11/2011 Daily Politics


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS


10/11/2011

Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn have the top political stories of the day.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/11/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Morning. Welcome to a special programme today. The News of the

:00:32.:00:35.

World is closed, but James Murdoch is back in Westminster. He's giving

:00:35.:00:41.

evidence to the Commons as we broadcast. He started at 11am. He's

:00:41.:00:46.

going to continue, we understand, until about 12.30 or even 1pm. We

:00:46.:00:51.

are watching and we'll bring you all the highlights as we get them.

:00:51.:00:55.

Interest rates on Italian bonds breached 7%. Germany tries to

:00:55.:01:03.

scotch talk of a break-up but can the eurozone provide? Spending on

:01:03.:01:07.

cancer treatment increased during the Labour years, so why are

:01:07.:01:10.

survival rates still worse than other countries? We are will be

:01:10.:01:15.

asking a leading cancer expert. Commerce, education and the - what

:01:15.:01:21.

is the third one there? Let's see! Nobody helping him there. Rich

:01:21.:01:24.

Perry has a senior moment in last night's debate, but is it possible

:01:24.:01:34.

to survive the political gap? -- gaffe? All that coming up in the

:01:34.:01:40.

next hour. We are extended today. It is all going to be pretty

:01:40.:01:44.

uncomfortable for James Murdoch, who has been called back to

:01:44.:01:47.

Parliament to appear again before the media Select Committee to

:01:47.:01:50.

answer more questions about exactly what he knew and had he knew it,

:01:50.:01:55.

about the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World. Over the

:01:55.:02:00.

past few days, new evidence has surfaced about undercover

:02:00.:02:03.

surveillance operations also carried out by the News of the

:02:03.:02:07.

World. The committee will also ask him about inconsistencies between

:02:07.:02:11.

the evidence that he gave in the summer, at the special hearings

:02:11.:02:15.

that we brought to you live then, and the statements of subsequent

:02:15.:02:19.

people who had worked for the News of the World. The red top may be

:02:19.:02:22.

gone, but the headlines have continued to haunt the Murdoch

:02:22.:02:28.

empire. Today, James Murdoch, son of Rupert, is back in the spotlight

:02:28.:02:32.

at the Select Committee, who are asking him about developments since

:02:32.:02:36.

July. This week we learned a private investigator was paid by

:02:36.:02:40.

the News of the World to track the movements of more than 100 figures,

:02:40.:02:44.

including Prince William, David Beckham and Boris Johnson and the

:02:44.:02:48.

lawyers of the hacking victims. The committee are likely to ask did he

:02:48.:02:53.

know about this? It is also likely they'll want to ask Mr Murdoch

:02:53.:02:57.

about a letter they published in August from the pap area former

:02:58.:03:07.

Royal Editor Clive good -- paper -- paper's Royal Editor Clive Goodman.

:03:07.:03:11.

Back in July, James Murdoch said he didn't ask more questions about

:03:11.:03:14.

hacking because Harbottle and Lewis said evidence was limited, but

:03:14.:03:18.

since then the legal firm has said it provided very narrow advice in

:03:18.:03:21.

relation to an employment claim and it did not provide News

:03:22.:03:25.

International with a clean bill of health. Mr Murdoch's already been

:03:25.:03:29.

asked by the committee again what he knew about the four Neville e-

:03:29.:03:33.

mails, which appear to show a senior reporter at the News of the

:03:33.:03:38.

World knew about phone hacking - something which Neville has denied.

:03:38.:03:43.

In July, James Murdoch said he wasn't aware of the e-mail when he

:03:43.:03:49.

signed off a payment for Gordon Taylor, but the denial was

:03:50.:03:52.

contradicted by Tom Crone and editor Colin Myler. The committee

:03:52.:03:58.

began questioning Mr Murdoch a short time ago. The chair began by

:03:58.:04:04.

asking him about that Neville e- mail. Do you want to say whether or

:04:04.:04:08.

not you still assert that you had no knowledge of the e-mail? Yes.

:04:08.:04:14.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and to all the committee members.

:04:14.:04:24.
:04:24.:04:31.

On a number of occasions to Mr Taylor and his lawyers. The meeting

:04:31.:04:36.

which I remember quite well was a short meeting and I was given at

:04:36.:04:40.

that meeting sufficient information to authorise the increase of the

:04:40.:04:45.

settlement offer that had been made, or offers, and authorised them to

:04:45.:04:51.

go and negotiate that settlement. I was given no more than that.

:04:51.:04:55.

Certainly evidence was described to me that indicated that the company

:04:55.:05:05.
:05:05.:05:06.

would lose the case if it litigated, but the nature of the full Neville

:05:06.:05:13.

-- of the "for Neville" e-mail, any wider spread of evidence, none of

:05:13.:05:17.

these things were mentioned to me including the detail and substance

:05:17.:05:20.

of the leading counsel's opinion that had been sought by them and

:05:20.:05:24.

received by them earlier. It was only sufficient information to

:05:24.:05:28.

authorise them to increase the settlement offers that they had

:05:28.:05:31.

already made. Even if it wasn't described as the "for Neville" e-

:05:31.:05:35.

mail, were you made aware of the existence of an e-mail that

:05:35.:05:45.
:05:45.:05:47.

contained the transcript of voice Yes. I think this is an important

:05:47.:05:52.

point to be very, very clear on it, if I may. The e-mail that is now

:05:52.:05:56.

known as the for Neville e-mail was important for two reasons. On the

:05:56.:06:00.

one hand, it was important because it was a transcript of voicemail

:06:00.:06:04.

interceptions that were made on behalf of the News of the World and

:06:04.:06:11.

that was seen as evidence and as sufficient to conclude that the

:06:11.:06:14.

company would lose the case. There was another part of that e-mail

:06:14.:06:21.

which was important, which was it was so-called "for Neville." And

:06:21.:06:25.

that it named another journalist in that e-mail and that second part,

:06:25.:06:30.

that importance, was not described to me in any detail or at all and

:06:30.:06:36.

it was not described as the "for Neville." E-mail. No documents were

:06:36.:06:41.

shown to me at that meeting or given to me or prior. It is now

:06:41.:06:46.

your position that you weren't made aware of the existence of an e-mail

:06:46.:06:50.

that was extremely damaging to your defence that nobody else was

:06:50.:06:56.

involved? Yes, and I think as I testified in the summer to this

:06:56.:06:59.

committee, I was made aware that there was evidence that the

:06:59.:07:05.

transcript existed and it was on behalf of the News of the World. It

:07:05.:07:09.

is double importance that it was that e-mail and also perhaps the

:07:09.:07:12.

beginning of suspicion that other individuals were involved at the

:07:12.:07:16.

News of the World was not described to me and the e-mail was not shown

:07:16.:07:21.

to me either. Did you not see a copy of the e-mail? No, I did not.

:07:21.:07:26.

Were you aware of the legal counsel's opinion that had since

:07:26.:07:30.

been obtained? I was aware that leading counsel's opinion had been

:07:30.:07:36.

obtained, but it was described to me as to do with damages and the

:07:36.:07:41.

estimate of damages were the case to be litigated and lost. It was

:07:41.:07:45.

not shown to me, the leading counsel's opinion, nor described to

:07:45.:07:49.

me, the other things in the opinion that I know has been provided to

:07:49.:07:56.

you, that were not to do with damages. Finally, there was - we

:07:56.:08:02.

have since learnt from Farrahs that there was a previous meeting which

:08:02.:08:06.

you had with Colin Myler for which Tom Crone supplied a brief at the

:08:06.:08:10.

end of May. Do you remember that meeting? I think you are referring

:08:10.:08:17.

to a note that Mr Piker Farrahs wrote, describing a conversation he

:08:17.:08:25.

had had with Mr Crone. I have now seen this note, which I hadn't seen

:08:25.:08:30.

before. In that note Colin Myler suggests or says to Mr Piker that

:08:30.:08:34.

he spoke to James Murdoch. He does not say there is a meeting. He

:08:34.:08:39.

refers to a conversation that he had with me that he alleged had

:08:39.:08:42.

with me. We do not recall that meeting or conversation or

:08:42.:08:49.

telephone call or what it might have been and as I testified, the

:08:49.:08:52.

first substantive and only substantive meeting that I recall

:08:52.:08:57.

in conversation about the matter was 10th June meeting with Mr Crone

:08:57.:09:02.

and Mr Myler. I can't rule out whether or not he called me or got

:09:02.:09:06.

me in the hallway or something like that, for a brief conversation.

:09:06.:09:10.

claim that you didn't know the detail of what was going on in your

:09:10.:09:14.

company, so do you think that internal evidence about phone

:09:14.:09:20.

hacking for example, was kept from you? It's clear to me that in 2008,

:09:20.:09:24.

for example, the information that I received around the Taylor case was

:09:24.:09:31.

incomplete. It is also clear to me that in 2009 upon allegations

:09:31.:09:36.

arising in a newspaper about the Taylor case, that the full extent

:09:36.:09:40.

of the knowledge within the business or the evidence within the

:09:40.:09:44.

business as well as at the - with the Metropolitan Police was not

:09:44.:09:49.

made clear to me. That's something that I'm very sorry for. Who should

:09:49.:09:55.

have told you about it? I think it's important to remember that

:09:55.:10:03.

after the resignation of Mr Coulson, Mr Hinton brought Mr Myler in as an

:10:03.:10:06.

outside person who had a responsibility and remit it both

:10:06.:10:10.

clean up the issue and investigate the issue and move the company

:10:10.:10:13.

forward and the newspaper forward in a way that made sure that these

:10:13.:10:18.

things couldn't happen again. If he had known, if he had known, which

:10:18.:10:22.

is an if, that there was wider spread criminality or evidence or

:10:22.:10:25.

sufficient suspicion of that, I should think he should have told me

:10:25.:10:31.

those things. After the arrest of Rebekah Brooks we were given legal

:10:31.:10:35.

advice and prohibited from going down a certain route with our

:10:35.:10:38.

questions, so can you just confirm to me that you have not been

:10:38.:10:42.

arrested or you are not currently on bail and you are therefore free

:10:42.:10:45.

to answer all the questions I'm going to put to you? I've not been

:10:45.:10:49.

arrested or currently on bail. I am free to answer questionsened I

:10:49.:10:53.

would like to. I should say, though, that to the extent that questions

:10:53.:10:56.

relate to matters of criminal investigation or relate to

:10:56.:11:00.

individuals that are currently arrested on bail or under criminal

:11:00.:11:03.

investigation, that some of those things would be inappropriate for

:11:03.:11:08.

me to answer. I understand that. You have said you have now read the

:11:08.:11:14.

committee submissions from Julian Pike and Tom Crone, that is right?

:11:14.:11:18.

The recent submissions, yes. would like to ask you a series of

:11:18.:11:21.

questions about the documents for which I would be grateful for a yes

:11:21.:11:28.

or no answer. Do you accept that Mr Crone prepared a detailed

:11:28.:11:33.

memorandum concerning the Gordon Taylor case which he sent to Colin

:11:33.:11:38.

Myler and Mr Pike? He prepared a mum dumb, but it was substantially

:11:38.:11:42.

narrower and did not raise tern things in that memorandum that the

:11:42.:11:47.

leading counsel's opinion raised. That is a critical point. That is a

:11:47.:11:55.

question? -- yes? I would question your characterisation of the detail.

:11:55.:12:01.

He did send a memorandum? Yes, on 24th May. Do you accept it was

:12:01.:12:06.

prepared by Mr Cone and Colin Myler in advance of the discussion with

:12:06.:12:09.

you? I don't know that. I would assume that is the case and

:12:10.:12:12.

certainly some of the things were discussed with me in the

:12:12.:12:19.

conversation with Crone and Mr Myler on 10th June. That is a yes?

:12:19.:12:25.

Do you accept that the memorandum discloses widespread criminality at

:12:25.:12:30.

the News of the World and were in Cron earbgs words were fatal to

:12:30.:12:35.

your case and your position was perilous? Mr Krone did use the

:12:35.:12:40.

words around the evidence being fatal to our case, but again, at no

:12:40.:12:49.

point in that memorandum was it mentioned Mr Thurlbeck, with wider

:12:49.:12:52.

spread criminality with respect to phone hacking and the crucial

:12:52.:12:56.

details from leading counsel had been left out in the memorandum of

:12:56.:13:01.

24th. That is a yes. I don't think it is. I think you are trying to

:13:02.:13:07.

put words in my mouth. I think the memorandum was prepared. It did not

:13:07.:13:09.

discuss those crucial elements of widespread criminality and

:13:09.:13:13.

certainly did not mention those individuals involved. Do you accept

:13:13.:13:17.

you met Colin Myler on 27th May to discuss the Taylor case? You have

:13:17.:13:21.

said that you weren't sure whether it was a meeting, but you accept

:13:21.:13:26.

there is a conversation? No, as I answered the chairman's question

:13:26.:13:30.

earlier on, I am aware of the note of a conversation with Mr Myler.

:13:31.:13:34.

Neither he nor I recall that conversation. A conversation or

:13:34.:13:38.

telephone call could have happened, but I neither accept nor deny that

:13:38.:13:42.

it occurred. I have no recollection of it. The only substantive meeting

:13:42.:13:48.

that I occurred on this subject was 10th June with Mr Myler and Mr

:13:48.:13:53.

Crone. You accept in Mr Pike's note that Colin Myler believed there was

:13:53.:13:57.

a conversation and that he relayed the message that you wanted to take

:13:57.:14:01.

the view of an external QC before deciding what action to take? You

:14:01.:14:04.

accept that that document exists? accept that the document exists,

:14:04.:14:09.

but I don't think it says what you are characterising it as saying. Mr

:14:09.:14:13.

Myler and Mr Crone had already instructed leading counsel at that

:14:13.:14:17.

point and this is an important point. It was not me who told them

:14:17.:14:24.

to instruct leading counsel. They had already done that. Mr Myler -

:14:24.:14:27.

neither he nor I recall that conversation or what the

:14:27.:14:32.

conversation was about at that point. Did you mislead your

:14:32.:14:36.

committee in your original testimony? No, I did not. If you

:14:36.:14:41.

didn't, who did? As I've said to you, or written to you and I've

:14:41.:14:47.

said publicly, I believe this committee was given evidence by

:14:47.:14:52.

individuals either without full possession of the facts, or now it

:14:52.:14:56.

appears, in the process of my own discovery and trying to understand

:14:56.:15:03.

as best I can what actually happened here, it was economical. I

:15:03.:15:07.

think my own testimony has been consistent. I've testified to this

:15:07.:15:12.

committee with as much clarity and transparency as I possibly can.

:15:12.:15:15.

Where I haven't had direct knowledge in the past, since I

:15:15.:15:19.

testified to you last time, I have gone and tried to seek answers and

:15:19.:15:22.

find out what happened and where the evidence is and what is there

:15:23.:15:28.

and that's what I'm here to do. it Mr Crone, a respected lawyer for

:15:28.:15:33.

many years and in-house legal adviser who misled this committee?

:15:33.:15:37.

As I wrote to you and I issued a public statement, certainly in the

:15:37.:15:42.

evidence that they gave to you in 2011, with respect to my knowledge,

:15:42.:15:50.

I thought it was inconsist tent and not right. I dispute it. You think

:15:50.:15:56.

Mr Crone mislead us? It follows that I do. And Mr Myler? I dispute

:15:56.:16:03.

it. Do you think Mr Pike misled us with his recollection of events?

:16:03.:16:07.

don't have a reason to believe that, but nor do I have direct evidence

:16:08.:16:12.

otherwise. The last time you appeared before us, you said that

:16:12.:16:16.

the critical new facts as the company saw them only emerged from

:16:16.:16:20.

the civil trials at the end of 2010, is that right? To my attention,

:16:21.:16:26.

that is correct, yes. We know this is completely untrue and we know

:16:26.:16:30.

critical new facts received by 2008, so who told you that it was only in

:16:31.:16:36.

2010 that the company became aware? Well, certainly I became aware of

:16:36.:16:42.

those critical facts in 2010, after the due process of the civil trial

:16:42.:16:47.

had uncovered some of the police evidence in discovery by those

:16:47.:16:53.

civil claimants. Who was it who told you? Previously, I received

:16:53.:16:57.

assertions from Mr Myler and from Mr Crone that there was no new

:16:57.:17:01.

evidence and that as you had received those assertions as well,

:17:01.:17:05.

in 2009 and later. You also said that you sympathised with the

:17:05.:17:10.

frustration of the committee and you said it was "a matter of real

:17:10.:17:14.

regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be gotten to

:17:14.:17:19.

my understanding faster." You now know that is untrue. It is a matter

:17:19.:17:23.

of concern and I think what I have tried to describe earlier with

:17:23.:17:28.

respect to how I think about what we can do differently and how we

:17:28.:17:34.

can improve and what happened here, I think the amount of transparency

:17:34.:17:38.

between what was known by certain individuals or at least what was

:17:38.:17:42.

seen by them, and leading counsel's opinion and so on, if that had been

:17:42.:17:45.

more transparent to me I think that would have been very important and

:17:45.:17:51.

very helpful. It was not. That is a matter of great regret. The correct

:17:51.:17:57.

position is that the facts emerged in 2008 and this committee was

:17:57.:18:01.

mislead? The facts did not emerge. Certainly individuals were aware.

:18:01.:18:06.

Leading counsel's opinion was there and the "for Neville." E-mail was

:18:06.:18:13.

there. I was not aware of those things. Even if 2009, when a

:18:14.:18:18.

newspaper made allegations about those things, the company relied,

:18:18.:18:21.

and I testified to this fact and written to you, and I'll say it

:18:22.:18:26.

again, the company relied for too long on repeated assertions and

:18:26.:18:30.

assurances as to the quality and the rigour and scope of the

:18:30.:18:33.

internal investigations that have been carried out previously and I

:18:33.:18:38.

think relied also on the assertions and reassurances made publicly by

:18:38.:18:42.

the police, who had all the relevant information that no new

:18:42.:18:47.

evidence was found. Within 24 hours of the 2009 allegations, for

:18:47.:18:52.

example. That is James Murdoch giving evidence. We can talk to our

:18:52.:18:55.

reporter Vicki Young, who has been following that evidence. Is it

:18:55.:18:58.

still the case that James Murdoch is essentially sticking to his

:18:58.:19:02.

central claim that he was not made aware of the except of phone

:19:02.:19:06.

hacking at the company and in fact it was kept from him? Absolutely.

:19:06.:19:09.

He is effectively saying that he was kept in the dark. This is a man

:19:09.:19:14.

who is fighting for his reputation and he's been accused either of

:19:14.:19:17.

incompetence, or of a cover-up and he's certainly fighting for his

:19:17.:19:21.

life, if you like, when it comes to his business and his reputation.

:19:21.:19:24.

Interesting that he has said he has reflected on all of this and says

:19:24.:19:28.

the company was wrong in the way it responded to allegations that they

:19:28.:19:31.

were too aggressive and quick to deny things, because they just took

:19:31.:19:35.

the view that these were all politically motivated allegations.

:19:35.:19:39.

He said that really they should have heard the alarm bells more,

:19:39.:19:43.

but interesting also that he's pointing the finger of blame and

:19:43.:19:47.

specifically has talked about Colin Myler, the editor and Tom Crone,

:19:47.:19:52.

the legal adviser, saying that they didn't come to him with evidence

:19:52.:19:55.

that they had evidence that was circulating. When he was asked who

:19:55.:20:00.

misled the committee, he said it follows that they did mislead the

:20:00.:20:03.

committee. He says his own testimony was consistent, but he

:20:03.:20:06.

says that some of the evidence was economical and he didn't have

:20:06.:20:10.

direct knowledge, but he really did feel that the other two had mislead

:20:10.:20:20.
:20:20.:20:22.

Now we have that contradiction, but have we also learnt about a

:20:22.:20:25.

conversation that was had with Neville Thurlbeck who claims Tom

:20:25.:20:30.

Crone told him that James Murdoch had seen that critical e-mail?

:20:30.:20:33.

was the fascinating moment where Tom Watson, the leading Labour MP,

:20:33.:20:37.

who has been at the forefront of all this, said he wasn't going to

:20:37.:20:41.

tell everyone this today but he now reveals that he has spoken to

:20:41.:20:44.

Neville Thurlbeck and he went through a whole conversation he had

:20:44.:20:49.

had with the former senior reporter. According to Tom Watson, he said

:20:49.:20:52.

that Neville Thurlbeck was told by Tom Crone that that e-mail would

:20:52.:20:56.

have to be shown to James Murdoch and in fact that Tom Crone came

:20:56.:21:00.

back to him and said, "I did show it to James Murdoch." The problem

:21:00.:21:03.

with this is that Tom Crone has been in front of the committee and

:21:03.:21:09.

he said he didn't show the e-mail to James Murdoch so we have more

:21:09.:21:11.

contradictions here. This is obviously continuing and the

:21:11.:21:15.

problem is that there is no written evidence to back up any of this. We

:21:15.:21:20.

are in a position where it is one person's word against another.

:21:20.:21:24.

Thank you. Since that, we can report that Tom

:21:24.:21:29.

Watson finished up by asking James Murdoch if he knew the meaning of

:21:29.:21:35.

the word "Mafia". James Murdoch replied he is not an afficionado -

:21:35.:21:43.

that is an Italian word! Apparently, Mr Watson compares Rupert Murdoch

:21:44.:21:50.

as a Mafia boss. Some people saying that he resorted to this abuse, Mr

:21:50.:21:55.

Watson, because he hadn't quite managed to nail James Murdoch in

:21:55.:21:59.

the forensic questioning. So let's see if we can do a bit better

:21:59.:22:05.

without James Murdoch. We have got Paul Connew, Deputy Editor of the

:22:05.:22:10.

News of the World and Steve Barnet, Professor of Communications at the

:22:10.:22:19.

University of Westminster. We have now learned this morning that James

:22:19.:22:24.

Murdoch knew of the Neville e-mail but did not ask to see it or to

:22:24.:22:29.

understand its full contents. Knew that they had leading counsel's

:22:29.:22:33.

opinion on the Taylor case which they had to settle, QC's opinion in

:22:33.:22:40.

fact, but it didn't ask to see that either? Is that credible? It is

:22:40.:22:47.

quite extraordinary. Having worked with Tom Crone, he would always

:22:47.:22:50.

give you frank and candid advice, I find it hard to believe that he

:22:51.:22:54.

wouldn't have shown it to him. He may not have done. Or that James

:22:54.:22:57.

Murdoch should have asked for it? Indeed. James Murdoch came here

:22:57.:23:01.

this morning knowing he was going to walk away, probably seriously

:23:01.:23:06.

wounded, but as long as he wasn't fatally wounded, that was the

:23:06.:23:12.

intention. The lack of forensic barrister amongst their members,

:23:12.:23:16.

they didn't ask what would the motivation be for Tom Crone and

:23:16.:23:20.

Colin Myler to withhold the full picture from James Murdoch. After

:23:20.:23:26.

all, what this e-mail revealed, and what the legal advice revealed, was

:23:26.:23:30.

dynamite under a crisis that could scupper the BSkyB deal - and in

:23:30.:23:34.

fact did - damage the company's reputation. Why would they not have

:23:35.:23:38.

been totally candid with the chairman? That bewilders me. What

:23:39.:23:44.

is the answer to that? About whether it is credible or not?

:23:44.:23:49.

why would Mr Crone and Mr Myler not give James Murdoch the full picture

:23:49.:23:56.

unless, of course, you may speculate they had been told not to

:23:56.:23:59.

give them the full picture because it would be better if he didn't

:23:59.:24:03.

know the full picture? That is a very good conspiracy theory. Not

:24:03.:24:08.

sure I would buy that. It is speculation? I personally wouldn't

:24:08.:24:12.

buy that. James Murdoch hinted in part of his evidence where he said

:24:12.:24:18.

it may not have been in their interests to tell me. If I have a

:24:18.:24:23.

reputation as someone who gets rid of - someone brought up the word

:24:23.:24:26.

"cancer" - they knew I would have taken drastic action, possibly

:24:26.:24:31.

their jobs might have been on the line... There is also another thing

:24:31.:24:38.

missing from this equation - the role of the person between Myler,

:24:39.:24:43.

Crone and the chairman, the Chief Executive. Was she not involved in

:24:43.:24:47.

any conversations? Max Clifford claims that Rebekah Brooks was the

:24:47.:24:52.

person who negotiated a �1 million settlement with him over lunch. So

:24:52.:24:55.

was that not run by James Murdoch? Perhaps it wasn't. In that case,

:24:55.:25:00.

what the hell was going on there? When James Murdoch appeared in the

:25:00.:25:04.

summer, he made constant reference to they had proceeded on a certain

:25:04.:25:09.

course because of the advice of leading counsel, so it's a very

:25:09.:25:15.

American way of doing things. American businessmen don't move

:25:15.:25:19.

without leading counsel sitting by their side and advising. Doesn't it

:25:19.:25:23.

become incredible, or inexplicable that when he's then being asked to

:25:23.:25:27.

settle what turned out to cost them �1 million on the Taylor case that

:25:27.:25:32.

they had leading counsel's advice and he didn't even bother to ask to

:25:32.:25:37.

see it or read it? And therefore that raises the question - and I'm

:25:37.:25:41.

surprised this wasn't put rather more starkly in the interviews -

:25:41.:25:47.

was it not - even if we believe you, is this not frankly rank

:25:47.:25:51.

incompetence? If you are there waiting for QC's advice, you have

:25:51.:25:54.

suggested that is what we should be waiting for, what does the Chief

:25:54.:26:04.

Executive do? You read that advice. You read it word-for-word. Is it

:26:04.:26:08.

not suspicious that this leading counsel advice didn't just give

:26:08.:26:13.

advice that you have to settle with Mr Taylor of the professional

:26:13.:26:15.

Football Association, though it definitely did give that advice,

:26:15.:26:24.

but it made it clear in the opinion of the QC hacking was rife? Exactly.

:26:24.:26:29.

The problem here is the money, �1 million here, �700,000 there,

:26:29.:26:32.

should have been less important than the widespread reputational

:26:32.:26:35.

damage. For that reason, it is hard to understand why he wouldn't have

:26:35.:26:39.

been shown that. We don't know if he was or wasn't. If he wasn't, it

:26:39.:26:45.

is quite extraordinary. If nothing else, James Murdoch emerges from

:26:45.:26:50.

this like a man lacking an enquiring mind. Why have these

:26:50.:26:55.

points not been put directly to James Murdoch? Is this a proper

:26:55.:26:59.

forum? Is this a good forum for this forensic interrogation? It's a

:27:00.:27:03.

group of MPs - I think they have done a very good job. I think one

:27:04.:27:08.

of the things this Select Committee has done is raised the issue and

:27:08.:27:11.

raised Parliament's profile in a way that most Select Committees

:27:11.:27:17.

don't. What it's not equipped to do is to have that kind of courtroom

:27:17.:27:21.

forensic interrogation that you would get from an experienced QC.

:27:22.:27:26.

Now, I don't think Parliament is an appropriate place to do that. But

:27:26.:27:33.

we are missing that kind of probing. They don't have forensic skills.

:27:33.:27:39.

are being asked to believe that when James Murdoch took over from

:27:39.:27:45.

Les Hinton, they never discussed the Goodman case which resulted the

:27:45.:27:49.

News of the World going to jail along with the private detective.

:27:49.:27:53.

Having been an editor myself, it is not every day one of your

:27:53.:27:59.

journalists goes to jail. That wasn't discussed and he never asked

:27:59.:28:03.

Les Hinton about it. We are being asked to believe by his testimony

:28:03.:28:10.

settlement without asking to see any of the documents, any of the

:28:10.:28:18.

relevant documents? Exactly. There is something else, too. At the

:28:18.:28:21.

Goodman-Mulcaire original trial, the trial judge expressed the view

:28:21.:28:26.

this was only the tip of an iceberg, yet no-one was proactive about

:28:26.:28:29.

doing anything internally to find out whether the judge was talking

:28:29.:28:34.

off the top of his head or what the hell was going on. If this

:28:34.:28:39.

committee is incapable - but what we know today - is incapable of

:28:39.:28:43.

pinning James Murdoch down on these vital parts of his testimony, are

:28:43.:28:48.

we going to get anywhere? Well, if you mean are we going to get to the

:28:48.:28:52.

absolute truth about who said what to whom and who knew what, where we

:28:52.:28:57.

might get somewhere is through the Leveson Inquiry where people are

:28:57.:29:00.

going to be giving evidence under oath and will be subject to that

:29:00.:29:06.

kind of interrogation. That's true. I do think that - I don't want to

:29:06.:29:10.

criticise this committee too much because Select Committees - you

:29:10.:29:15.

have seen them in action - they are not the appropriate place to probe

:29:15.:29:20.

the forensic truth when frankly two people are saying you lied, you

:29:20.:29:24.

lied, and they are accusing each other. James Murdoch's fate will

:29:24.:29:29.

depend on three things: One is what this committee says in its report,

:29:29.:29:35.

when ever that is issued. It may be more damning than their interview

:29:35.:29:39.

technique. The second thing is the Leveson Inquiry. The third thing is

:29:39.:29:42.

the outcome of any criminal trials. Right. The fundamental issue that

:29:42.:29:48.

is at stake here - I want to finish on this. The reason why these

:29:48.:29:51.

questions are pertinent is was James Murdoch involved in a cover-

:29:51.:29:55.

up to settle with those who knew they had been hacking so that they

:29:55.:30:03.

covered up the fact that it was far more widespread than the rogue

:30:03.:30:06.

reporter defence. Do you believe he was? I believe there was a cover-up

:30:06.:30:10.

which began before he was in that position as chairman. He continued?

:30:10.:30:14.

I think he was involved in the continuation of it. Although the $1

:30:14.:30:18.

million question is was he knowingly involved in that cover-up

:30:18.:30:22.

or did he lack the inquisitive mind that made him ask the right

:30:22.:30:25.

questions? Was he involved in the cover-up? We are being asked to

:30:25.:30:28.

take his word against the word of one of his editors and against one

:30:28.:30:32.

of his respected lawyers. I think given the choice, I know which side

:30:32.:30:36.

I would fall. That is not James Murdoch? No. I think he has a

:30:36.:30:39.

serious problem. Thank you. We will keep across this, Jo.

:30:39.:30:44.

We will come back to it at the end of the programme. Unsurprising the

:30:44.:30:49.

Bank of England has kept interest rates at 0.5% today. That isn't a

:30:49.:30:52.

surprise. They are printing more money?

:30:52.:30:57.

No. It may have to buy Italian debt!

:30:57.:31:04.

The Italians will be grateful. The Germany they are 1.72%, in the UK,

:31:04.:31:10.

2.17%. In Italy, the annual cost of borrowing has reached 7.25%. It's

:31:10.:31:14.

an interest rate that is thought to be unsustainable in the long-term

:31:14.:31:19.

as Italy would have to spend too much of its income servicing a huge

:31:19.:31:25.

debt - �1.5 trillion worth of debt in fact. Angela Merkel has had to

:31:26.:31:29.

scotch speculation that plans are being put in place for the break-up

:31:29.:31:34.

of the eurozone. The Prime Minister warned a precarious situation we

:31:34.:31:39.

are in. What is happening in Italy is a warning to any country, any

:31:39.:31:43.

government, without a credible plan to deal with excessive debts and

:31:43.:31:47.

deficits, that you need a plan and you need to stick to that plan if

:31:47.:31:52.

you want to keep interest rates low so your economy can grow. But there

:31:52.:31:59.

is another issue, too. The future of the euro. Italy is the third

:31:59.:32:03.

largest country in the euro. Its current state is a clear and

:32:03.:32:07.

present danger to the eurozone and the moment of truth is fast

:32:07.:32:11.

approaching. If the leaders of the eurozone want to save their

:32:11.:32:15.

currency, then they, together with the institutions of the eurozone,

:32:15.:32:19.

must act now. The Prime Minister there. Let's get more on this from

:32:19.:32:28.

the economist, Vicky Pryce. Italy has paid record rates to sell five

:32:28.:32:31.

billion euros. Does this change anything for Italy? Absolutely.

:32:31.:32:34.

It's obvious they are not going to be able to continue to finance

:32:34.:32:38.

their debt. We have to remember that a lot of the debt they have at

:32:38.:32:42.

present, which they are funding and repaying, is on much lower interest

:32:42.:32:46.

rates so this is a development that's happened recently which has

:32:46.:32:49.

pushed yields up significantly and the difficulty that Italy is now

:32:49.:32:54.

having raising money. But of course, what they raised today was small

:32:54.:32:58.

beer, really. Next year, they have over 300 billion to refinance. If

:32:58.:33:02.

the markets have not stabilised by then, they will be in serious

:33:02.:33:07.

difficulty. That is why everyone is looking at the ECB to buy more

:33:07.:33:10.

Italian debt and try and sort of calm the markets down. That is what

:33:10.:33:15.

I wanted to ask you. In terms of possible short-term solutions, the

:33:15.:33:19.

one that you just outlined, the European Central Bank buying up

:33:19.:33:23.

vast quantities of Italian debt, is that likely? Will the Germans allow

:33:23.:33:27.

that to happen, do you think? will have to allow it to happen.

:33:27.:33:31.

There is no solution in the short- term, until you do something

:33:31.:33:34.

radical with the stability fund and raise the amount of money it has to

:33:34.:33:39.

be able to intervene. The ECB will have to act also as lender of last

:33:39.:33:45.

resort. There will be serious problems with Italian banks. We

:33:45.:33:49.

have to bear in mind Italian debt, if you added everything together

:33:49.:33:54.

that Greece owes, that Portugal, Ireland and Spain together owe, it

:33:54.:33:59.

is less than what Italy owes. So it is a big problem and it's the one

:33:59.:34:06.

issue which is spooking the markets that since the agreements back in

:34:06.:34:10.

July for the bail-out fund, there hasn't been any real detail coming

:34:10.:34:15.

out in terms of how it is going to be increased. The other option is

:34:15.:34:19.

the break-up of the eurozone, whatever the Germans are saying

:34:19.:34:23.

publicly. It seems to be a real option. Do you think that now could

:34:23.:34:28.

happen, that Italy and Greece are pushed out of the eurozone? That

:34:29.:34:33.

would be very unlikely. The repercussions for the whole of

:34:33.:34:37.

Europe will be significant. Frankly, imagine having Germany and France

:34:37.:34:41.

on their own? They are very different economies. But the euro

:34:41.:34:45.

has stayed reasonably well because of the periphery countries so

:34:45.:34:48.

Germany will have a very uncompetitive exchange rate. That

:34:48.:34:52.

is a very simple thing if you look what the banking system is going to

:34:52.:34:58.

do. It is a disaster. Thank you. We are joined by the chair of the

:34:58.:35:01.

European Parliament's committee on economic and monetary affairs, the

:35:01.:35:05.

Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles and the Conservative MEP Matthew

:35:05.:35:09.

Hancock. If the eurozone continues down this road, how bad will the

:35:09.:35:14.

recession be next year in Britain? It's a very serious problem that we

:35:14.:35:19.

can see in the eurozone. The European Union growth figures out

:35:19.:35:23.

this morning highlighted that this... Tell us them? This is a

:35:23.:35:29.

serious problem. Well, they were forecast rather than the absolute

:35:29.:35:34.

figures. Sure. We know the OECD has forecast 0.3% growth for the

:35:34.:35:38.

eurozone next year. That was before either events in Greece or Italy

:35:38.:35:45.

overtook that forecast. What do we think it will be? Well, look, I'm

:35:45.:35:50.

not a forecaster. You mentioned the forecast. What are they? You can

:35:50.:35:56.

remind me of the actual figures at the end of the programme. I have

:35:56.:35:59.

seen them. I don't precisely remember them. Let me go back to

:35:59.:36:05.

the more general point. Yes. Which is as things are heading now, the

:36:05.:36:09.

eurozone is undoubtedly heading for a recession. If there is a

:36:09.:36:13.

recession in the eurozone, how bad will the recession be in Britain?

:36:13.:36:18.

Well, I don't accept the premise of your argument that there will

:36:18.:36:21.

necessarily be a recession here. What I do accept... Even if there

:36:21.:36:26.

is one in the eurozone? We have been on this programme many times

:36:26.:36:30.

and we have talked about how serious the knock on consequences

:36:30.:36:35.

would be from a break-up of the euro and from the lack of

:36:35.:36:39.

confidence. The "credit crunch" of the banks losing money because all

:36:39.:36:44.

of the government bonds they own being worth less than they were is

:36:44.:36:48.

very serious and that will have a serious knock-on impact here.

:36:48.:36:52.

me ask Sharon Bowles, you must - I'm surprised he doesn't accept it

:36:52.:36:56.

- you must accept if the eurozone goes into recession, we go into

:36:56.:36:59.

recession? The world goes into recession. Yes. The last time I

:36:59.:37:04.

looked we were part of the world! So I don't think you can single out

:37:04.:37:09.

the UK and say that we are going to survive when everybody else doesn't.

:37:09.:37:12.

This is very serious. That is why minds have been so exercised about

:37:12.:37:16.

it at G20. It is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so

:37:16.:37:19.

exercised about it. Steps that the Government has taken have made us

:37:19.:37:24.

stronger in terms of our banks and everything. Unless we manage to get

:37:24.:37:29.

a solution and we are in this situation now that there is only

:37:29.:37:35.

one unpalatable to many countries solution which is the ECB. You mean

:37:35.:37:42.

by that... That kicks the can down the road too. You are saying the

:37:42.:37:46.

European Central Bank should start to act like a bank of, a lender of

:37:46.:37:53.

last resort and buy Italian debt? Well, buy it big time. Right. Have

:37:54.:37:58.

you spoken to Mrs Merkel about that? The Germans won't accept this

:37:58.:38:03.

at the moment. Some Ministers that I have spoken to think that well in

:38:03.:38:06.

another three months they will, I don't think the markets will give

:38:06.:38:10.

them three months. Do you think Germany is being dragged

:38:10.:38:15.

reluctantly in this direction? it is something the ECB could do by

:38:16.:38:19.

a majority decision. They may have to make that step, bold though it

:38:19.:38:27.

is. It is not the kind of step the ECB is happy to take without near

:38:27.:38:32.

unanimity but they may have to. We are in times where there is no

:38:32.:38:36.

other alternative. Either we have the big blow-up now, or you delay

:38:36.:38:41.

it in some way by ECB intervention and have time to do some other

:38:41.:38:44.

measures at leisure and hope that you find some way from stopping the

:38:45.:38:48.

blow-up that will happen in another ten years because we haven't fixed

:38:48.:38:52.

the problem. We now have an Italian crisis whereby it looks - the

:38:52.:38:56.

Italians got their debt away this morning, it was a small amount, as

:38:56.:39:00.

Vicky Pryce said, but they had to pay through the nose for it. It was

:39:00.:39:06.

only year debt. They had to pay 6% interest rate for one year. That's

:39:06.:39:10.

2% lower than yesterday. That was for ten-year bonds, not for one-

:39:10.:39:15.

year bonds. You pay higher... the one-year bond yesterday was 8%

:39:15.:39:20.

and today it was 6%. This is progress of sorts. This is getting

:39:20.:39:25.

the debt away and you don't pay as much but it's still a lot. If it's

:39:25.:39:29.

going to need a bail-out and there is no bail-out fund, which there

:39:29.:39:33.

isn't, and if nobody wants to buy their debt which they don't and the

:39:33.:39:40.

ECB won't, what happens? It's - if governments can't finance what they

:39:40.:39:44.

owe and what they are spending, then you are in a serious situation

:39:45.:39:49.

because they don't have the money. Of course, governments all have

:39:49.:39:57.

short-term cash at hand to get through from day-to-day. As Sharon

:39:57.:40:03.

says, you can't keep kicking this down the road forever. The irony is

:40:03.:40:07.

that Italy's primary deficit, that means the deficit before they pay

:40:07.:40:12.

all their interest costs, actually is zero. They don't have a deficit

:40:12.:40:16.

if it weren't for the massive interest costs they are paying.

:40:16.:40:21.

They do pay these massive costs. That is like saying Washington DC

:40:21.:40:25.

is a safe city if you don't include the murder rate? If they get a grip

:40:25.:40:29.

on their borrowing costs and if they have a plan to deal with their

:40:30.:40:35.

deficit, get competitive, and also having a government and a Prime

:40:35.:40:38.

Minister would be... Getting competitive might be the problem

:40:38.:40:41.

with the growth rates being downgraded again? I think what's

:40:42.:40:46.

being said, and it is true, they are more like an island than a

:40:46.:40:50.

Greece in the sense -- more like than Ireland than a grease in the

:40:50.:40:53.

sense they do have a big industrial -- Greece in the sense they do have

:40:54.:40:58.

a big industrial base. They will be able to take a precautionary loan

:40:58.:41:03.

from the IMF but it would have to be bigger... A lot bigger than the

:41:03.:41:10.

IMF has resources. That would only be a putter on a measure until the

:41:10.:41:19.

eurozone could make some more Is it British Government policy,

:41:19.:41:25.

with the backing of the opposition, has it been to call for greater

:41:25.:41:29.

fiscal union within the eurozone? Is it also our policy, or do we

:41:29.:41:38.

have a view of whether that union should be with a pareed down

:41:38.:41:44.

eurozone? I think as it stands now is the safest for our economy,

:41:44.:41:50.

because any country would have a huge implication for our economy if

:41:50.:41:54.

they left, so a stable eurozone is the best thing for our economy.

:41:54.:41:58.

that what David Cameron said he is trying to put "an emergency brake

:41:58.:42:02.

on a tighter eurozone."? He's always been very clear that they

:42:02.:42:10.

need both to deal and resolve the Greek situation and to have a

:42:10.:42:16.

credible plan to deal with their firewall. I know all that, what I'm

:42:16.:42:22.

trying to establish is, does he want a - why is he against a

:42:22.:42:26.

tighter eurozone, because many economists will say it doesn't

:42:26.:42:29.

matter what fiscal union you have, if the eurozone contains Greece it

:42:29.:42:33.

ain't going to last? It's a question of whether they will do

:42:33.:42:38.

some caucusing and deal with other things and whether you are going to

:42:38.:42:44.

have caucusing on the single market and of course the UK is very

:42:44.:42:48.

against that and indeed - Do you think there should be a tighter

:42:48.:42:52.

eurozone? There needs to be in the sense of to do with the fiscal

:42:52.:42:57.

union, but you have to make sure it doesn't have negative spillover.

:42:57.:43:02.

Does it not make sense if you are going to have a tighter fiscal

:43:02.:43:07.

union, that it's among countries that are sympathetic in their

:43:07.:43:11.

economies? Not necessarily. There are parts of southern Italy that

:43:11.:43:16.

are very uncompetitive compared to northern Italy and they were in the

:43:16.:43:21.

lira for ages and think of the deep south of the United States. But the

:43:21.:43:26.

Italian Government was making massive fiscal transfers from Milan

:43:26.:43:31.

to Sicily and the Germans will not. It implies the transfers. That is

:43:31.:43:35.

the only way to work. You have put your finger on the reason why.

:43:35.:43:41.

didn't know I had done that. It is. The only solution is so tight that

:43:41.:43:45.

it's a transfer union as the Germans have always feared. That's

:43:45.:43:48.

why I'm wondering whether the club med countries can still be part of

:43:48.:43:53.

it. One of the reasons given by the Government for their overhaul of

:43:53.:43:57.

the NHS in England is that Britain is the sick man of Europe when it

:43:57.:44:01.

comes to cancer treatment, with survival rates that compare badly

:44:01.:44:04.

to others, but Labour say that argument has been demolished by a

:44:04.:44:09.

report published this week. Adam's been investigating the row over one

:44:09.:44:13.

of the most emotive issues in politics. David Cameron launching

:44:13.:44:15.

breast can sear awareness month recently. Britain is good at

:44:15.:44:18.

fighting that disease, but doesn't compare well internationally when

:44:18.:44:24.

it comes to other types of cancer. One of the reasons given for their

:44:24.:44:28.

re-organisation of the NHS in England. We have been part of an

:44:28.:44:31.

international benchmarking exercise for some years now and we lag at

:44:31.:44:34.

the bottom of the league table when it comes to the best performing

:44:35.:44:38.

countries when it comes to cancer survival rates. The only area where

:44:38.:44:42.

we are closing the gap is on breast cancer. The others we are improving,

:44:43.:44:46.

but not as well as others. He's talking about this data, published

:44:46.:44:51.

in the Lancet last year, which shows that when it comes to for

:44:51.:44:55.

instance, colon cancer, Britain is last among these countries when it

:44:55.:44:59.

comes to the percentage of patients living for five years since

:44:59.:45:02.

diagnosis. This is a very complicated area, where there is

:45:02.:45:05.

disagreement about what should actually be measured. For example,

:45:05.:45:09.

the paper was published this week, which looked at the number of

:45:09.:45:12.

people dying from various cancers, rather than the number surviving.

:45:12.:45:18.

It found a very different picture. Perhaps the most exciting finding

:45:18.:45:23.

is that compared with other countries, looking at the ten major

:45:23.:45:26.

western countries, we have reed our deaths more than anybody else --

:45:26.:45:29.

reduced our deaths more than anyone else. He also found that the

:45:29.:45:33.

billions spent on cancer by the last Government were spent far more

:45:33.:45:37.

effectively than in other countries. That casts doubt on the coalition's

:45:37.:45:43.

claims, according to this former Health Secretary. They have claimed

:45:43.:45:48.

that poor cancer services justify this dangerous upheavel of the

:45:48.:45:51.

Health Service. I'm afraid one of their arguments has been utterly

:45:52.:45:56.

demolished by this research. Government disagrees, saying death

:45:56.:46:00.

rates are a crude measure and don't tell us much about the performance

:46:00.:46:03.

of the NHS, but where everyone is agreed is whatever statistics you

:46:03.:46:07.

study, things would improve massively if the public were more

:46:07.:46:12.

aware of cancer symptoms. The subject of a big campaign to be

:46:12.:46:16.

launched in the new year. Joining me now is the leading cancer expert,

:46:16.:46:19.

Professor Karol Sikora. Can we just get back to whether Britain is the

:46:19.:46:23.

sick man of Europe in Thames of cancer survival rates, because we

:46:23.:46:28.

had two very conflicting accounts there. What is your view? How do we

:46:28.:46:32.

compare? My view is it is still the sick man of Europe. Huge resources

:46:32.:46:36.

have been pumped in and we are still at the bottom of the pile,

:46:36.:46:46.
:46:46.:46:46.

but it has improved, but it has improved in Europe as well. Another

:46:46.:46:53.

expert tis says that we have improved the most -- specialist

:46:53.:46:58.

says that we have improved the most recently. The death rate is the

:46:58.:47:03.

totality of the situation. They go down if less people get cancer and

:47:03.:47:09.

that's what has been happening. It takes time to reduce cancer, but

:47:09.:47:12.

it's working. Lifestyle, trying to make people do healthier lifestyles.

:47:12.:47:15.

The other very interesting fact that didn't come out in your shots

:47:15.:47:20.

there, was if you look at the one- year survival and compare it to the

:47:20.:47:23.

five-year survival, Britain is really bad. Five years not so bad.

:47:23.:47:26.

What that means is people are presenting late. They are coming

:47:26.:47:29.

when the cancer has already spread. Isn't that the key, that's not to

:47:29.:47:33.

do with the amount of money or the amount of treatment that has gone

:47:33.:47:37.

in, it is what Adam mentioned, we just don't go to the doctor early

:47:37.:47:43.

enough when we have got a lum or rash? Or there -- lump or a rash?

:47:43.:47:47.

Or there isn't a downstream process. If you are thought to have cancer

:47:47.:47:51.

and the GP makes the diagnosis and sends the patient under the two-

:47:51.:47:55.

week rule and they are processed rapidly, but the other sector of

:47:55.:47:58.

patients, the 56% that don't present that way, they are stuck

:47:58.:48:03.

and waiting in a queue for a biopsy and it could take six months before

:48:03.:48:08.

the diagnosis is made. Public education, what are the symptoms

:48:08.:48:12.

and fast tracking. The public health campaigns have worked,

:48:12.:48:16.

smoking has dropped and maybe diet is a potential problem in terms of

:48:16.:48:19.

obesity, but what about the Government's NHS reforms? Do you

:48:19.:48:22.

think that will have an impact on survival rates? Most of us have

:48:22.:48:26.

been around for many years and we don't understand the reforms. What

:48:26.:48:31.

is it they are trying to do? It seems to be a hotch-potch of

:48:31.:48:38.

interventions. Some people think it is privatising the NHS. There is no

:48:38.:48:42.

doubt that the reforms do make sense. The difficulty is that we

:48:42.:48:46.

are at a time when we are cutting the budgets of most hospitals by

:48:46.:48:49.

10%. The reforms, the GP commissioning, that would help?

:48:49.:48:53.

think so. You think it would have an impact on survival rates, but

:48:53.:48:59.

taking the money out, that is not? What we have got already is

:48:59.:49:04.

postcode prescribing for cancer drugs and for access to high

:49:04.:49:08.

technology, such as modern radiotherapy. Even to teams of

:49:08.:49:12.

surgeons that are very good at dealing with something. They have

:49:12.:49:16.

to be lucky and go to the right referral path, or you have to have

:49:16.:49:19.

the knowledge. You are saying the coalition's reforms are not going

:49:19.:49:22.

to have a positive impact overall on cancer survival rates. What

:49:23.:49:28.

about spending on drugs? It's a fudge. So much is spent on the NHS,

:49:29.:49:34.

but NICE approve the drugs, but then there is a new drugs fund, 200

:49:34.:49:38.

million, so what tends to happen, the patients that are educated and

:49:38.:49:43.

know about the drugs get the doctor to fill all the forms in, to get

:49:43.:49:47.

the committees that decide to approve the drugs. It is not - it's

:49:47.:49:50.

a recipe for complete postcode nonsense. Everyone is going to get

:49:50.:49:53.

different types of services in what is a National Service. We all pay

:49:53.:49:59.

the taxes and expect the same. A much better way is to come up and

:49:59.:50:03.

instead of trying to fudge it, this is are the drugs we can afford and

:50:03.:50:07.

these are the ones we can't. Everyone gets the same. Although,

:50:07.:50:10.

the spending, the figures show, they are much lower here on cancer

:50:10.:50:14.

drugs tan places like France. If we spent a bit more, wouldn't that

:50:14.:50:17.

make sense? 200 million wouldn't probably cover it. Half a billion

:50:17.:50:21.

would. Then we would be up to France's level. That is probably

:50:21.:50:24.

not contributing to the higher death rate from cancer, the higher

:50:25.:50:30.

death rate from an existing cancer. Can I just ask you, you did the

:50:30.:50:35.

assessment of Abdel Baset Ali al- Megrahi. He is still alive. How has

:50:35.:50:40.

he managed to survive, two year laters or more? He's been on

:50:40.:50:42.

experimental drugs. Including one that was developed in the UK and

:50:42.:50:48.

it's not available on the NHS, which is quite ironic. Isn't it. He

:50:48.:50:52.

has survived because of drugs that we can't get here? My opinion

:50:52.:50:55.

wasn't taken into account by the Scottish Government. Nine doctors

:50:55.:50:59.

looked at it and they all said three months. They were using

:50:59.:51:06.

standard NHS practice in Glasgow in 2008. Thank you very much.

:51:06.:51:10.

We'll return to the main story - while we have been on air, James

:51:10.:51:15.

Murdoch has given evidence to the Media committee and as we mentioned

:51:15.:51:18.

earlier Tom Watson was rebuked by James Murdoch for his description

:51:18.:51:24.

of News International. You must be the first Mafia boss in history who

:51:24.:51:28.

didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise. Mr Watson,

:51:29.:51:36.

please, I think it's inappropriate. Mr Chairman. Vicki Young has been

:51:36.:51:41.

watching the evidence session for us. Someone has just tweeted saying,

:51:41.:51:46.

"James Murdoch is currently on your screens appearing in a sequel. I

:51:46.:51:53.

have no idea what anybody did last summer." Is that fair? James

:51:53.:51:56.

Murdoch wasn't impressed with the description there of his company,

:51:56.:52:00.

he says, bound by silence and the code of silence, according to Tom

:52:01.:52:05.

Watson. There is an element of different people's recollections

:52:05.:52:09.

and accusations and we are ending up in a position where it is one

:52:09.:52:12.

person's word against the other. James Murdoch is fighting for his

:52:12.:52:18.

own reputation, willing to point the finger of blame. He was saying

:52:18.:52:20.

that Tom Crone and Colin Myler gave misleading evidence to the

:52:21.:52:24.

committee. He says his own evidence has been consistent and he says

:52:24.:52:27.

that's not the case with the the others and he says they have been

:52:27.:52:32.

misleading and their evident has been economical. We have a position

:52:32.:52:35.

here now where people are fighting with each other in order to get the

:52:36.:52:41.

blame off themselves, I guess. there any killer question or set of

:52:41.:52:45.

questions that lead people to believe that James Murdoch was

:52:45.:52:49.

involved in a cover-up? I think what is interesting is the picture

:52:49.:52:53.

that he's painting of himself, of why he didn't seem to know the

:52:53.:53:00.

truth. He says that he was in charge of this huge observation and

:53:00.:53:03.

-- organisation and it covered Asia and he relied on executives and he

:53:03.:53:06.

claims he was kept in the dark. He says it was the scale of the

:53:06.:53:10.

business, so he relied on the people, that he didn't know every

:53:10.:53:13.

single detail and still the matter over how much he knew about the

:53:13.:53:17.

documents circulating that seemed to suggest that tacking was more

:53:17.:53:20.

widespread. He says quite simply that he just wasn't given the full

:53:20.:53:23.

details out of all of that. Tom Watson, Labour MP, saying today

:53:23.:53:28.

that he himself has spoken to Neville Thurlbeck, the former

:53:28.:53:32.

senior reporter and he apparently says that Tom Crone, the legal

:53:32.:53:35.

adviser, did show documents to James Murdoch, even though Tom

:53:35.:53:38.

Crone in the committee says that he didn't. You can see the committee

:53:39.:53:42.

could go on for a long time. We'll have to leave it there. The

:53:42.:53:47.