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