04/07/2012

:00:46. > :00:51.Good morning. This is The Daily Politics. Who and what will the

:00:51. > :00:56.banking scandal hit next? Yesterday, it claimed its biggest scalp, Bob

:00:56. > :01:01.Diamond. He claimed he was hounded out by politicians, regulators and

:01:01. > :01:05.the Bank of England. This afternoon, it could be payback time, when he

:01:05. > :01:09.gives evidence before the select committee in the Commons. We can

:01:09. > :01:14.expect other parts of the establishment, not least Labour

:01:14. > :01:19.politicians, in government at the time, to be engulfed. We can expect

:01:19. > :01:22.events in the Square Mile to dominate PMQs, with David Cameron

:01:22. > :01:32.and David Miliband are attempting to make political capital. We will

:01:32. > :01:32.

:01:32. > :01:39.have all the action. Britain's biggest rail enthusiast will be

:01:39. > :01:49.telling us why a High Speed 2 should not hit the buffers. We must

:01:49. > :01:54.build High Speed 2 - simple. And we will be discussing why matter

:01:54. > :01:58.matters. All that to come before one o'clock today. And a very

:01:58. > :02:06.special welcome to the new director general of the BBC. He is a very

:02:06. > :02:11.nice man. A very, very very nice man, I would say. He would be even

:02:11. > :02:16.nicer if he could get the wi-fi to work in the studio. Anyway, Mr

:02:16. > :02:18.Redwood's, welcome aboard. You have no idea what is in store for you!

:02:18. > :02:21.Anyway, with us today, two beams of parliamentary protons that will

:02:21. > :02:29.hurtle around the studio at close to the speed of light. I speak of

:02:29. > :02:35.course of Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, and Caroline Flint, the

:02:35. > :02:40.Shadow Energy Secretary. But first, from the origins of the universe to

:02:40. > :02:46.the masters of the universe... Did you see what I did there? Bob

:02:46. > :02:51.Diamond resigned yesterday as chief executive of Barclays. Mr diamond

:02:51. > :02:54.will be interrogated, at least I think that is the word, by the

:02:54. > :03:01.Treasury Select Committee this afternoon. How did we get to this,

:03:01. > :03:06.Jo? The crisis began last Wednesday, when the FSA handed down a record

:03:06. > :03:10.�290 million fine to Barclays for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR

:03:10. > :03:14.rate by lying about the interest they were paying on loans. Notes

:03:14. > :03:19.taken by Bob Diamond show that during a telephone conversation in

:03:19. > :03:22.2008, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England allegedly

:03:22. > :03:26.encouraged Barclays to lower their submissions for the LIBOR. Just

:03:26. > :03:30.after that, the submissions plummeted. The fixing is thought to

:03:30. > :03:35.be much more widespread than just Barclays. Other institutions will

:03:35. > :03:39.be under the spotlight as well. At the weekend, the chairman of

:03:39. > :03:45.Barclays, Marcus Agius, was the first victim of the crisis. He was

:03:45. > :03:48.joined yesterday by chief executive Bob Diamond, who announced he, too,

:03:48. > :03:53.was resigning following pressure from politicians and from the Bank

:03:53. > :03:59.of England. David Cameron initially ruled about a snap inquiry, but

:03:59. > :04:03.changed his mind this week, announcing a parliamentary inquiry

:04:03. > :04:08.into rate rigging, to begin as soon as possible. But Labour says this

:04:08. > :04:11.is not enough, it wants a broad, judge-led inquiry. MPs will vote on

:04:12. > :04:19.the decision tomorrow. We will be joined in a moment by the business

:04:19. > :04:23.editor of the Times. And here in Westminster, we will be joined by a

:04:23. > :04:28.Labour's John mam, a member of the Treasury Select Committee. He has

:04:28. > :04:37.taken time out from preparing for the session this afternoon -- John

:04:37. > :04:42.Mann -- his questioners for Bob Diamond. What will be your first

:04:42. > :04:46.question? What is the difference between Barclays and dead fish?

:04:46. > :04:55.Both Worton from the head. The bank will go unless this rotten core is

:04:55. > :05:01.sorted out. So, you're looking for a cull of all the top people at

:05:01. > :05:05.Barclays? The entire culture of the bank has to change. But what do you

:05:05. > :05:12.want to find out from Mr diamond? want to find out why the culture

:05:12. > :05:16.was there, what were the other banks doing on this, because he is

:05:16. > :05:20.in a position to name other banks? And I want to hear from him what he

:05:20. > :05:24.thinks should happen to make sure that there are proper sanctions to

:05:24. > :05:28.stop him and others doing this again. Will you be asking him why

:05:29. > :05:34.the Bank of England gave him a very strong steer to lowball the LIBOR

:05:34. > :05:39.rate? That is one issue which will come up. It is a big issue,

:05:39. > :05:45.particularly for your party. It is a big issue for everyone. You were

:05:45. > :05:49.in power at the time. I can assure you, next week we will be calling

:05:49. > :05:52.in the Bank of England and others about this. What about Gordon

:05:52. > :06:01.Brown? We will be more than happy to call in politicians are as

:06:01. > :06:06.necessary. Whoever needs to be called in... I am just trying to

:06:06. > :06:10.work out who you will call in. First, we have got to hear what Bob

:06:10. > :06:15.Diamond has to say, and then, without question, we will bring in

:06:15. > :06:18.the Bank of England. But this record fine was up until July 2008,

:06:18. > :06:22.and Bob Diamond will not get away this afternoon with shifting the

:06:22. > :06:26.blame elsewhere. He led this bank, and this is all about what happened

:06:26. > :06:30.for three years. There will be criminal prosecutions as well as

:06:30. > :06:35.huge civil cases. This has got enormous implications for this bank

:06:35. > :06:39.and all British banks. You would appear to be curiously incurious

:06:39. > :06:44.about wanting to know who the senior Whitehall officials were,

:06:44. > :06:48.who were urging the Bank of England to urge Barclays to reduce the

:06:48. > :06:53.LIBOR rate. Don't worry, we will call in everyone who needs to be

:06:53. > :06:57.called in. I am certain the Bank of England will be there. But one

:06:57. > :07:02.thing at a time. We do not want the politicking to get in front of

:07:02. > :07:05.sorting out the crisis in British banking. The entire existence of

:07:05. > :07:09.Barclays is at stake. That is the complaint against the Government,

:07:09. > :07:17.that you're playing politics with this. It is quite clear that from

:07:17. > :07:24.Cameron and the Chancellor down, you have Brown, Bulls and the

:07:24. > :07:27.others in your sights. It is a political revenge match. We need to

:07:27. > :07:31.find out how far it went and whether indeed it was directed from

:07:31. > :07:35.Whitehall, at least to some extent. All of those questions need to be

:07:35. > :07:38.answered, and we need to do something about it. We have got a

:07:38. > :07:43.Banking bill going through the House of Commons at the moment. We

:07:43. > :07:46.can be legislating within six months. The issue for the Tories is,

:07:46. > :07:54.who were the senior Whitehall figures? The one that we have been

:07:54. > :08:00.briefed on non-stop would be that question. I don't think the

:08:00. > :08:04.Treasury committee would want to sidestep that issue. But we know

:08:04. > :08:09.that the other banks are all being investigated, it is their turn next,

:08:09. > :08:12.there is no mystery in this at all. Which is why we have said that it

:08:12. > :08:17.should be a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses, which is

:08:17. > :08:21.why we want them to report quickly, and that is why we want to change

:08:21. > :08:30.the legislation, so it cannot happen again. Let me go to the

:08:30. > :08:35.business editor of the Times now. Can you hear me? No? There is a

:08:35. > :08:39.danger that this is going to rebound badly on Labour. I think we

:08:39. > :08:42.have been clear that we made mistakes in government. Whilst we

:08:42. > :08:47.brought in regulation, more than we had in the 1980s, it clearly was

:08:47. > :08:50.not enough. The truth is that all politicians have to answer for that.

:08:50. > :08:55.At the time, George Osborne was saying we were being too tough. I

:08:55. > :09:00.have to say in response to your question to John earlier about

:09:00. > :09:04.Labour politicians at this time, Alastair Darling, Ed Balls, Lord

:09:04. > :09:11.minor and the Baroness have been absolutely categoric, they did not

:09:11. > :09:16.have conversations... They have not been absolutely categoric. No, she

:09:16. > :09:26.is absolutely clear that they did nothing to have conversations

:09:26. > :09:30.regarding meddling with the rate of LIBOR. Would you agree that if

:09:30. > :09:36.Labour politicians or their advisers were found to be complicit

:09:36. > :09:39.in the low balling of LIBOR, that would be a huge scandal? All the

:09:39. > :09:43.people I have mentioned have categorically said that was not the

:09:43. > :09:47.case. They have not. If we found out that they were not telling the

:09:47. > :09:56.truth and Labour was found to be low balling LIBOR, would that not

:09:56. > :09:59.be incredibly serious? This is why Labour has said we need a judge-led

:09:59. > :10:03.inquiry, which has more disclosure powers than a parliamentary inquiry

:10:03. > :10:09.would have. That would mean everybody concerned, including the

:10:09. > :10:13.people that John has mentioned, a judge-led inquiry, like we have

:10:13. > :10:17.seen with Leveson, can get to information which other forms of

:10:17. > :10:25.inquiry cannot. Politicians, bankers, regulators, should then

:10:25. > :10:29.come before that board to answer questions. Let me see if we can get

:10:29. > :10:33.through to the Times now, we usually get through to Baghdad

:10:33. > :10:38.quite quickly! If you were on the Treasury Select Committee this

:10:38. > :10:42.afternoon, what would you be asking Bob Diamond? I think you would want

:10:42. > :10:48.to know whether Paul Tucker told him who are these senior figures

:10:48. > :10:52.within Whitehall actually were. The ones that told him to lowball LIBOR,

:10:52. > :10:56.that is the key question. But it is unlikely, is it not, that Paul

:10:56. > :10:59.Tucker would have told him? He makes it clear from the

:10:59. > :11:03.contemporaneous note that he is getting a lot of calls from a very

:11:03. > :11:08.high level within Whitehall about Barclays' LIBOR submissions being

:11:08. > :11:13.too high. We know that immediately after that conversation, Barclays'

:11:13. > :11:18.LIBOR submissions fell off a cliff, something had happened. Exactly. It

:11:18. > :11:23.is quite clear, as we now know from the documents that Barclays

:11:23. > :11:26.released yesterday ahead of the select committee today, the person

:11:26. > :11:30.who was running the rates desk at Barclays Capital at the time, Jerry

:11:30. > :11:35.del Missier, assumed from the e- mail he had received from his boss,

:11:35. > :11:40.Bob Diamond, that the Bank of England had given the go-ahead to

:11:40. > :11:44.submit lower LIBOR rates than had been the case. Is it your view that,

:11:44. > :11:48.assuming the contemporaneous note is accurate, and we have no reason

:11:48. > :11:53.to believe it was not accurate, it was done at the time - is it your

:11:53. > :11:58.view that it was government policy at the time to make sure that LIBOR

:11:58. > :12:01.stayed as low as possible? I think we have to go back to the events of

:12:01. > :12:10.October 2008. Quite frankly, everybody would have been doing

:12:10. > :12:16.this, as Bob Diamond makes clear. That is clearly what was discussed

:12:16. > :12:19.between him and Paul Tucker at that time. Bob Diamond made it clear

:12:19. > :12:24.that everybody was low balling LIBOR rates, it was not just

:12:24. > :12:27.Barclays. So, would that have been done with the connivance of

:12:27. > :12:31.Whitehall? Who knows? But it should probably not be a hanging offence

:12:31. > :12:34.in any case. Potentially the alternative would have been a

:12:34. > :12:39.collapse of the banking system. Don't forget, Lehman's had gone

:12:39. > :12:47.under in the state's one month earlier, right had needed to go in

:12:47. > :12:51.to rescue HBOS in a merger, and it is quite possible that had the

:12:51. > :12:57.market taken fright, there could have been a run on Barclays as well.

:12:57. > :13:00.So I think it is the lesser of two evils, to be honest. The LIBOR rate,

:13:00. > :13:04.the London Interbank Offered Rate, is very important, because it sets

:13:04. > :13:08.the rate at which banks borrow from each other, and what banks borrow

:13:08. > :13:15.from each other then determines the rates they charge us. It is an

:13:15. > :13:21.important thing, and the whole world, other interest rates, take

:13:21. > :13:26.their lead from the LIBOR rate. But if other banks were low balling

:13:26. > :13:30.LIBOR, and Barclays wasn't, because its rates had been market-driven,

:13:30. > :13:33.and if Bob Diamond gets a steer from the Treasury and the Bank of

:13:33. > :13:42.England that they should fall in line with the other banks, then

:13:42. > :13:47.government and regulators are complicit. Yes, they absolutely are.

:13:47. > :13:51.Without question. It is a series of IFS, but absolutely, which is a

:13:51. > :13:55.major issue. But let's not forget the other major issue, which is

:13:55. > :13:58.Barclays traders under Bob Diamond profiting by fiddling the rates.

:13:58. > :14:03.Those are two issues, both huge issues, we should not ignore either

:14:04. > :14:09.of them. Quite right, there was a separate issue happening earlier of

:14:09. > :14:14.the traders themselves low balling, or raising, LIBOR, depending on how

:14:14. > :14:17.their books were closing at the end of the day. Is it your contention,

:14:17. > :14:22.the contention of the Government, that senior Labour figures were

:14:22. > :14:27.involved in this? We simply do not know the answer to that. We need to

:14:27. > :14:33.wait until this inquiry has taken place. If you look at the notes, it

:14:33. > :14:35.makes it very clear that senior figures within Whitehall were

:14:35. > :14:41.responsible - by the that is politicians or officials, we do not

:14:41. > :14:49.know. We do not have all the notes. The Bank of England refused to give

:14:49. > :14:54.the notes to me today. How could they do that, John? Do you want me

:14:54. > :14:58.to have a word with them? I will have a word with Mervyn and Paul

:14:58. > :15:03.Tucker. Ed Balls has been categorical, that he had nothing to

:15:03. > :15:09.do with it whatsoever. Let's just run a club of him now and see what

:15:09. > :15:12.he had to say this morning. At no point did I have any conversation

:15:12. > :15:16.with Mr Tucker at all, at any time when I was a Treasury minister or

:15:16. > :15:20.adviser, or subsequently to that, when I was a Cabinet minister. I

:15:20. > :15:25.had no conversation with anybody about the LIBOR market during any

:15:25. > :15:35.of those periods, and at no point in any of the time when I was a

:15:35. > :15:38.

:15:38. > :15:48.minister or adviser were concerns That's pretty clear, Grant Shapps?

:15:48. > :15:52.He's one of the individuals. I don't know. He was not in office at

:15:52. > :15:57.the time. Let's not try to put words into anyone's mouth. We don't

:15:57. > :16:01.know it's the case. It's correct to have an inquiry. What we do know

:16:01. > :16:05.from the note is that senior figures within Whitehall were

:16:05. > :16:11.putting pressure on. George Osborne has thrown mud around and hoped

:16:11. > :16:16.that it will stick. Actually, that is really unhelpful. That's why we

:16:16. > :16:23.do need something which has some authority and why a judge-led

:16:23. > :16:30.inquiry means everyone is held to account. Chris Leslie on 6th March

:16:30. > :16:33.asked Mark Holborn about LIBOR. He said nothing. There are a series of

:16:33. > :16:37.questions to eke out what your government did or did not do in the

:16:37. > :16:40.last two years, when it's been your watch, to actually get a grip on

:16:40. > :16:44.some of the situations. We all have to, as politicians, take

:16:44. > :16:48.responsibility. Do you think the Conservatives have been

:16:48. > :16:52.manipulating LIBOR? No, but what they may have done is avoid some of

:16:52. > :16:56.the issues, where we have mechanisims and clearly at Barclays

:16:56. > :17:00.and others, despite the regulations, they've broken those and stepped

:17:01. > :17:03.across the line. We all, as politicians, have to deal with this,

:17:04. > :17:07.because whether it's MPs with expenses, whether it's the media

:17:07. > :17:12.and the banks, these are institutions that we have to work

:17:12. > :17:19.to make sure the public trust. agree. One thing we know for

:17:19. > :17:22.certain, one of the first things that Gordon Brown did was to create

:17:22. > :17:25.the tripartite system of regulation, which made it very, very difficult,

:17:25. > :17:29.whether the FSA, the Bank of England or the Treasury, who were

:17:29. > :17:35.doing the regulation in the City and that's where a lot of the

:17:35. > :17:40.problems come from. Ian King, Bob Diamond, love him or loath him, he

:17:40. > :17:46.did create the only decent global investment bank Britain's ever had,

:17:47. > :17:51.all the rest have been Pygmies. The only one to take on the Americans,

:17:51. > :17:55.will we miss him? I think he will. He's an undoubted talent. He'll be

:17:55. > :17:59.snapped up by someone on Wall Street fairly quickly, should he

:17:59. > :18:03.wish to continue working. He's a man who put Barclays on the world

:18:03. > :18:07.stage. A lot of people in Wall Street really respected him for

:18:07. > :18:12.that. Also, respected the name of Barclays in the process. Thank you

:18:12. > :18:16.very much. I'm glad we got the communications there to the distant

:18:17. > :18:22.time zone that is Wapping. Thank you very much for taking time out

:18:22. > :18:24.John, we look forward to this afternoon. I've Now, in January

:18:24. > :18:30.last year, Caroline Spelman announced Government plans to sell

:18:30. > :18:33.of parts of the Uk's public forests. Booked my seat. The announcement

:18:33. > :18:35.sparked outrage and over 500,000 people signed a petition calling on

:18:35. > :18:39.the Government to scrap the plans. The Environment Secretary spent

:18:39. > :18:42.weeks defending the idea, but what a difference a few days make. The

:18:42. > :18:44.panel set up by the Government to look into the policy published

:18:44. > :18:51.their final report today, saying that public forests must not be

:18:51. > :18:57.sold off. I'm sorry, we got this one wrong, but we have listened to

:18:57. > :19:00.people's concerns. It's quite clear from the early responses to the

:19:00. > :19:10.consultation that the public and many honourable members are not

:19:10. > :19:14.happy with the proposals we set out. The panel published their report

:19:14. > :19:16.today, saying that they must not be sold off. The Government says it

:19:16. > :19:24.accepts the recommendations and this morning confirmed it would

:19:24. > :19:33.halt plans to set off state-owned forests. The Right Reverend James

:19:33. > :19:35.Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, headed the report and he joins us now.

:19:35. > :19:39.Trees are essential to life and part of common heritage. People

:19:39. > :19:43.love the forest, but what we have to do now is value them for the

:19:43. > :19:46.other things that they give us, clean air, clean water, carbon

:19:46. > :19:51.storage and protecting our wildlife. Couldn't that have been done and

:19:51. > :19:58.I'm sure many would agree, in private ownership too? It's not

:19:58. > :20:03.being done. 82% is in private ownership. Only 81% -- only 18% is

:20:03. > :20:08.public forests but they deliver over 40% of the access and 60% of

:20:08. > :20:10.the timber supply. That's a remarkable testimony to the public

:20:11. > :20:15.forest. It's quite a small proportion. People forget when

:20:15. > :20:22.there was the row, it's only one fifth, I think it works out. Who

:20:22. > :20:29.will pay in terms of the future upkeep? It will be the taxpayer to

:20:29. > :20:33.keep them going? We are talking about �22 million. Nine kilometres

:20:33. > :20:37.of carriageway costs �160 million. It's a no-brainer by comparison.

:20:37. > :20:41.What we are saying is if there are public benefits then that's a

:20:41. > :20:48.legitimate call on the public purse. Until we find another way of paying

:20:48. > :20:50.for them and the Government is set up two important committees, the

:20:50. > :20:53.Natural Capital Committee and a Task Force and they are working out

:20:53. > :20:59.how you might pay for the public benefits. It's difficult to put a

:20:59. > :21:03.price on it, isn't it, in terms of the value? It's hard to do when you

:21:03. > :21:07.are talking about forests? course it is, but the moment your

:21:07. > :21:11.home is flooded, you'll be asking questions why it is happening and

:21:11. > :21:16.trees are an important protection. Grant Shapps, do you think it was

:21:16. > :21:22.all a waste of time putting forward the proposals? Was it misguided or

:21:22. > :21:25.misconstrued? It taught ministers a lesson that I've certainly taken

:21:25. > :21:29.forward, which is be careful what you put in the consultation. It was

:21:29. > :21:34.one of the options in consultation. It was massively and clearly

:21:34. > :21:38.unpopular and I think you have to think twice before you list a set

:21:38. > :21:41.of options, even if it's not going to ever be the one that goes

:21:41. > :21:45.through. The other to say is it was never about money. Everyone thought

:21:45. > :21:50.it was, but in fact it wasn't. It's not for the public benefit that

:21:50. > :21:52.comes from it, it's not an enormous sum of money and nothing to do with

:21:52. > :21:55.keeping that department's budgets right. It wasn't required for that

:21:56. > :21:59.reason. It was just looking at whether there were better ways to

:21:59. > :22:04.manage the forests and in fact I think the report today is terrific.

:22:04. > :22:09.It's got all the right ideas in it and it's smart stuff to follow.

:22:09. > :22:14.you think lessons were learnt, but was the consultation wrong, or was

:22:14. > :22:18.it just that there was such an outcry about the idea of so-called

:22:18. > :22:22.privatising the forests? It's an emotive issue and it's clear to me

:22:22. > :22:27.that sometimes the Commission do need to sell bits to buy others and

:22:27. > :22:33.I think you reflect on your report today. It's very emotive. People

:22:33. > :22:36.get enormous benefit and pleasure from the forests and in terms of it

:22:36. > :22:40.being instructional, it makes me think carefully about any of the

:22:40. > :22:43.options that I outline in consultations to make sure I would

:22:43. > :22:46.genuinely be happy with any of the ones that came out the other end.

:22:46. > :22:51.What happens now? You have got the two reports or the two studies

:22:52. > :22:55.being done. When will we hear from them? Caroline Spelman and I think

:22:55. > :23:00.she should be given credit for doing the right thing and putting

:23:00. > :23:04.it out to an independent panel. She has today said she will respond in

:23:04. > :23:09.January. We are having a stakeholders' meeting and 100

:23:09. > :23:13.people signed up to this. A huge public debate needs to continue

:23:13. > :23:16.about the value of woods and forests and I hope the Government

:23:16. > :23:19.will respond in the light of that debate. Thank you very much. Next,

:23:19. > :23:23.a media power couple, never off the front pages and inseparable for the

:23:23. > :23:27.past five years. Style icons to millions. I know what you're

:23:27. > :23:31.thinking, but, no, I'm not talking about me and Jo, I am, of course,

:23:31. > :23:34.describing the fairytale marriage of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. But

:23:34. > :23:39.the dream came crashing down over the weekend as Katie Holmes filed

:23:39. > :23:42.for divorce citing irreconcilable differences. With millions at stake

:23:42. > :23:45.you'd think their lawyers would be having a field day. But they don't

:23:45. > :23:48.care about the houses, the cars and the shoes. The only possession they

:23:48. > :23:51.really care about is gaining custody of their prized Daily

:23:51. > :23:54.Politics mug. But if you want your own mug, you don't need fancy

:23:54. > :23:58.lawyers, you just need to enter our Guess the Year competition. We'll

:23:58. > :24:08.remind you how to enter in a minute, but let's see if you can remember

:24:08. > :24:27.

:24:27. > :24:35.when this happened. # Panic on the streets of London...

:24:35. > :24:39.# We did it calmly and cordially. # I wondered to myself... #

:24:39. > :24:49.# Don't leave me this way # I can't survive

:24:49. > :24:50.

:24:50. > :25:00.# I can't stay alive... # # System addict

:25:00. > :25:05.

:25:05. > :25:13.# I never can get enough... # # We don't have to take our clothes

:25:13. > :25:23.# To have a good time, oh, no # We could dance and party all

:25:23. > :25:33.night... # # We're absolute beginners... #

:25:33. > :25:44.

:25:44. > :25:53.There's nothing delicate about the To be in with a chance of winning

:25:53. > :26:00.the mug send your answer to our e- mail address: you can see the full

:26:00. > :26:07.terms and conditions on the website. It's coming up to midday. We'll

:26:07. > :26:11.look at Big Ben. There it is behind me. For those of you who haven't

:26:11. > :26:14.switched across, there will be a lot of drums across the Thames,

:26:14. > :26:19.because it's the Prime Minister's questions, the Bob Diamond edition.

:26:19. > :26:23.Nick is with us. It will be one way or another, won't it? Absolutely,

:26:23. > :26:27.because there's a who done it in terms of Barclays. Yes, we know

:26:27. > :26:34.that there's an issue of who did it in the bank and who knew. Yes

:26:34. > :26:37.werbgs know thanks to a memo yesterday, that he was suggesting

:26:38. > :26:41.that the Bank of England were pressureising Barclays to sort out

:26:41. > :26:46.the LIBOR. But we also know that the same memo says that senior

:26:46. > :26:49.Whitehall figures, not named, not specified whether ministers or

:26:49. > :26:53.officials, were putting pressure on the Bank of England to put pressure

:26:53. > :26:58.on Barclays to do it. From a high level? What is intriguing is the

:26:58. > :27:02.speed with which people have been rushing to the cameras, who were in

:27:02. > :27:07.the last Labour Government to say, whoever did it it wasn't me.

:27:07. > :27:12.Alistair Darling says, "It wasn't me." I don't imagine anybody in the

:27:12. > :27:18.treasure could have done it, that's what he is saying. Lord Myners was

:27:18. > :27:22.saying, "I didn't know anything about it." Baroness Vadera in the

:27:22. > :27:25.House of Lords, was effectively Gordon Brown's fix-it woman for the

:27:25. > :27:30.City. Former banker who gets enormous credit from officials, we

:27:30. > :27:34.ought to say, for sorting out many of the problems when the credit

:27:34. > :27:37.crunch happened in 2008. She said, "Yes, I was involved in all sorts

:27:37. > :27:40.of conversations about the LIBOR rate, but those were policy

:27:40. > :27:47.decisions, trying to make credit work in the economy. They certainly

:27:47. > :27:51.weren't about rigging the system." In other words, the Conservative

:27:51. > :27:54.Party are saying, where was Ed Balls in all of this? He regards

:27:54. > :27:58.this as a cheap smear. They regard it as a legitimate series of

:27:58. > :28:02.questions about a guy who was very close to Gordon Brown and knew

:28:02. > :28:05.where a lot of the bodies were buried, because he was a former

:28:05. > :28:09.City minister. When you see them clash at Prime Minister's questions,

:28:09. > :28:14.in a sense you can almost forget the details unless you love them.

:28:14. > :28:18.What is going on is a battle for credibility and reputation. The

:28:18. > :28:23.Tories want to destroy Labour. They want to make the debt crisis the

:28:23. > :28:28.equivalent of the winter of discontent at the end of the 70's.

:28:28. > :28:33.Very high stakes? Indeed. If we remind ourselves of the context at

:28:33. > :28:38.the time in the autumn of 2008, this was a Government and a Bank of

:28:38. > :28:44.England that had basically dined out on cheap credit. The cheap

:28:44. > :28:48.credit had become the motif of the authorities and of the Government.

:28:48. > :28:55.It is also time when the interbank markets, the lending between banks

:28:55. > :29:01.was in danger of drying up. At the two together and it stands to

:29:01. > :29:06.reason that Government wanted to keep LIBOR low? That that was the

:29:06. > :29:10.policy? Absolutely. The great fear, what we tend to think of was a

:29:10. > :29:13.banks crisis was a credit crunch. The fear was that the banks

:29:13. > :29:17.couldn't lend to each other and therefore couldn't lend to you and

:29:18. > :29:22.me and businesses to keep them alive or get them to expand. Yes,

:29:22. > :29:27.of course, Government, Treasury, Bank of England, banks wanted to

:29:27. > :29:30.find a way to bring the costs down in order to get more money out of

:29:30. > :29:37.the door. People keep saying that is different from rigging it.

:29:37. > :29:42.Rigging it in order for some rich bankers to say, "We've made a fast

:29:42. > :29:47.buck. I'll do a favour." As in one of the e-mails. These things are

:29:47. > :29:50.different. Remember, there were two kinds of rigging of this key

:29:50. > :29:53.interest rate. There was the earlier rigging by Barclays'

:29:54. > :29:58.traders, to make their books look better, to bank a profit at the end

:29:58. > :30:02.of the day. For themselves. Yes. A lot of people think not only have

:30:02. > :30:09.the traders been fired, but a lot of them think it's criminal and

:30:09. > :30:16.they should be collared. That's one set. That is different from the

:30:16. > :30:19.bank committing a LIBOR rate. Again, we had a Government and bank that

:30:19. > :30:23.wanted to keep the rate low and you had others that were obliging. The

:30:23. > :30:27.one that didn't was Barclays, that set the rates by the markets. And

:30:27. > :30:31.suddenly they are lent on to say why don't you fall in line with

:30:31. > :30:34.everybody else. Critically, Barclays, but boasting at the time.

:30:34. > :30:44.They said they didn't need Government help. Over to the

:30:44. > :30:53.

:30:53. > :30:56.I'm sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the

:30:56. > :31:01.three British servicemen who were killed in Afghanistan over the

:31:01. > :31:04.weekend. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the

:31:04. > :31:08.people who were killed in this tragic, appalling incident. They

:31:08. > :31:11.will never be forgotten by our nation. This morning I had meetings

:31:11. > :31:20.with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further

:31:20. > :31:25.I'm sure at the whole House will want to associate ourselves with

:31:25. > :31:28.the Prime Minister's remarks, as well as sending our deepest

:31:28. > :31:33.condolences to the families of the crew from RAF Lossiemouth who were

:31:33. > :31:41.lost earlier in the week. Mr Speaker, food prices rose by more

:31:41. > :31:44.than 4% between March last year and this year. I understand why, so,

:31:44. > :31:52.can the Prime Minister spare me the lecture and tell the House what he

:31:52. > :31:56.is doing about food inflation. I join the honourable leader -- the

:31:56. > :32:00.Honourable Lady about what she said about the tragic accident involving

:32:00. > :32:04.the crew from RAF Lossiemouth. The circumstances remain uncertain,

:32:04. > :32:09.that it is clearly a very serious incident. More details will be

:32:09. > :32:13.released by the RAF in due course. It is a reminder of the risk that

:32:13. > :32:19.our service personnel take not only one on active service, but when

:32:19. > :32:22.undergoing vital training for that service. On the issue of inflation,

:32:22. > :32:26.with food, I would make a point that inflation is now falling in

:32:26. > :32:30.this country, which is extremely good news. In terms of food

:32:30. > :32:34.inflation, it is obviously absolutely vital that the prices

:32:34. > :32:37.faced by people in the shops are not too hard on their budget. But

:32:37. > :32:47.the way to keep inflation down is to have a responsible Monetary

:32:47. > :32:54.

:32:54. > :33:00.Policy, which is what we have. Nicholas Soames! Mr Speaker, would

:33:00. > :33:04.my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that whilst these serious

:33:05. > :33:08.banking difficulties must be dealt with, it is vital that we retain

:33:08. > :33:16.the central importance of the City of London, in recognising that any

:33:16. > :33:20.reforms must be proportionate, and not damage such a brilliant asset.

:33:20. > :33:24.I think my Honourable Friend makes an important point. We have got to

:33:24. > :33:28.get to the bottom of what happened, but in doing so, we should bear in

:33:28. > :33:31.mind the remarks of Richard Lambert, who ran the CBI successfully for

:33:31. > :33:36.many years, and who carried out an investigation for the party

:33:36. > :33:40.opposite, and he said that the LIBOR scandal means that the

:33:40. > :33:44.required changes have to be tougher, which is the argument for a short,

:33:44. > :33:49.sharp enquiry. Going back to square one would be a serious mistake, he

:33:49. > :33:52.says. Nothing could be more urgent than a stable banking system, he

:33:52. > :34:01.says. We must get to the truth, but we should listen to these expert

:34:01. > :34:11.opinions as well. Mr Speaker, Cannes join the Prime Minister in

:34:11. > :34:14.

:34:14. > :34:18.paying tribute to the three servicemen who died in the most

:34:18. > :34:22.tragic of circumstances. Our hearts go out to their family and friends.

:34:22. > :34:25.I also join the Prime Minister in the remarks he made about the

:34:26. > :34:29.incident at RAF Lossiemouth. The banking scandal has revealed

:34:29. > :34:34.traders cheating, the misselling of insurance to small businesses, and

:34:34. > :34:37.it comes on top of other scandals in the banking system and the

:34:38. > :34:40.continuing bonus merry-go-round. How can the Prime Minister convince

:34:40. > :34:47.people that a parliamentary inquiry is a better way of restoring

:34:47. > :34:51.people's confidence than a full, independent, forensic and open,

:34:51. > :34:55.judge-led inquiry? First of all, let me say, on the substance of the

:34:55. > :35:00.issue, there is no disagreement between us. This banking scandal is

:35:00. > :35:04.appalling. It is outrageous, frankly, that homeowners may have

:35:04. > :35:08.paid higher mortgage rates, and small businesses may have paid

:35:08. > :35:12.higher interest rates, because of what was probably illegal activity

:35:12. > :35:15.in the City. People want to know that crime in our banks and

:35:15. > :35:23.financial services will be pursued and punished like crime on the

:35:23. > :35:27.streets. As well as that, I think people want rapid action to make

:35:27. > :35:31.sure this cannot happen again. In my view, the most important thing

:35:31. > :35:35.about any inquiry is that it is swift and incisive, set up as fast

:35:35. > :35:41.as possible, gets going as fast as possible, reports as fast as

:35:41. > :35:44.possible, transparent and open at every stage. That is why I favour a

:35:44. > :35:50.republic, parliamentary inquiry rather than a judge-led inquiry. I

:35:50. > :35:53.want us to legislate on this, starting next year. Mr Speaker, I

:35:53. > :35:57.understand his concerns about speed, but there are concerns also that

:35:57. > :36:01.the inquiry which is being talk about is far too narrow, focusing

:36:01. > :36:04.just on the scandal of Flyball, when we know the problems go much

:36:04. > :36:09.wider regarding the culture and practices in the City. But I

:36:09. > :36:15.believe there is a way forward we can agree upon, a to part, judge-

:36:15. > :36:19.led inquiry, which is instructed to report by Christmas on LIBOR, and

:36:19. > :36:24.the second part of it reporting over 12 months regarding the much

:36:24. > :36:28.wider area of the culture of the industry. That satisfies his

:36:28. > :36:35.requirement for speed, but also the necessary requirement to look at

:36:35. > :36:38.the wider practices of the City - will he agree to my proposal?

:36:38. > :36:43.always look and listen carefully to proposals from all sides of the

:36:43. > :36:48.House. On the issue of the structure of banking and the future

:36:48. > :36:54.of banking, of course, we set up the vicar's inquiry, which reported,

:36:54. > :36:57.and we are going to implement the Vickers Report, which will for the

:36:57. > :37:01.first time separate investment banking from retail banking. That

:37:01. > :37:05.is a major step forward. Secondly, the parliamentary inquiry we are

:37:05. > :37:13.proposing is wider than he says, it is going to look at the culture of

:37:13. > :37:18.banking. Thirdly, clearly, the Serious Fraud Office are still

:37:18. > :37:21.considering whether to launch a criminal investigation. While that

:37:21. > :37:27.is happening, there are dangers in opting for a judge-led inquiry,

:37:27. > :37:31.which might not be able to get under way. So, as I say, if you

:37:31. > :37:36.want to do this as fast as possible, to get action as fast as possible,

:37:36. > :37:40.I think the way we suggest his right. But we clearly heard the

:37:40. > :37:44.vote in the House of Lords last night, where they voted against a

:37:44. > :37:48.public inquiry. We have made time available on Thursday, which has

:37:48. > :37:53.not happened before, for an opposition motion to be debated and

:37:53. > :37:56.voted upon, and then a government motion to be debated and voted upon.

:37:56. > :38:02.Frankly, what matters more than the process is the substance, getting

:38:02. > :38:06.on with it. So, I hope we get acceptable results on Thursday.

:38:06. > :38:12.Speaker, we were in a jacket the same position a year ago, when

:38:12. > :38:18.initially he rejected the idea of a judge-led inquiry into the press

:38:18. > :38:22.scandal -- we were in exactly the same position -- where he changed

:38:22. > :38:27.his mind. He said, I do not believe there is any better process than an

:38:27. > :38:31.inquiry led by a judge. He went on - with the whole thing pursued by a

:38:31. > :38:35.team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts. Mr

:38:35. > :38:40.Speaker, why is it right to have this judge-led approach to the

:38:40. > :38:44.scandal in the press, but wrong for the scandal in the banks? I think

:38:44. > :38:48.there is a profound difference between the circumstances of the

:38:48. > :38:53.Leveson Inquiry, and the circumstances with this inquiry. Of

:38:53. > :38:58.course, the Leveson Inquiry followed a whole series of

:38:58. > :39:02.unsuccessful and failed inquiries. On this occasion, we have had a

:39:02. > :39:04.very successful inquiry from the Department of Justice in America,

:39:04. > :39:09.and the Financial Services Authority, which have uncovered the

:39:09. > :39:12.wrongdoing. Now, what is required is swift inquiry, swift action and

:39:12. > :39:20.swift legislation, and that is what you will get from this government.

:39:20. > :39:29.Mr Speaker, I don't think the Prime Minister has understood the depths

:39:29. > :39:35.of public concern, the depths of the lack of confidence there has

:39:35. > :39:40.been. He says that the inquiry he proposes can be completed within

:39:40. > :39:44.essentially four months, but that it can go as wide as it likes. It

:39:44. > :39:51.is simply not realistic. I say to him that I have listened to his

:39:52. > :39:55.concerns and I have proposed a way forward. I ask him again, a two-

:39:55. > :40:00.part inquiry, with a judge, completing on a turntable set by

:40:00. > :40:06.the Chancellor, by Christmas, on LIBOR, and then looking at the

:40:06. > :40:09.wider issues about the culture and practices of the City. I do

:40:09. > :40:12.understand the public concern about this issue, which is why I want us

:40:12. > :40:20.to get on with it. Frankly, it is this government which is going to

:40:20. > :40:24.legislate to split the bank -- to split the banks, as the Vickers

:40:24. > :40:28.Report suggested. It is this government which has introduced the

:40:28. > :40:32.bank Levy, and we have also introduced the most transparent

:40:32. > :40:38.regime for pay and bonuses in in the financial centre anywhere in

:40:38. > :40:42.the world. As evidence that this House of Commons is getting on with

:40:42. > :40:45.it, we're going to see Bob Diamond questioned upstairs by the Treasury

:40:45. > :40:49.Select Committee, this afternoon. I would say to the Honourable

:40:49. > :40:54.Gentleman, we are having a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow, a

:40:54. > :40:58.vote on his motion, and one on the government for ocean. Clearly, if

:40:58. > :41:02.the opposition motion wins, there will be a full, independent public

:41:02. > :41:10.inquiry. I would urge him to say now that if the government motion

:41:10. > :41:16.is carried, he will co-operate with a full parliamentary inquiry.

:41:16. > :41:25.Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister gets it about the depth of

:41:25. > :41:29.public concern. I hope he will reconsider his position. But he

:41:29. > :41:34.mentions the Vickers Report, and he says they are implementing it. I

:41:34. > :41:37.say this to him - the Vickers Report said this about one

:41:37. > :41:41.important issue which has come out in the last couple of weeks, about

:41:41. > :41:44.the way in which high street banks had sold dodgy product to small

:41:44. > :41:49.businesses. They said that should never be allowed to happen again.

:41:49. > :41:52.But after lobbying by the banks, the Government rejected this very

:41:52. > :41:57.basic recommendation of the Vickers Report. In the light of the recent

:41:57. > :42:02.scandal, with small businesses damaged, will he know U-turn and

:42:02. > :42:06.implement Vickers Report in full? First of all, I am not going to get

:42:06. > :42:16.a lecture in getting it from a party that was in office for 13

:42:16. > :42:16.

:42:16. > :42:22.years, when all of these things took place. On his specific

:42:22. > :42:27.question about the Vickers Report, let me repeat, this inquiry was set

:42:27. > :42:33.up by this government, and it will be implemented by this government.

:42:33. > :42:39.Under it, complex derivatives will be included in the ring-fencing for

:42:39. > :42:43.investment banking, they will not be part of the retail banks. But

:42:43. > :42:47.let me say this to him - if he wants a quick resolution to this,

:42:47. > :42:56.he must accept the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons. I am

:42:56. > :43:01.prepared to do that, why isn't he? Order! Government backbenchers who

:43:01. > :43:07.have been here for some years ought to have grasped by now that it his

:43:07. > :43:11.time for them to pipe down and try to be good boys if they can.

:43:11. > :43:17.Speaker, if he wants a history lesson, this is what he told the

:43:17. > :43:22.City of London on 20th March 2008 - as a free-marketeer by conviction,

:43:22. > :43:32.it will not surprise you to hear me say that the problem of the past

:43:32. > :43:45.

:43:45. > :43:51.decade is too much regulation. Doesn't it say it all about the

:43:51. > :43:54.double standards? And whenever these scandals happened, he is slow

:43:54. > :43:59.to act, and he stands up for the wrong people. The question people

:43:59. > :44:06.are asking is, who will act in the national interest rather than the

:44:06. > :44:11.party interest? His is a party bankrolled by the banks. If he

:44:11. > :44:21.fails to order a judge-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion

:44:21. > :44:21.

:44:21. > :44:31.- he simply cannot act in the national interest. I have to say,

:44:31. > :44:33.

:44:33. > :44:38.Mr Speaker, everybody can see what is happening here. Order! Members

:44:38. > :44:43.must come down. I said it to government backbenchers, I now say

:44:43. > :44:46.it to opposition backbenchers - that the answer be heard. The party

:44:46. > :44:56.opposite want to talk about absolutely everything apart from

:44:56. > :44:57.

:44:57. > :45:00.their record of 13 years. I have to say, Mr Speaker, we may have found

:45:00. > :45:10.the Higgs boson particle, but Labour have not found a sense of

:45:10. > :45:16.

:45:16. > :45:20.Today is hugely significant for British scientists with the

:45:20. > :45:25.announcement of the Higgs Boson discovery. 6,000 scientists worked

:45:25. > :45:32.on it, 700 from the UK, with a major contribution from the north-

:45:32. > :45:36.west, a constituent of mine, head of particle physics at Liverpool

:45:36. > :45:40.university led the ATLAS. Can the Prime Minister confirm this

:45:40. > :45:45.Government's commitment to science and institutions in the north-west?

:45:45. > :45:48.I think the honourable lady is right, to raise this issue and the

:45:48. > :45:53.immense British contribution there has been to the extraordinary

:45:53. > :45:59.breakthrough, not least Higgs himself and extraordinary works,

:45:59. > :46:01.done in the north-west. It's a very big step forward and congratulate

:46:01. > :46:04.everyone involved. This Government's commitment to science

:46:04. > :46:10.is without any doubt, not least because while we have made

:46:10. > :46:16.difficult cuts, we have preserved the science budget. In the last 15

:46:16. > :46:22.days we have witnessed chaos in the Ulster Bank. Direct debits continue

:46:22. > :46:26.to be removed and the bank is owned by RBS. We, the people, have an 82%

:46:26. > :46:29.share, therefore the Government has a major say in what happens in the

:46:29. > :46:33.bank in Northern Ireland. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to

:46:33. > :46:39.the 100,000 Ulster Bank customers that they will have a direct input

:46:39. > :46:43.from the Prime Minister and Government to address this issue?

:46:43. > :46:47.quite understand why he raises this. What happened isn't acceptable.

:46:47. > :46:51.Clearly, it's an operational matter for the bank, but the Financial

:46:51. > :46:53.Services Authority has been monitoring this very closely. The

:46:53. > :46:58.Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke yesterday to the

:46:58. > :47:05.chairman of RBS. The lessons must be learnt, but I can tell him that

:47:05. > :47:12.RBS has said it will reimburse any customer for penalty charges or

:47:12. > :47:16.overdrafts fees, anything incurred from these difficulties. To be

:47:16. > :47:20.blunt, my constituents in Lancaster and Fleetwood in businesses are

:47:20. > :47:25.losing faith in their banks. What they need from the Prime Minister

:47:25. > :47:34.is a reassurance that there will be no more political skeletons in the

:47:34. > :47:37.cupboard left by the Labour Party. What matters for his constituents

:47:37. > :47:41.and frankly everyone in this House is that we get to the bottom of

:47:41. > :47:44.what happened as quickly as possible. We have had a vote in the

:47:44. > :47:47.House of Lords. We'll have a vote in the House of Commons. Then we

:47:47. > :47:56.need to get on with it. We are sent to the House to hold the inquiries,

:47:56. > :48:00.to find the facts, to pass these laws. Let's get on with it.

:48:00. > :48:03.Yesterday, 117 manufacturing jobs were lost in my constituency on a

:48:03. > :48:08.rising trend of unemployment in North Wales. Could the Prime

:48:08. > :48:12.Minister confirm to the House that the GDP figures last week showed

:48:12. > :48:16.that the Government's performance was worse than expected? It

:48:16. > :48:20.requires change and actually is the cause of his Government's policies?

:48:20. > :48:24.No, I very much regret any loss of jobs, including in his constituency,

:48:24. > :48:28.particularly as it comes at a time when since the election we have

:48:28. > :48:31.seen 800,000 extra jobs in the private sector. I'm very concerned

:48:31. > :48:35.about the economic performance in Wales, which over the last decade

:48:35. > :48:40.or more, has actually fallen further behind the United Kingdom

:48:40. > :48:43.and I think we need to work very, very hard with the Welsh Assembly

:48:43. > :48:49.Government to try to make sure that we are making Wales more

:48:49. > :48:55.competitive. A key part of the Health Bill is that clinical change

:48:55. > :48:58.must be led by clinicians and patients. In my own hospital in

:48:58. > :49:03.Eastbourne, the majority of consultants have said they have no

:49:03. > :49:07.confidence in the proposed clinical change by the Trust, by the vast

:49:07. > :49:12.majority of the public and they share that lack. Will the Prime

:49:12. > :49:15.Minister confirm that the local trust has to listen to all these

:49:15. > :49:19.people in Eastbourne? I can absolutely confirm that. Clearly,

:49:19. > :49:22.changes shouldn't go ahead unless there's proper listening to local

:49:22. > :49:25.clinicians and local people. That's how the Health Service should

:49:25. > :49:31.operate. The Health Secretary will be making an announcement shortly,

:49:31. > :49:37.but the good news is if you look across the Health Service,

:49:37. > :49:41.inpatients and outpaish ept waiting times are down and we have the best

:49:41. > :49:46.-- outpatient waiting times are down and rates of infection are

:49:46. > :49:51.down and the Health Service is doing well. The Prime Minister will

:49:51. > :49:55.be aware that the Crown Office in Scotland has confirmed it's been

:49:55. > :49:59.carrying out investigation led by the serious crime division in

:49:59. > :50:01.allegations that several banks, including state-owned RBS has

:50:01. > :50:04.provided false information to financial markets. Does the Prime

:50:04. > :50:10.Minister back that investigation and given the scale of the crisis,

:50:10. > :50:12.given the scale of public anger, will he back the need for a full,

:50:12. > :50:16.independent judge-led inquiry and crucially will he give us a free

:50:16. > :50:21.vote in the House tomorrow? I think there are two important things here.

:50:21. > :50:24.First, we should allow all of the investigative authorities to carry

:50:24. > :50:27.out their investigations and take them wherever the evidence leads

:50:27. > :50:32.them. That is true for the Serious Fraud Office and for the Financial

:50:32. > :50:35.Services Authority. We need to make sure they have the resources

:50:35. > :50:38.necessary. We have to consider the nature of the inquiry and the

:50:38. > :50:42.problem, I think, with the suggestion, is as these

:50:42. > :50:44.investigations are on going it's easier to hold a rapid

:50:44. > :50:51.investigation within Parliament than to set up an investigation

:50:51. > :50:55.outside Parliament. What message would the Prime Minister send to

:50:55. > :50:57.the emergency services, local authorities and communities across

:50:57. > :51:02.the north-east that swung into action so effectively when the

:51:02. > :51:06.region was hit by flooding last week? The first thing I would say

:51:06. > :51:10.is a huge congratulations and thank you to the emergency services. I

:51:10. > :51:13.saw for myself, not in his area, but when I was in West Yorkshire,

:51:14. > :51:17.the work that was done there. I think the other thing to note is

:51:17. > :51:20.whenever these things happen there is an incredible coming together of

:51:20. > :51:23.community and social action to help people who have been flooded out of

:51:23. > :51:30.their homes and I'm sure everyone on all sides of the House will want

:51:30. > :51:35.to thank people for what they've done on other's behalves. On the

:51:35. > :51:41.question of a European referendum, is it the policy of the Prime

:51:41. > :51:44.Minister to be indecisive or is he not sure?! I wonder how long in

:51:44. > :51:47.front of the bathroom mirror that one took?! The point is this, I

:51:47. > :51:50.think there are two things that wouldn't be right. First, to hold

:51:50. > :51:54.an in and out referendum now. That's not the right approach.

:51:54. > :52:04.Second, to rule it out for all time. I've no idea what his party's

:52:04. > :52:11.policy is. Would my Right Honourable friend agree that

:52:11. > :52:16.central to any reforms of banking must be the point of view of

:52:16. > :52:20.ordinary punters two things, first, the proposals which we are already

:52:20. > :52:26.working up to ensure people can move accounts quickly, cheaply and

:52:26. > :52:32.easily and secondly, an absolute guarantee that governments never

:52:32. > :52:35.again will bail out banks? I think my friend makes two very important

:52:35. > :52:39.points. On the first, being able to move your bank account, that will

:52:39. > :52:45.be in place later this year. On the issue of bailing out banks, what we

:52:45. > :52:48.need to do is put in place mechanisims so that banks can fail

:52:48. > :52:53.without calling on taxpayers to support them. That resolution

:52:53. > :53:00.regime, which for 13 years was left untouched by the party opposite,

:53:00. > :53:07.has been dealt with by this Government. The euro now has a

:53:07. > :53:10.solid record of destroying jobs and democracy throughout Europe. The

:53:10. > :53:15.Prime Minister is failing to repatriate any powers or resources

:53:15. > :53:21.to this country. When is he going to stop dithering and allow the

:53:21. > :53:26.people in this country to have a referendum on the euro -- on the

:53:26. > :53:31.European Union, to decide whether to -- stay in or get out of that

:53:31. > :53:35.mess? Firstly, we have actually repatriated one power, which is we

:53:35. > :53:40.have got out of the bail out that the last Government put us into.

:53:40. > :53:46.That is saving us billions. I think if he takes that view he should be

:53:46. > :53:52.sitting on this side of the House rather than that side. I want to

:53:52. > :53:57.draw the attention from banking for one moment and to the opposition,

:53:57. > :54:00.to more important matters. Children's lives in my constituency.

:54:00. > :54:04.Five children in my constituency have been involved in an accident

:54:04. > :54:07.in a crossing outside St Peter's school in Heysham. I know it's a

:54:07. > :54:13.County Council matter, but I would like the assistance of the Prime

:54:13. > :54:17.Minister to help me trying to get a crossing outside the school.

:54:17. > :54:21.think he's entirely right to raise such a case, where so many people

:54:21. > :54:25.have lost their lives. I will certainly look at what he says and

:54:25. > :54:31.as he says, it's a matter for the County Council, but if I can help

:54:31. > :54:33.him to put his case, I will be pleased to do so. Leicester is

:54:33. > :54:36.feeling the brunt of the Prime Minister's double-dip recession

:54:36. > :54:40.with the sad news today that yet another business is going under

:54:40. > :54:43.with the loss of local jobs. In this context, was the Prime

:54:44. > :54:47.Minister as disappointed as I was at the figures last month that

:54:47. > :54:50.showed lending to small businesses down by 1.7 billion and is it now

:54:50. > :54:58.not clear that the Chancellor's credit easing policies aren't

:54:58. > :55:03.working? Firstly, the credit-easing policy is going to make available

:55:03. > :55:09.�20 billion of extra loans. Some of that money is already available.

:55:09. > :55:12.The Merlin scheme saw lending to small businesses go up in 2011.

:55:13. > :55:16.There is a difficult situation when you've got banks that are very

:55:16. > :55:18.nervous about the economic situation. But the Treasury and the

:55:18. > :55:28.Bank of England and through the Merlin agreement, we are doing all

:55:28. > :55:28.

:55:28. > :55:36.we can to get money out of banks and into hard-pressed businesses.

:55:36. > :55:43.If, as a result of this shameful banking crisis bank executives are

:55:43. > :55:49.dismissed or forced to resign, and the boards of their banks fail to

:55:49. > :55:55.act appropriately, will the Government do it's best to try to

:55:55. > :56:01.ensure that the delink wepbts are not able to walk awhat -- the

:56:01. > :56:06.delink wepbts are not able to walk away with their pay? It would be

:56:06. > :56:10.wrong if people were leaving under these circumstances were given some

:56:10. > :56:12.vast payoff. It would be completely inexplicable to the British public

:56:12. > :56:18.and I very much hope that doesn't happen. In terms of what the

:56:18. > :56:22.Government can do, what we are going to do is legislate so that

:56:22. > :56:25.all pay deals are put to shareholders in a binding vote and

:56:26. > :56:34.those deals should include any severance payments. Again,

:56:34. > :56:37.something the party opposite 13 years to do, we'll do in two.

:56:37. > :56:42.the richest 1,000 persons in Britain made gains of �155 billion

:56:42. > :56:45.in the last three years of austerity, why won't the Government

:56:45. > :56:51.charge those gains at capital gains tax rates, which would bring in

:56:51. > :56:55.around �40 billion? Enough without any increase in public borrowing at

:56:55. > :56:57.all to generate a million or more jobs, which is a better way to cut

:56:57. > :57:02.the deficit through growth rather than through the Chancellor's

:57:03. > :57:06.failed slump. I hate to remind the Right Honourable gentleman, but he

:57:06. > :57:09.was a minister in the Government where the last Government's capital

:57:09. > :57:15.gains tax rules meant that people in the City were paying less in tax

:57:15. > :57:23.than their cleaners were paying in tax. What we have done is actually

:57:23. > :57:27.lift the rate of tax to 28%, so actually we have a fairer system.

:57:27. > :57:31.Pupils I met recently at Horsham primary school told me in their own

:57:31. > :57:35.creative ways that they liked to learn together. But they know that

:57:35. > :57:43.many children in other countries never get that chance. As the chair

:57:43. > :57:46.of the UN's high-level Panel on the Millennium Development Goals how

:57:46. > :57:49.will the Prime Minister restart efforts to make sure all girls and

:57:49. > :57:53.boys around the world get to go to school? He raises an important

:57:53. > :57:58.point, which is that send my friend to school campaigns that many of us

:57:58. > :58:03.will have seen in our quepbss is a brilliant way of teaching young

:58:03. > :58:08.people the importance of showing responsibility for others on the

:58:08. > :58:12.other side of the world. Our aid is currently supporting 5.3 million

:58:12. > :58:15.children in primary education and by 2014 we hope to up that to 9

:58:15. > :58:18.million people, so the Government is playing its part, but we want

:58:19. > :58:23.all of civil society, schools, parents and teachers to join us

:58:23. > :58:27.with this great effort. In addition to what the Prime Minister said

:58:27. > :58:31.earlier in relation to the Ulster Bank crisis in Northern Ireland,

:58:31. > :58:34.where households, individuals and businesses are denied even basic

:58:34. > :58:39.banking facilities, can the Prime Minister, along with the Chancellor,

:58:39. > :58:42.talk to the HMRC to ensure that some flexibility will be shown to

:58:42. > :58:45.households, individuals and businesses in terms of liabilities

:58:45. > :58:51.there, so people can be helped through cashflow problems that may

:58:51. > :58:54.exist as a result of problems they didn't create? I will look at what

:58:54. > :58:58.the honourable gentleman says. RBS have said that they will make sure

:58:58. > :59:06.people don't lose out in terms of banking charges, but the point he

:59:06. > :59:10.makes about the HMRC I'll discuss with the Chancellor. I welcome the

:59:10. > :59:17.Government's commitment to women and girls the heart of its

:59:17. > :59:21.development policy, as the toibgio conference on the future of

:59:21. > :59:25.Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister -- Tokyo conference

:59:25. > :59:28.on the future of Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister

:59:28. > :59:33.make the aid conditional on the protection of hard-won rights of

:59:33. > :59:37.women and girls, which he knows are under attack? She makes a very

:59:37. > :59:40.important point. What we see in Afghanistan is whereas in 2001

:59:40. > :59:45.there were less than one million children attending school and there

:59:45. > :59:48.were no girls attending school in 2001, today, we have got 6 million

:59:48. > :59:53.children regularly attending school in Afghanistan and two million of

:59:53. > :59:56.them are girls. I will is listen carefully to what she says about

:59:56. > :59:59.our aid programme and discuss it with the Secretary of State. It's

:59:59. > :00:02.important that we attach conditions and have real transparency and

:00:02. > :00:06.proper results from our aid. I it's the only way we can take people

:00:06. > :00:08.with us as we continue to expand our aid budget at a time of

:00:09. > :00:13.economic difficulty at home. She is absolutely right to raise this

:00:13. > :00:17.issue, because if we want a stable and prosperous Afghanistan and a

:00:17. > :00:21.safe Afghanistan, we need an Afghanistan where the role of women

:00:21. > :00:25.is properly respected. Can I give the Prime Minister the opportunity

:00:25. > :00:27.to answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my friend from

:00:27. > :00:32.Glasgow Central? If the Prime Minister believes in the

:00:32. > :00:36.sovereignty of Parliament, will he confirm tomorrow will be a free

:00:36. > :00:39.vote across the House? There was a vote last night in the House of

:00:39. > :00:43.Lords when Labour peers were heavily whipped to vote for the

:00:43. > :00:45.Labour position. I have a clear view. The Government has a clear

:00:46. > :00:49.view, but the whole of the coalition has a clear view about

:00:49. > :00:52.the right way ahead. There will be a motion for the Labour Party,

:00:52. > :00:56.which you can vote for. And a motion for us, which we can vote

:00:57. > :01:00.for and I hope and let me put this one more time to the Leader of the

:01:00. > :01:05.Opposition, I will be bound by any a vote for a full public inquiry,

:01:05. > :01:09.will he be bound if the House votes for a Parliamentary one? If he

:01:09. > :01:12.can't answer that question people will take a very dim view of an

:01:12. > :01:22.opposition party that stands in the way of an inquiry because they

:01:22. > :01:26.don't want their dirty washing done in public. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:01:26. > :01:30.The Olympics are a great opportunity to bring our nation

:01:30. > :01:36.together. Therefore, does the Prime Minister share my dismay at the

:01:36. > :01:44.plans of some union leaders to disrupt the summer's events?

:01:44. > :01:47.think he makes an important point. London. The Right Honourable

:01:47. > :01:50.gentleman likes to talk about standing up to vested interests.

:01:50. > :01:56.What have we heard from him on the trade union movement? Absolutely

:01:56. > :01:58.nothing. The whole country will be listening to that. We want a

:01:59. > :02:07.strike-free Olympics and Labour should talk to their pay masters

:02:07. > :02:11.about it. We all witnesses the storms last week across the country.

:02:11. > :02:16.In my own village it hit the headlines, because of floods. We

:02:16. > :02:21.are all grateful to the police, the fire brigade, the County Council,

:02:21. > :02:26.and the mountain rescue service, but will the Prime Minister confirm

:02:26. > :02:30.that the Government will be there with real money? Of course we will

:02:30. > :02:33.be there to do that and we are investing around �2 billion in

:02:33. > :02:37.future flood defences. Of course, all the emergency services have

:02:37. > :02:40.done an excellent job and they remain ready to carry out further

:02:40. > :02:43.work if necessary. I also think the Government should lend a very

:02:43. > :02:47.sympathetic ear to those local councils and local organisations

:02:47. > :02:51.that are in particular setting up hardship funds to help families,

:02:51. > :02:55.perhaps who don't have insurance or perhaps cannot avoid the excess

:02:55. > :02:57.when it comes to actually dealing with the problems that they have. I

:02:57. > :03:00.have said to the Department of Communities and local Government,

:03:00. > :03:04.we should be generous in helping people get their lives back

:03:04. > :03:09.together. Would the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the news that

:03:09. > :03:13.over �1 billion has been raised in the last six months to startups in

:03:13. > :03:16.our science sector? More than in the last three years. This is a

:03:16. > :03:21.massive statement of confidence in our policies to make Britain a

:03:21. > :03:25.place to do business? I think my honourable friend, who has a close

:03:25. > :03:30.interest in the industry, he knows a lot about what he speaks, one of

:03:30. > :03:33.the successes with the EU patent court coming to London, is that the

:03:33. > :03:38.patents that cover life sciences, pharmaceuticals and those

:03:38. > :03:42.industries, that is going to be in London too and that is actually

:03:42. > :03:52.tens of many, many jobs and millions of pounds of investment

:03:52. > :04:12.

:04:12. > :04:17.into this industry and our capital Metrical Bob Diamond was dominating

:04:17. > :04:23.PMQs there. -- naturally. First of all, let's hear what you thought

:04:23. > :04:30.about it. Yes, all of the e-mails talking about that issue. This one

:04:30. > :04:35.says, nothing but a scramble for the higher moral ground from Labour.

:04:35. > :04:39.Ed Miliband is playing the only card they have, say it enough, and

:04:39. > :04:46.people will start believing it. This one says, wasn't Ed Miliband

:04:46. > :04:50.an adviser when the banks were let off the leash? This one says, Ed

:04:50. > :04:55.Balls was remarkably quiet today. This one says, Ed Miliband is wrong,

:04:55. > :04:59.we do not need an inquiry, we need action. Let the serious Fraud

:04:59. > :05:06.Office pursue any criminal action immediately. This one says, we do

:05:06. > :05:12.not need a cover-up, we cannot trust this to the politicians. It

:05:12. > :05:16.is vital to clean the decks, we need to get rid of the dirt. And

:05:16. > :05:19.this one says, I can fully understand the reticence regarding

:05:20. > :05:26.a judicial inquiry. Mr Cameron has got himself into an awful muddle

:05:26. > :05:34.over this, and has been completely outflanked by Ed Miliband today,

:05:34. > :05:39.with this two-speed review proposal. Miliband comes across as

:05:39. > :05:44.increasingly statesmanlike and honest.

:05:44. > :05:48.Towards the end of the exchanges, they got to the kind of, I will

:05:48. > :05:54.take no lectures from you, but most of it was dominated by another

:05:54. > :05:59.argument about process, about what kind of inquiry to have - how do we

:05:59. > :06:03.proceed on this, will the vote in the Commons determine it? That's

:06:03. > :06:08.what David Cameron was trying to find out, will Labour go along with

:06:08. > :06:13.the parliamentary inquiry, even if they lose the vote? Of course, the

:06:13. > :06:16.opposition is extremely likely to lose the vote, on Thursday. Those

:06:16. > :06:20.exchanges were lower key, a more substantive, Ed Balls was not

:06:20. > :06:24.shouting out, George Osborne on the other side was lower-key than he

:06:24. > :06:28.often is. It follows, I can reveal, a conversation which happened

:06:28. > :06:30.yesterday on the telephone between the Prime Minister and the Leader

:06:30. > :06:36.of the Opposition. The Prime Minister rang the Labour leader to

:06:36. > :06:38.discuss this inquiry. Ed Miliband, I am told, essentially said, if you

:06:38. > :06:43.want a cross-party consensus, you're going about it a pretty

:06:43. > :06:47.funny way, because Labour were angered, really, by the attempt to

:06:47. > :06:51.put Ed Balls in the dock, for failing to regulate the banks. What

:06:51. > :07:00.was interesting, I thought, was that the Prime Minister was trying

:07:00. > :07:02.to sound none parties and, I will listen to your suggestions. -- non-

:07:02. > :07:09.partisan. And Ed Miliband was trying to respond to what he had

:07:09. > :07:14.heard. He was saying, you say it has got to be quick, so I will

:07:14. > :07:22.suggest a to party inquiry. It was only at their end that you saw the

:07:22. > :07:25.raw politics. -- two-part inquiry. The Tories are determined to

:07:25. > :07:31.portray Labour as the party that failed to regulate the bankers.

:07:31. > :07:37.Both sides are being pretty brutal. What will Labour do if it loses the

:07:37. > :07:40.vote in the Commons? At the moment we're focusing on the case for a

:07:40. > :07:45.judge-led inquiry. We will just have to see tomorrow what happens.

:07:45. > :07:49.I will not be dragged into speculating. The Prime Minister has

:07:49. > :07:55.said that if the House votes for a judge-led inquiry, which is what

:07:55. > :07:59.you want, then there will be one. So, if the House votes for a

:07:59. > :08:04.parliamentary inquiry, will you co- operate? We will have to see.

:08:04. > :08:08.will know tomorrow. And will say this, if that is the decision of

:08:08. > :08:12.the House tomorrow, we will never believe that a parliamentary

:08:12. > :08:16.inquiry would have been as good as having a judge-led one.. I know

:08:16. > :08:22.that, but I am trying to find out what you will do. You will probably

:08:22. > :08:30.lose the vote, so, what we you do? Well, we will have to have that

:08:30. > :08:34.discussion. At the moment, you do not know? At the moment we are

:08:34. > :08:38.focusing on the most important part of the debate, a judge-led inquiry.

:08:38. > :08:42.I have asked you and you will not answer, that's fine, maybe you have

:08:42. > :08:46.to speak to Mr Miliband, maybe he does not even know. Clearly, labour

:08:46. > :08:50.is worried because they were in power at the time, and there was

:08:50. > :08:56.clearly manipulation of the LIBOR rates, and government could have

:08:56. > :09:01.been complicit. But if you look at where we got to by then, you had a

:09:01. > :09:06.set of regulations which were loose and carelessly -- and clearly did

:09:06. > :09:09.not work, come the crisis. In the record, I can find no official

:09:09. > :09:14.Conservative statement of you calling for the regulations to be

:09:14. > :09:17.tightened - can you give me one? One thing which most concern this,

:09:17. > :09:20.and it is on the record, is the fact that the regulation of the

:09:20. > :09:23.banks was split up in a very complex way across the Treasury,

:09:23. > :09:27.the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. And

:09:27. > :09:32.back then, we said, this is going to lead to trouble, and we pulled

:09:32. > :09:37.them back together. But that is about the structure of the

:09:37. > :09:42.regulation. I understand that he did not too much like the structure

:09:42. > :09:48.of the tripartite arrangement, but even given that, Mr Miliband is

:09:48. > :09:54.able to produce a file of your party calling for even light of

:09:54. > :09:58.regulation. You were wrong, weren't you? I don't think the issue is...

:09:58. > :10:03.If you will let me answer the question. And just saying, it is

:10:03. > :10:08.true, isn't it? He has already asked me the question, you do not

:10:08. > :10:12.have to ask me as well. What we're talking about here is good

:10:12. > :10:16.regulation, it is not about a light touch or not. Good regulation is

:10:16. > :10:20.about not having the tripartite system. I thought the Exchange

:10:20. > :10:25.today was fascinating. Ed Miliband is calling for a judge-led inquiry,

:10:25. > :10:28.I suspect whilst desperately hoping that it is a parliamentary one.

:10:28. > :10:37.Because what will be under investigation here is what your

:10:37. > :10:43.ministers were doing. That is completely not true. He must be

:10:43. > :10:48.hoping that we can have a Parliamentary Review, secretly.

:10:48. > :10:52.Where do we go with this? I suspect the public just want an inquiry,

:10:53. > :10:59.they do not really care what kind it is. There was a poll last night

:10:59. > :11:04.which suggested the public wanted a judicial -- a judge-led inquiry.

:11:04. > :11:11.But where does Westminster go on this? You will get a vote. You will

:11:11. > :11:17.get two votes tomorrow. Because of the parliamentary system, Labour

:11:17. > :11:22.will lose that vote. They will then have a simple choice - do they vote

:11:22. > :11:30.against it in the inquiry? If they do, the man asked to chair it says

:11:30. > :11:34.he will not carry on with that job. Every instinct tells you that

:11:34. > :11:38.Labour will try their best but in the end they will go along with the

:11:38. > :11:41.parliamentary inquiry. But there is still an interesting question -

:11:41. > :11:45.what do they vote for it or do they abstain, in a theatrical statement,

:11:45. > :11:49.which says, this is not what we wanted, but we will not allow you

:11:49. > :11:55.to accuse us of trying to block an inquiry, because that is not oppose

:11:55. > :12:00.an objector. My last thought is, there must be a tiny little thought

:12:00. > :12:04.in Ed Miliband's head, that I could really bring the house down. In

:12:04. > :12:08.other words, Labour could vote against it. He will probably see

:12:08. > :12:12.that as a trap set for him by the Tories. But each day this has gone

:12:13. > :12:17.on, what has been really striking to me is, Ed Miliband has hardened

:12:17. > :12:20.his position, not softened it. He thinks he is on a roll, he thinks

:12:20. > :12:26.he has got David Cameron in the wrong place, he thinks public

:12:26. > :12:33.opinion is on his site, so he could still press that button. Now, to

:12:33. > :12:40.something a little different. Kylie, Rick Astley, Bananarama, Mel and

:12:40. > :12:46.Kim - no, not our next guests, but all acts which were helped into the

:12:46. > :12:48.top 10 by our next guest, Pete Waterman. Jeremy get in behind the

:12:48. > :12:58.Government's controversial plan for a new high-speed rail line between

:12:58. > :13:13.

:13:13. > :13:16.It seem I life I have loved railways. In fact, I started my

:13:16. > :13:20.career in 1962 at Wolverhampton in the steam depot. It was not until

:13:20. > :13:28.that closed in 1963 that I considered the music industry as a

:13:28. > :13:33.career. I have always believed in public railways. In 1968, British

:13:33. > :13:37.Rail introduced a new electric train service into Euston from

:13:37. > :13:41.Birmingham. The time was one hour and 20 minutes, coming down from

:13:41. > :13:45.two hours. I lived in Coventry at the time and I was just joining the

:13:45. > :13:55.record industry. I did it in 58 minutes. The new high-speed train

:13:55. > :13:56.

:13:56. > :14:02.service will be in Birmingham in 45 minutes - that's progress. You do

:14:03. > :14:06.not need to be a railway enthusiast to believe in HS2, because railway

:14:07. > :14:13.innovation and economic growth go hand in hand. Gone will be the

:14:13. > :14:17.North-South divide, because land sipping -- because HS2 will change

:14:17. > :14:25.the United Kingdom for ever. What happened the last time we built a

:14:25. > :14:29.brand new railway? The Industrial Revolution. As a northerner, I am

:14:29. > :14:32.not insensitive to the problems of building a brand new railway,

:14:32. > :14:36.particularly for the people but lose their land and their homes.

:14:36. > :14:43.But we simply can't put no more trains on our network, we are full.

:14:43. > :14:47.The country must go forward, we must build HS2 - simple. The

:14:47. > :14:52.current HS2 deal is proposed to go from Birmingham straight to

:14:52. > :14:55.Manchester with no stop. Where we would like to see it modified is a

:14:55. > :14:59.stop at Crewe, which would open up the whole of the north-west, and 6

:14:59. > :15:06.million more people. You could then get a high-speed train to Lancaster,

:15:06. > :15:15.Preston, Liverpool, North Wales and Chester. So, Prime Minister, put

:15:15. > :15:18.that on your route map. Pete Waterman joins us now. We are also

:15:18. > :15:22.joined in the studio by the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council,

:15:22. > :15:27.Martin Tett. He is also the chairman of the 51m group of

:15:27. > :15:30.councils are opposed to the new nine. It is going to cost �32

:15:30. > :15:36.billion, and much more to buy the trains and pay for the running

:15:36. > :15:40.costs, all of this to save 35 minutes - is it worth it? It is not

:15:40. > :15:44.about time, it is about history. This will change Britain once-and-

:15:44. > :15:49.for-all. It is as simple as that. You cannot look at railways in

:15:49. > :15:52.military terms. We never have, we never should do. So, it is not

:15:52. > :16:02.about money or saving time, it is about an Industrial Revolution,

:16:02. > :16:04.

:16:04. > :16:07.about moving forward? I respect Pete Waterman, but when you look at

:16:07. > :16:10.spending �30 million -- �32 billion on a railway line, to save 25

:16:10. > :16:15.minutes for wealthy businessman, I'm not sure that is good value for

:16:15. > :16:19.money. I can remember when people were just as passionate about

:16:19. > :16:22.Concorde, about the Millennium Dome - but you have got to have a good

:16:22. > :16:27.business case. The business case for this has absolutely fallen

:16:27. > :16:31.apart since January. What do you say to that? It has never had a

:16:31. > :16:35.business case, you do not need a business case, it is only

:16:35. > :16:39.politicians need business cases. You build railways, they change the

:16:39. > :16:43.world. I lived in Coventry, it used to be one hour and 20 minutes,

:16:43. > :16:49.which went down to 58 minutes. Would you feel like that if you

:16:49. > :16:52.lived in the Chilterns? I live in Cheshire, and I have got the M56

:16:52. > :16:57.less than a mile from my back garden. I live there because I can

:16:57. > :17:01.get to Runcorn or Warrington station in 10 minutes. Respect, but

:17:01. > :17:05.if you are going to spend �32 billion of taxpayers' money, at a

:17:05. > :17:11.time of austerity, when, as a local councillor, I am having to make

:17:11. > :17:15.tough decisions, seeing libraries closing, hospital wards reduced,

:17:15. > :17:19.these are really tough decisions to defend on the doorstep, so you need

:17:19. > :17:22.to have a business case for spending this amount of money. The

:17:22. > :17:25.business case of this project has absolutely collapsed. But even at

:17:26. > :17:29.the Transport Select Committee, the chairman concluded that High Speed

:17:29. > :17:33.2 could be a catalyst for economic growth, helping to rebalance the

:17:33. > :17:39.economy and to bridge the North South divide, that would be part of

:17:39. > :17:42.answering your concerns, would it not? The Government has tried to

:17:42. > :17:45.cost that in in the numbers they are producing, what they call their

:17:46. > :17:50.cost-benefit analysis. When they first announced it, they were

:17:50. > :17:55.saying that for every �1 invested, you would get more than �2 in terms

:17:55. > :18:03.of benefits. That has gone down to 1.6, and further down to 1.2. And

:18:03. > :18:08.if you come to the latest forecasts, it is well down below one. This is

:18:08. > :18:12.not just about the speed or the business case, it is as simple as

:18:12. > :18:16.this - we have not built railways at a substantial level since the

:18:16. > :18:20.Victorian times. This country now has a massively bigger population.

:18:20. > :18:30.The railway system will be completely full by 2020, we need

:18:30. > :18:33.

:18:33. > :18:36.another line. We support High Speed 2. The first one came under Labour,

:18:36. > :18:39.down to the channel, that was a good decision. But I am worried

:18:39. > :18:43.that the Government will be stepping back from making sure it

:18:43. > :18:47.goes beyond the Midlands, further up, and the point is that we should

:18:47. > :18:51.have warned bill which brings these together. And it is about that all

:18:51. > :18:54.South divide. As a Yorkshire MP, I want to make sure we have a fair

:18:54. > :19:04.chance to get to be balanced economy, and the railway system is

:19:04. > :19:04.

:19:04. > :19:08.The Government's argument moves around like jelly. Once it was

:19:08. > :19:11.about speed and now capacity. It can be about both, but the speed

:19:11. > :19:14.argument falls apart if you accept that businessmen spend time working

:19:14. > :19:19.on trains. The issue on capacity is interesting, because we have been

:19:19. > :19:23.trying to get the details from the DFT about what the factors on the

:19:23. > :19:27.trains are and they've consistently refused to tell us. If they have an

:19:27. > :19:30.argument on capacity, if Grant will give a commitment they'll release

:19:30. > :19:40.the information on what the load factors are, then they've got a

:19:40. > :19:44.case. I run trains and let me tell you, I cannot get timings from

:19:44. > :19:49.Network Rail for a steam train until the night before, so I run a

:19:49. > :19:53.steam special and on the day I don't know if I've got a path.

:19:53. > :19:57.about capacity? We need the project in this day. If we want to build an

:19:57. > :20:03.economy is action fit for the 21st century and enables us to be a

:20:03. > :20:07.better, bigger economy, to help our citizens grow our way out of the

:20:07. > :20:12.global problems, you cannot do that without significant investment in

:20:12. > :20:17.infrastructure and that is something we need. If the DFT would

:20:17. > :20:20.give us the information. It's all fascinating. What you can't

:20:20. > :20:25.disagree with is significant infrastructure hasn't been built

:20:25. > :20:34.for many, many years and it's time to do something. Grant shapz, two

:20:34. > :20:40.things, you say it's definitely going to go ahead. How can you

:20:40. > :20:46.allay fears about it? It was never planned for the Queen's Speech. It

:20:46. > :20:50.will come in next year. The other thing, HS2 was sold by your party

:20:50. > :20:54.as a way to get rid of more runways in the south-east. The Government

:20:54. > :21:00.seems to be changing its mind on airport capacity. Does that mean we

:21:00. > :21:04.won't need HS2? You need two. You need to have ports in and out of

:21:04. > :21:07.the country, because we are a trading global nation. We also need

:21:07. > :21:10.to move people around within the country. We need more airport

:21:10. > :21:15.capacity in the south-east. Make the decision to make sure it's

:21:15. > :21:20.going into the north as well. We need the jobs starting in the north

:21:20. > :21:25.as well as the south. I know. should be extended beyond both.

:21:25. > :21:29.It's to extend and go up both sides of the country. Two builds. These

:21:29. > :21:37.things take a long time to build. I'm going to have to leave it there.

:21:37. > :21:40.I'm sure we'll meet up again. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

:21:40. > :21:44.Paul tucker from the Bank of England said he now is anxious to

:21:44. > :21:48.appear before the Treasury Select Committee as quickly as possible,

:21:48. > :21:50.because he has some very important things he want to say. Now, this

:21:50. > :21:53.morning a very important announcement was made. At a seminar

:21:53. > :21:55.in CERN1, the ATLAS and CMS experiment teams presented their

:21:55. > :21:58.preliminary findings in the search for the long-sought-after Higgs

:21:58. > :22:00.particle. Both experiments observe a new particle in the mass region

:22:00. > :22:04.around 125-126 GeV. They say they've observed in their data

:22:04. > :22:07.clear signs of a new particle at the level of five sigma. The

:22:07. > :22:10.results, we must stress, are preliminary, but they say it is a

:22:10. > :22:13.boson and not just that, it's the heaviest boson ever found. The next

:22:13. > :22:16.step is to find out if the properties are as expected, or if

:22:16. > :22:18.they are the final missing ingredient in the standard model of

:22:18. > :22:22.particle physics. Or could it be something more exotic altogether?

:22:22. > :22:25.Well, we can speak now to the most intelligent man in the Commons, the

:22:25. > :22:32.former scientist, Julian Huppert, to tell us just what exactly that

:22:32. > :22:36.all means, as I haven't got the foggiest! It's the fundamental

:22:36. > :22:39.particle that gives everything mass. It's taken 45 years to see it in

:22:39. > :22:43.action. It's a very exciting time for science. Thousands of people

:22:43. > :22:49.have been working on, many from the UK. It's nice to make a theoretical

:22:49. > :22:52.prediction and find what you are looking for. What is it called the

:22:52. > :22:55.God particle? Because it does have this amazing role in making sure

:22:55. > :23:00.that everything has mass, that things fall and are attracted to

:23:01. > :23:04.each other. It's one of the key things that means that matters

:23:04. > :23:11.behaves the way we are all used to. Thank you very much. Good to get

:23:11. > :23:17.straight answers from a politician. Just bash that. Caroline, hit it.

:23:17. > :23:21.There's the winner. The year was 1986. I've got to apologise,

:23:21. > :23:24.because we put the wrong film up on the website. It didn't correspond

:23:24. > :23:34.with what we showed in the programme. Apologies. On the day we

:23:34. > :23:34.