19/06/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Politics. Just when you thought banker bashing was passe, the


banking commission bashes the bankers all over again. Well, it


says it doesn't, but it sort of looks like it. The parliamentary


commission, which was set up by George Osborne, says banking bosses


should face inprisonment if their decisions force more bail-outs. The


commission also recommends reforming the bonus system, and says the


culture's too masculine! Who would have thought that? ! Will bankers


now go to more accommodating climes? Would you like to co-sponsor a bill


that's going through the House of Commons? Now's your chance. It's


about Europe, and we'll be explaining how a little later.


Doctor and writer Ben Goldacre will be here explaining why the law


governing drugs trials needs to be changed. Piles and piles of vitally


important medical trial results are being casually withheld from


doctors, researchers and patients. We have known about this for


And we'll be asking, have you ever done anything truly embarrasing at


is embarrassing enough. Yes, all that and more coming up in


the next 90 minutes. And joining me for the duration we have, back by


popular demand, two fashion icons. Conservative Party chairman, Grant


Shapps, and from Labour, the Shadow health minister Liz Kendall. Yes,


unlike Boris, who took to the catwalk yesterday to promote the


London suit, these two fine chairman of England's regulator said


that his association was not fit for purpose when it came to hospital


inspections and it is still not up to standard. A new report suggests


that CQC might have deliberately covered up knowledge of its own


failings in 2010 following a series of deaths of newborn babies at


Furness General Hospital in Cumbria. Andy Burnham, this happened under


Labour? The period in question goes from 2008 to 2012 so, partly, but it


also relates to this government's time in office. Hospital regulation


was not good enough, we saw through the process in mid-stats. I have put


in play measures to improve it. But both sides will all be families in


question answerer is, and I will fully commit our site to getting


them. The more time goes on, the more we find out horrific things are


happening in our health service. health service is a complicated


complicated business. Things are happening every day, and sadly


sometimes things go wrong. should not be killing people.


Goodness me, no. Sometimes the NHS is not good at facing up to


failings. It likes to pull down the shutters and push people away. I


think this is what happened to some of the families in Morecambe. It is


not acceptable. What is unforgivable is that weather have been failings,


any attempt to cover up those failings. -- where there have been


failings. What will shock people will be the instruction to delete an


internal report in March 2012, which raises a whole host of questions


about this regulator and its relationship with the Department of


health. If you have a statutory duty to look after the care of people,


which I assume was the job of this commission, if not only do you not


do that but you then destroy the fact that you had failed to do it,


surely that is worthy of a criminal charge? These are the most serious


matters. I agree with you. You have to look at the context in which they


deleted report, the context of an ongoing public enquiry, the context


of measures that I had put in place to ensure much more in-depth


examination of hospitals. You may remember this, I was in the post


when there was a problem at Basildon, and I asked the CQC to


assure us about the safety of all hospitals, to flush out further


problems. It is in the context of this government saying it puts a


high creamy on transparency, it is even more shocking. Shouldn't there


be criminal charges for those responsible for the cover-up? A


president of the United States lost his job because of a cover-up,


surely they should go to jail if found guilty? If there has been a


criminal offence. It sounds to me like the worst kind of... Will the


government pursue criminal charges? The authorities have to do that, but


we put in place the steps to expose it. Andy is right, transparency is


the way to deal with this. People need to know what is going on in the


health service. It is a word that all you politicians bandy about,


people do not know what it means because it is likes is still above


-- sustainable, it is a Westminster village buzzword. Over 1000 people


died in Mid-Staffs, and in this Cumbrian hospital, people at their


most vulnerable, pregnant women and babies, died because of this. I


think we are -- I think we are looking for more than transparency.


I agree with you, sustainability is really confusing, what do people


mean whether something is sustainable or not? Transparency is


very simple. You can see what is going on. The reason why things are


coming out now, we are finding out about what happened with the CQC


cover-up, and the reason that Mid-Staffs came up is through


transparency. We said, there must be a full and thorough investigation.


Over what happened, for example, at Mid-Staffs. We commissioned a report


to make it entirely transparent. Transparency has a real meaning, I


am pleased that Andy and I agree that it is the way forward.


Mid-Staffs was, in part, the result of pursuing a policy focusing on one


specific thing, targets beyond care. It is important that care is always


number one. If you can be faced with criminal charges for fiddling your


expenses, as some MPs and Lords have, surely you should face


criminal charges for not only failing to protect the most


vulnerable people in society but then covering up the fact? Cover-ups


are the most serious aspect. Robert Francis would say that. It is


wanting to make a mistake, people are human and mistakes made, but it


is different when you say, I am going to cover up those failings.


Transparency is a process. I think it began with the Freedom of


Information Act. Lots of the institutions of this country have,


through time, been beginning to feel the full force. That is a good


thing. The Freedom of Information Act is doing its job. Dare I say it,


the BBC has felt some of that with historic issues around the abuse of


young people. All organisations have to go through this process. The NHS


is different. I have to say, this was deleted in the month that the


government was withholding the National risk register into the NHS.


I think the government needs to stand by what it says on


transparency. You are opening a new can of worms, but there needs to be


policy development where you can develop policies. Transparency is


meaningful. I have a feeling this will, but PMQ 's.


Now, to something slightly different.


Now, do you want to be my EU facebook app friend? Confused? Don't


Once to get more involved in the legislative process with your PC,


smartphone or pub -- tablet? Now you can, if thanks to the tech friendly


Conservatives. This is James Wharton MP, who is introducing legislation


to pave the way for a referendum on our membership of the EU in 2014. He


is doing it himself in the form of a private member's bill, because the


Lib Dems will not let the government do it. It is being discussed in


Parliament on the 5th of July. The Tory party is running an online


campaign to support it, called Let Britain Decide. They have launched


an app on Facebook where you can co-sponsor the bill. You type in


your name and e-mail address, your postcode, then the Conservative


Party and all your friends will know that you are in favour. Some say


this has no impact on the legislative process, because the


idea of the public co-sponsoring a bill is meaningless in parliamentary


terms. But the Tories say they will probably publish a list of people


who have signed up to show the depth of feeling. And it allows us to


deploy lots of puns, such as they are apping the anti-, and the Lib


Dems will be app-alled. Adam Flemming there, and the UKIP


MEP Gerard Batten is here. increase pressure on Labour and Lib


Dem MPs who, for whatever reason, don't want to give the British


people a say, and in-out referendum on Europe. They have got the


opportunity to show they are on the side of the British people.


Visibility to put your name to the bill means that they will be able to


put pressure on their labour MP or the Dem MP to turn up at the


comments and support the legislation. That way, we will get a


referendum by the end of 2017, then we can decide on our relationship


with Europe. We have looked on the Facebook page, are these the sorts


of people and pressure you want on the opposition? Jules says that 2017


is far too long, also you will not win the next election. Matthew says


it is a cowardly idea to call a referendum, since many of the


population do not have an understanding on the occasions.


Julian says, the idea that we can negotiate anything is a fantasy.


Good luck trying. Meanwhile, I shall be voting UKIP. Lou then you will


get Labour, and not a referendum. The sensible thing is to vote for


the pub -- party offering a referendum. It is controversial, I


don't hide that. But to anyone who says you can't renegotiate anything


with Europe, that is not true. We vetoed a treaty under David


Cameron, we pulled out of an EU mechanism which would help fund


other countries in the UU -- in the euro. We have reduced the budget on


Europe. The re-negation comes over a period of time. App-alled the


renegotiation. We have two -- we have to win the next election.


will put pressure on Labour and make it look like you are on the wrong


side? It is a political stunt, a Westminster game. That is what this


is all about. Surely, national interest should come first? I am a


humble Northerner but I have a few friends in Europe, not as many as


Peter Mandelson, but a view. They don't interpret this as Let Britain


Decide, they interpreted as, the Tory party wants out of Europe. At


the time when growth and jobs are the main and important thing, how


can it make sense to send a signal to our European partners that we


want to get out? It is economic suicide. The national interest must


come first. That is why they have got this wrong. But some Labour MPs


support this. I spoke to one last night, she will vote on the 5th of


July, she is not the only one. We are inviting them to co-sponsor the


bill. Are they playing tricks, or do they actually believe, like most


British people, that it is time to have a say on Europe? If the powers


are renegotiated, a time will come when we have to have a say, but I


don't think British business wants to see this kind of politicking. In


my constituents is jobs and investment. I'd want a message being


sent out from this country that we are pulling up the drawbridge,


getting out, not interested in our main market any more. That is the


wrong signal to send, you are putting politics above the national


interest. It is a desperate PR stunt on the part of the government,


Labour don't know how to react, because they do not want a


referendum. If David Cameron was genuine about having a referendum,


he could have said... It wasn't in the Queen's Speech, there was an


amendment which was defeated. If he was genuine he could say, I will


introduce a government bill for a referendum on the EU. If I can't get


it through Parliament, I tried and I failed. You give me a big majority


in 2015 and I will do it. He won't do that, he is not genuine about


having a referendum. Still less about giving the British people a


genuine... He doesn't need a majority, he has the coalition


government, and if the Lib Dems stopped him even introducing a bill,


look a much stronger he would seem. In a coalition government, to


introduce a bill to parliament, you have to have the agreement of both


sides. If the Lib Dems did not give that agreement, he would be in a


much stronger position, but he is not prepared to do that, because he


is not genuine. This was not in the manifesto, and it is great to be


able to help the Lib Dems. He is dancing to the UKIP June, it is a


product of a weak Prime Minister, that he has two go with his


backbenchers. It is sad that the coalition has descended to this.


do not want to let the public have their say. At the right time.


there is a powers, as I said. When there is a change, we then say to


the British people, at that appropriate moment, not in the midst


of an economic crisis, when there is no growth, when we want to build our


business with Europe, why send the message to them all that we want


out? Unbelievable! It is a mechanism which would have cost billions of


pounds, in the last, dying days of your government... Supporting the


Eurozone countries... We made sure that that was abolished. We can


renegotiate that and we can certainly renegotiate powers.


powers can be renegotiated, it is all dishonest. The question is, do


we want to be part of this United States of Europe or not? None of the


parties want to give the people that question. If Andrew Tyrie gets his


way, then those guilty of so-called reckless misconduct in future, in


the banking, could spend some time at Her Majesty is pleasure. Here is


JoCo to explain. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was


set up George Osborne last year in the wake of a number of scandals in


the industry. Its chair, Andrew Tyrie, once again seems to be in the


mood for a spot of some banker bashing, even though he says he is


not. The 571 page report has a number of suggestions, including the


idea of sending senior bankers guilty of reckless misconduct to


jail. Mr Tyrie and his chums on the commission also recommend that


bonuses for bankers should be deferred for up to ten years. It


will not be popular with bankers, the idea is to get away from the


short-term thinking blamed by many for the crash in 2008. The MPs and


peers, including none other than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin


Welby, also call on George Osborne to consider breaking up a Royal Bank


of Scotland before putting it back into private hands. The report also


recommends employing more women on the trading floor, on the grounds


that it could reduce risk. Finally, there are proposals to increase


competition amongst high-street banks, by making bank account


numbers portable in the same way as mobile phone numbers. Labour's


former City Minister John Joins Us Now, Dressed In His G8 Gear. If This


Report Had Been Implemented in 2008, how many bankers would have gone to


jail? Very difficult to tell. The commission has done a very good job,


it is a very scholarly piece of work, led by Andrew Tyrie. But


implementation is going to be challenging, particularly the


assumptions about the obligations regarding the law and direct does,


and, to get a convertible definition of a failure of management I think


is going to be quite a challenge. There are many other things in the


report which can be lamented, and hopefully the Government will do so


fairly rapidly this idea of reckless misconduct, which could carry


criminal charges if found guilty, I can see lawyers getting stuck into


that definition. It could make people wary of becoming bankers in


the first place. When Fred Goodwin, as head of RBS, was borrowing a shed


load of money to buy ABM Umbro, was that reckless misconduct? That will


be a matter for the board and owners of the business to decide. Remember,


the institutional investors, who get off scot-free in Mr Tyrie's report,


which I think is a major in his thinking, they have not behaved like


owners. They supported that particular acquisition. Indeed, some


of the criticisms levelled by Mr Tyrie at the Government,


interference in the management of RBS, giving the power to the


regulators to control leverage, not pushing hard enough on capping


bonuses, these are big, critical comments about the Government from


Mr Tyrie. Also, I think they could be focused on the shareholders - why


are you not pressing for safer, more responsible banks? But when you look


at some of what we now think, maybe not in their criminal sense, but in


a subjective sense, was reckless misconduct by bankers, we find that


in this reckless misconduct, they were being egged on by politicians.


I think they may well have been they were, we know that. What we do know


is that there was a very permissive environment, indeed, John Redwood


saying that in 2004, banking regulation was far too tight, we


needed to relax it, and there was a general consensus that a light touch


was right. In hindsight, that was badly wrong, and Mr Tyrie quite


rightly says, we need tougher, more nose to the ground regulation, we


need stronger boards of direct has, and we need more powerful sanctions


against miscreants, and we need to be able to put up a finger against


the culprits. There is not a single person in this country serving a


jail sentence as a result of the banking crisis. There are people in


Europe and America. Under Labour, the fact is that there was a pact


between Gordon Brown and the bankers, which allowed the bankers


to get a shed load of money for themselves, and he got his cut in


the form of taxes for his public spending, and the regulation was


therefore kept very light touch. That's why we have ended up in this


situation - it suited Mr Brown at the time, it suited the bankers, it


has all come back and bit us very hard. I do not accept that at all,


that there was a pact. We want a strong city of London, that is


clearly in the national interest, but Gordon Brown was under pressure


to relax it further, and he didn't. It is not possible to say that it


was whatever they wanted. Everybody has had to reassess after what


happened in the latter part of the last decade. The keyword is


accountability. We spoke about it in the NHS. I think the same applies


here - is there a accountability for people 's actions Kas when I came


out of university and I have some friends who went to the city, there


was the culture that this was not the real world, numbers could move


on a screen, that is how they worked, it was a culture of excess.


I think the recommendation from the committee is a good one, because it


will bring accountability. It is an all-party committee, which is a


strength. I would say, let's have the Government now saying, let's put


this into the financial services bill. You said the city of London


was very important to this nation, but if you are going to have laws of


reckless misconduct, which is very vague, and tell bankers they will


have to wait ten years for their bonuses, why would they not just


leave and go to Wall Street? Maybe they will, but are you saying we


want reckless behaviour Kas you have not been able to define reckless


misconduct. It has to be defined carefully, we have had senior


parliamentarians looking at this. They have all agreed that


recklessness is not acceptable. The question is, how does it then result


in chronological judges? In recent years, it has been revealed that


British banks have been money-laundering the money of the


drug cartels in Mexico, helping to finance the breaking of sanctions


against Iran and fiddling the LIBOR rate, one of the key global interest


rates, and yet no one has gone to jail for things that I think anybody


listening to this would think, isn't that illegal Kas is that not


criminal charges? In fact, the chairman of HSBC, which was involved


in the money-laundering, terrorist financing, on a scale which led to


the loss of human life, let's not diminish this, this is not about


fixing an interest rate, this led to probably hundreds of people losing


their lives, the chairman of HSBC is a member of David Cameron's


government, one of the advisers to George Osborne on banking reform.


Just remind me who gave Fred Goodwin his knighthood? The Queen.I did not


go Gordon Brown was the Queen. You get my point, you are all in it up


to here. I know it is hard for you to tell me, but can you just give us


an indication of when we get the Government's official response, will


the Chancellor give us an indication tonight about what parts of this you


are going to implement, and what parts you are not? The report is out


today, and we have only had 24 hours notice. I have only asked you for


the timescale. It will be pretty rapid. We have got a pretty good


bill going through the house. there could be changes to that?


sounds encouraging, let's put this into place. Absolutely, we like a


lot on that note, we will move on. Lord Myners, thank you for coming


in. It has been brought to my attention that people are coming up


with all manner of excuses not to pay their TV licence fee. It is


usually something to do with Daily Politics. One householder told the


authorities that she only used the TV, the light from her TV set, for


reading. Another claimed that she had a corgi related to one of the


Queen's dogs, and thought she must be exempt. Well, not only does your


hard earned dosh bring you the best political programme that money can


buy, but it gets you the chance to win this - yes, The Daily Politics


Mug, lovingly handcrafted by BBC elves, it can be beamed to your


home, and all you have to do is listen to JoCo's transmission.


will remind you of how to enter in a minute, but let's see if you can


top must bear the responsibility. the time you have got a couple of


dozen photographers around you, it is very difficult to meet anybody at


all. Two explosions have gone off within seconds of each other...


# What becomes of the broken hearted? #


# Is this my beginning? Or is this the end... #


Their are rationing for themselves, winning a Daily Politics Mug, send


your answer to our special e-mail address, and you can see the full


terms and conditions on our website, bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics.


Coming up to midday, let's take a look at big then. It is a great,


muddy, sticky day in London. Nick Robinson is already here. Briefly,


Nigel Robinson, the Deputy Speaker - sorry, Nigel Evans, the deputy


speaker of the House of Commons, now arrested on three other charges...


Yes, people will remember there was real shock in politics, Nigel Evans


is a popular character on all sides of the House of Commons. He was


arrested in May on suspicion of rape and sexual assault, and he has


reported for bail today in Lancashire, and the Lancashire


Constabulary have subsequently said that he has been arrested on three


further offences of indecent assault. It is the sort of thing


that will go round Westminster, and bringing real surprise, shock and


sadness. What has GCHQ told you Mr Miller band will go on today?


only! That would save me being a journalist! I do not think it takes


a genius to work out that the subject you have just been talking


about, banking, is an obvious territory. I think the tone will be


interesting - does he invite him to agree, or does he challenge Kas


Livingston, for the past few years, the chief executive of BT, will take


on this vital role. I believe he will bring huge talent to a vital


national effort. There are many pupils an excellent


schools benefiting from outstanding teaching and inspirational teachers,


not all of whom have been to teacher training college, necessarily.


Thereon many teachers in our schools who have not been through the formal


process. Some teachers have been banned from such schools. As I have


been busy, -- although I have been busy, I have looked carefully at


this policy, and I know there people who teach, including those on the


benches of the party opposite, the honourable member for Stoke-on-Trent


Central, a renowned historian, teachers in his local compounds of


schools. He will be banned. There is the former member for South who will


that who also enjoys doing that. I think this policy is another example


of brotherly love. Following the Parliamentary commission on, can he


confirmed that he supports its recommendations on bonuses and


criminal penalties and that he would use the banking bill to do this?


support both of those. We need to take the time to read this excellent


report, and I commend the member for gesture Dutchman Richard Chester for


the excellent job he has done. Making sure that banks who are in


receipt of taxpayers money, that we can claw back bonuses, I say yes.


am glad he supports the proposal on criminal penalties, but will he


confirm the important issue that the government will put down the


amendment to the banking Bill currently going through Parliament,


to make sure it gets on the statute book as soon as the? We will be


using that Bill to take these important steps. It is important


that we have that opportunity. There should be a Parliamentary enquiry


done rapidly, rather than a public enquiry that he supported. If we had


done that, we would just about be getting going with the inquiry.


Instead, we had a good enquiry and we had strong legislation, too.


If the government doesn't put down the amendments on criminal


penalties, we will, in the Banking Bill, and we will make sure that


they happen. The Prime Minister praises the Parliamentary commission


on, but let's turn to one of its recommendations from last year 's


report. It said that it should legislate for a general power to


break up the banks, breaking up high risk casino banking from high street


banks. The commission think it is right, but the government is so far


refusing to implement... The part-time Chancellor is trying to


advise the Prime Minister. We think it is right, the commission think it


is right, but the government has so far refused to implement that


recommendation. Why isn't the government doing it? I would rather


listen to my Chancellor than listen to his neighbour, the Shadow


Chancellor. We remember his advice. 125% mortgages from Northern Rock,


that is fine. A knighthood for Fred Goodwin, that is fine. The biggest


banking bust in British history, that is fine. He was the City


Minister when all of this went wrong. This government is clearing


up the mess. We wouldn't have these results without this excellent


enquiry commissioned by this government, we would not be able to


legislate without the excellent Banking Bill provided by this


government. In terms of his question, we are putting a ring


fence around retail banks, something that in 13 years of a retail


government, although they were both in the Treasury, they never got


round to it. We are not going to take lectures


from the guy who was the advisor on Black Wednesday in 1992. And he had


no answer to the question about retail and investment banking. Maybe


he can do better on this issue. On the issue of bonuses and the banks,


Mr Speaker, last week's ONS figures showed that bonuses in business and


financial services this April was 64% higher than a year ago. Why does


the Prime Minister think that is? Bank bonuses are about a fifth of


what they were when he was sitting in the Treasury. They have been


going down, not up. If he wants to discuss this issue of banking,


perhaps he would reflect on the fact that the other City Minister that


Labour had in their time of office, Lord Myners, said this today dashed


the government of which I was a member certainly has to take some


culpability for the fact that the regulatory oversight of the banks


was not as effective as it should be. He says, to do otherwise would


be to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. Perhaps the next


time he gets to that despatch box, he will apologise for the mess they


made? Here's asking questions and preparing for opposition. Let's talk


about what people were saying in 2008. We all remember the speeches,


don't we, Mr Speaker? A Conservative economic strategy. David Cameron, I


quote, as a free marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you


to hear me say that a significant part of the problems of the last


decade has been too much regulation. There you have it, Mr


Speaker. He was wanting less regulation of the cap back row city.


-- less regulation of the City. Bonuses are up 64% in the City in


April. That is because he has cut the top rate of income tax from 50p


to 45p. People took their bonuses in April and got a massive tax cut as a


result. When the Prime Minister gets up to respond, will he confirm that


64% figure and that people are getting a massive tax cut as a


result of his decision? In 2012/13, City bonuses will be 85% lower than


in 2007 and eight, when those two were advising or working in the last


government, with the responsibility for regulating the City. It doesn't


matter what he says, he cannot get over the fact that they presided


over the boom and bust, the collapse of the banks and the failure to


regulate. We remember what they said in 2008 - no more boom and bust.


They said a golden age for the City. They cannot hide their dreadful


record and they ought to start with an apology. The whole House will


have noticed, he cannot deny the figures I've doubt. He doesn't even


know the facts. Bonuses are up, so that people can take advantage of


his massive tax cut. For all his tough talk, the reality is that he


is dragging his feet on banking reform. Business lending is still


falling, bonuses are rising and ordinary families are suffering. He


is giving a massive tax cut to the bankers. Just another display of


extraordinary weakness. They had 13 years to sort out this problem, they


did absolutely nothing. It is this government that has introduced the


banking Bill, that has introduced the ring fence, that has put the


Bank of England in charge of regulating credit in our economy.


Instead, what we ought to be getting from him is an apology and a thank


I commend him for being the first Prime Minister ever to commit to a


referendum on Europe, and to leading a government which has tackled


welfare dependency, reduced immigration and brought in


academies, therefore showing that one can be conservative, popular and


write all the same time. Can I thank my honourable friend for his


question? And on behalf of everyone in the house, can I congratulate him


on his richly deserved night Woodcrest -- richly deserve


knighthood? He served in this house for many decades and served in the


vital role of overseeing the Public Accounts Committee, which does such


important work. I am grateful for what he says about the referendum


and would urge all colleagues to come to the House on July the 5th


and vote for this bill. Is the Prime Minister proud of the


fact that, on his watch, 300,000 more children have been pushed into


absolute poverty? I am proud that we have protected the poorest in our


country by increasing child tax credit. The most important thing we


can do to tackle poverty is to get more people into work. There are now


more people in work in our country than at any time in our history, and


in his own area in the West Midlands, the number of people


employed is up 66,000 since the election. It is worth remembering


the last government's record, because even during the boom years,


private sector employment in the West Midlands went down.


I am sure he will want to join every member of the house in wishing all


British players the best of luck for Wimbledon, which starts on Monday.


Does he back the LTA's Schools Tennis Programme, which is in some


schools in my constituency, to help find as a future home-grown and home


trained champion? He is absolutely right to raise this. Let's


congratulate Andy Murray for his excellent victory at the weekend at


Queen 's club, and wish him and other British players well for the


tenements. We should commend the LTA for trying to make tennis much more


of a mass participation club. I see it in the primary school my children


go to, where more tennis is being taught and played. It has a long way


to go, and the lawn tennis Association has two satisfy sport


England and all of the other funding bodies that they are making it a


mass participation sport. When, according to the Sunday Times, just


1000 of our richest citizens have increased their wealth since the


financial crash by �119 billion, while everyone else, on average, has


been forced to take a real terms cut in income, isn't his policy of


enriching the perpetrators and punishing the victims are very


opposite of a one nation Britain? The richest in our country will pay


a higher percentage of income tax under this government to ban the


last. He sat in that government with the opportunity to do something


about it, but all the time he was a minister, the top tax rate was lower


than it will be under this government.


Does he agree with me that if a community is obliged to take a


strategic piece of infrastructure, that there should be agreements for


payment and compensation for any blight caused by a nationally


important piece of infrastructure like a rail freight interchange?


That is why section 106 agreement exist. We need to keep this area


under observation about how we will handle fracking and shale gas. I


think we will need a simpler mechanism to show that company -- to


ensure that communities feel the benefit.


On Monday the Milburn report showed that the proportion of students from


state schools at the elite Russell Group universities is less than a


decade ago. Another report is secretly considering lifting


interest rates on previous graduate loans. After �9,000 tuition fees,


does he think that another reach of faith like this is more likely to


encourage students from work -- less wealthy backgrounds to apply to


university, or to discourage them? The number of children from


disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is higher than ever, that


is a good step forward. If we wanted their children from disadvantaged


backgrounds into universities, we should be supporting the academies


programme and free schools. We saw in Labour putts-macro announcement


that they now support free schools. But then they went on to say that


they would not allow any more of them. And, quite extraordinary, they


said this - what we will have is a new academies programme, like parent


led academies, teacher led academies, such as a particular


school in east London. They want more schools like that. The Shadow


Education Secretary is nodding. But that school is a free school. What a


complete shambles. Can I ask the Prime Minister what discussions he


has held with colleagues in Devra regarding the Environment Agency


recognising the value of land, and the need to protect farmland in my


constituency from flooding? I do have conversations about this issue


with the Secretary of State for farming and food and rural affairs.


As I announced in the House last week, he will soon be bringing


forward the proposal to make sure that the insurance scheme regarding


the danger of flooding is renewed. We also need to protect farmland,


not least because with global population is rising, the demand for


food production will have to increase. In my constituency, one in


three is living in poverty, compared to one in ten in his constituency -


what is he going to do about it? I have to say to the honourable


gentleman, the problem with the last government's legacy is, because you


left a massive debt burden and a massive deficit, this government had


to take action to deal with it. As I said, the best way... We will


concentrate on the policies of the Government, not... Order. Nothing


further required. We will move on. Whatever the long-term benefits of


High Speed Rail Bill the project is already causing serious worry for


tens of thousands of homeowners along the route. Will my Right


Honourable Friend give urgent attention and consideration to the


possibility of introducing a property bond to remove that blight?


I know My Honourable Friend is concerned about this issue, and I


know that it is right that he stands up for his constituents, and other


MPs have discussed this with me. First of all, I think we should


remain committed to HS2, because it will connect our cities and


communities and bring many benefits, particularly, I believe, to the


north of England. But I think we should look at the compensation


schemes available, and we are listening to the idea of the


property bond. In his state meant following the appalling murder of a


month ago, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of the


Government the Prime Minister -- the Government's task force on extremism


in our communities. In Woolwich, our diverse communities have been


working hard to do just that. Can the Prime Minister House what


progress has been made, and specifically what new ways he


envisages emerging to support communities such as ours? First of


all, can I commend the Right Honourable Gentleman for the action


he has taken in his own community. When I visited Woolwich I saw how


strongly that community has come together to decry what happened and


to build a stronger future. The task force has met and the ideas have


been commissioned. One particular idea we are looking at is something


I heard while I was with him in Woolwich, which is, where


communities want to come together and try to drive extremist groups


out of particular mosques or Islamic centres, they often need help


including help with legal advice to do that. So, that is one specific


idea. But this task force should cover the whole waterfront from


everything right across the community. Given the role of women


in the developing world, especially in the realm of sanitation, health,


business and all other matters affecting administration in other


countries, will my Right Honourable Friend take a positive interest in


my gender inequality bill, which is coming forward today, and will he


note that he was already supported by the very wide range of people? I


will study My Honourable Friend's bill closely. It is not the bill


that everybody might expect... more about real cash's bill. It is


not necessarily the bill which we would all expecting to produce, but


I think it is an excellent idea, I'm co-chairing the high-level panel at


the UN about the future of development, I wanted to make sure


that gender equality was put right up there in the replacement for the


millennium development goals, and it is there, and I think his bill might


be able to provide some extra ideas to bring this to life. In 2010, the


Prime Minister proudly stated, and I quote, we actually made sure that


neither the budget nor the spending round would result in any increase


in child poverty. But in his first full year as Prime Minister, the


number of children in absolute poverty rose by 300000 and is still


rising. Will he now admits that he was wrong and his policies are to


blame? We did make a specific decision in the spending round to


increase child tax credit for the poorest families in our country. But


we had an inheritance from the past garment of such appalling levels of


debt that it has been painful to deal with. But let me repeat the


best way to get people out of poverty is to see employment grow,


and in the north-west, the part of the country she represents,


employment has risen by 6000 this quarter. It has 50,000 since the


election, and unemployment is now 20,000 since the election. Those are


all life chances, jobs and chances to get on, that people did not have


under the last Labour government. Could I welcome my Right Honourable


Friend's leadership of the G8 in helping to prevent the horrors of


Syria turning into a regional humanitarian catastrophe? And could


I urge him to pursue further the support for Lebanon and Jordan, two


very fragile neighbouring states, and especially urge him to go


further with the support we are providing for the leather knee 's


army, which is the only organisation in the area which could be a


potentially stabilising force. -- Lebanese army. Could I thank him for


that. We did make some progress on Syria, the tequila Lee in terms of


humanitarian aid, where $1.5 billion extra was pledged for what is now


becoming one of the worst Unitarian crises we have seen in recent years.


He is absolutely right, we need to support the neighbouring states, and


we should support the Lebanese army. In response to My Honourable


Friend, on several occasions, the Prime Minister has said that the


best way of tackling poverty is to get people into work. But would he


explain this - why is it that two thirds of the children in poverty


today come from families where there is at least one adult in work, and


why is that figure rising? The point I would make to the Jan Short is


that work is the best answer for taking people out of poverty. -- to


the Honourable Gentleman. Yes, of course we should continue paying


child benefit, which we do, and tax credits. Indeed, one decision we


made when we came into office was to stop the nonsense of tax credits


going to people, including members of this House of Commons, earning


�50,000 or more a year. We are focusing their help on the people


who need it most. Yes, in the West Midlands, we have seen an extra


66,000 people in work. A few weeks ago, nine paediatricians wrote to me


in the code quality commission expressing serious safety concerns


regarding maternity services getting downgraded. Since then, their


managers have acted in an intimidating manner. Real the Prime


Minister ensure me that reprisals will not be made against these.


Does? -- against these doctors? As we have said before, there should


always be safeguards for people who whistleblower and tell the truth


about Robbins in the NHS. We have completely overhauled the CQC, and


the report out today proves that it was a totally dysfunctional


organisation that we inherited. In a few weeks, thousands of young people


across the country will be graduating from university, and


looking forward to getting their first step on the career ladder.


Unfortunately for many of them, the only option will be a long-term,


unpaid internship, which requires them to work for free. Will the


Prime Minister therefore make sure that the national minimum wage


regulations are vigorously enforced by HM RC to put an end to this


expectation of our young people? I think the Right Honourable Lady is


doing some really important work in this area, and it is an important


area to get right. We all know from our own experiences at some short


term internships, work experience, can be very valuable for picking


taking part. But on the other hand, what we should not have is the


employment of unpaid interns instead of workers to avoid the national


minimum wage. That is the balance we have to put right and I commend her


for the important work she is doing. The excellent children's heart unit


at Southampton General is the best in the country outside of London,


get the recent decision by the Secretary of State means more


uncertainty for patients and their families in my Eastleigh


constituency. What assurances can the Prime Minister give over the


future of this unit? What I would say to My Honourable Friend is that


I do not think the Secretary of State really had any choice but to


start this whole process of looking at safe and sustainable services,


including Southampton, which is twinned with the hospital which


serves my constituency. I understand people's frustration, but most


important is to make sure we get the decision right. The Government's own


research shows a link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in


the media and the greater acceptance of sexual harassment and violence


against women. That being the case, will he join me in trying to get our


own House in order, calling on the Parliamentary authorities to stop


the Sun newspaper being available on the Parliamentary estate, and will


he have a word with his friend Rupert Murdoch with it while he is


at it? I am grateful to the Honourable Lady, I am glad she got


her question asked, after the dazzling T-shirt she was wearing


last week failed to catch the Speaker's I. I think it is very


important that we should be able to read or newspapers on the


Parliamentary estate, including the Sun newspaper. I welcome the Prime


Minister's leadership, that, on getting the G8 to agree a deal on


tackling aggressive corporate tax avoidance. Will my Right Honourable


Friend confirmed that he will not be offering a corporate tax avoidance


service as does the party opposite? I think My Honourable Friend makes


an important point, which is that at the G8, we achieved real progress on


tax transparency, cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax


avoidance, but is it not a sad thing that while we were doing that, the


party opposite is still offering tax avoidance advice to its donors, and


they have not paid back the �700 of tax that they owe. Let me remind him


what he said Ash if everybody approaches their tax affairs like


some of these companies do, we would not have an education service, we


would not have a health system. So, he has got to put his hand in his


pocket and give the money back. Prime Minister, I wrote to you on


eight May and have not yet received a reply. Could I ask you now - have


you ever had any discussions with Lincoln Crosby about the standard


packaging of cigarettes or the minimum price of unit of alcohol,


yes or no? I can tell you that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me


on anything. The only opinions that I am interested in our how we


destroy the credibility of the Labour Party. On which he has


considerable expertise, though I have to say he is not doing as good


a job as the party opposite. successfully intervened in the case


of a newborn baby, who has now eventually been confirmed as the


daughter of a private who died on active service in Afghanistan. His


fiancee and family are in the gallery today. This whole situation,


Mr Speaker, would not have arisen if the MOD routinely kept samples of


DNA for those soldiers on active duty - are we making any progress on


this? My Honourable Friend makes an important point, and he is quite


right to have stood up for his constituents in the way that he did.


I would like to convene a meeting with MOD ministers, so that I can


get back to him with the very best answer about the action we can take


to stop this happening in the future. The number of families


living in temporary accommodation, homeless families, rose by 5000 in


the last year. Can the Prime Minister explain why? ? What we need


to do is to build more houses in our country, and that is exactly what


this government is doing. We are building more social houses and more


private houses, and we are reforming housing benefit, so we can better


use the money. The question now is for the party opposite. Base bend


weeks and weeks complaining about the removal of the spare room


subsidy. I do not know whether anybody else has noticed, they do


not ask questions about it any more. Could that possibly be because they


have not got a clue about whether they would restore it? With an


estimated �10 billion boost to our economy, does my Right Honourable


Friend agree that a free-trade agreement with the United States


represents a glittering prize for Britain and for Europe?


Honourable Friend is absolutely right. I think it is very good news


that this free-trade agreement has been launched at Lough Erne in


Northern Ireland. It will now take many months of difficult and patient


negotiation. It is a hugely competitive problem, because we want


it to cover all sorts of areas, like public procurement and services, and


not just manufactured goods. But it is good that is getting going,


because this could mean millions of jobs right across Europe. On the


subject of giving money back, which he has just referred to in respect


of the Labour Party, will he now explained to the House why, when he


had a windfall, he decided to write down his mortgage at Notting Hill


instead of writing down the mortgage of the one that he was claiming for


from the expenses allowance in the House of Commons? I think what the


Honourable Gentleman needs to do is concentrate on the massive problem


on his front bench, because I have to say, Mr Speaker, every week till


they pay the money back, they are going to get a question about the


�700,000 that they owe to the There seems to be a consensus


between the frontbenchers that big chunks of the report should be


implemented, and quickly. Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron therefore


decided to fallout over bankers' bonuses, to give them something to


argue about. The ported news since we have been


an air is that South Africa is 88 48. -- the imported use.


We are joined by the shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry. About the


programme. Jacqueline says petty squabbling,


nothing said at PMQ 's has any bearing on my way. It just shows how


out of touch politicians from all colours. Another person said, a


snappy but boring spat. It's basically descended to, it was your


fault, no, it or, misguided Ed Miliband. Yet again he David Cameron


on the aftermath of the economic explosion. He will always get a good


hiding because he can never overcome the stigma of Gordon Brown and the


Labour Party putts-macro failure to see the James in Hampshire, they


need to face up to the countless failures of the government and not


attempt to hide from the coalition's unpopular and calamitous


policies. He is up for criminal charges, up


for delaying bonuses. Mr Miliband says, that is great, and if you


don't, we will. It seems like the only politician in Britain prepared


to stand up for the bankers is Boris Johnson. No wonder, he is the Mayor


of London and that is where he thinks much of London's money is


created. The arguments may come down to the detail. Just before PMQ 's,


you were discussing how to define reckless behaviour. In what


circumstances are bonuses delayed, in what circumstances are they


clawed back? Although there is a broad consensus that they agreed to,


frankly, they all read the same opinion polls and bankers are even


less popular than journalists, politicians and estate agents.


Knotty state agents! Don't be ridiculous! -- not estate agents!


Miliband got the answer, yes. Will you do this? Yes. You do not want


that. On another note, I think this is the first time in many, many,


many weeks, where there is not a single critical question to the


Prime Minister from a conservative. The most empty as you has to


question, praising him for a European referendum, welfare reform


and academies, was done by the man who has just been made Sir Edward


Leigh. Amazing times.It is quite striking, because, week after week


he has faced really difficult questions from his own side. Maybe


it is because the gay marriage bill has moved out of the comments to the


Lords, or perhaps because Tory backbenchers are excited by the


Director Rendon bill in the House of Commons which will be dilated on


July the 5th, I'm not sure? -- excited by the Referendum Bill. .


Financial services are among the top five things that this country is a


world leader in. We have already lost about 200,000 300,000 jobs in


financial services since the crash of 2008. Barely a week goes by


without a bank announcing another 2000 or 3000 well-paid jobs are


going. You want to tell bankers that if they are found guilty of


misconduct, they could go to jail, although it is yet -- not yet clear


how long they will have to wait for their bonus. Why don't they just go


elsewhere? We are the country where no one has gone to prison, which is


unusual. They certainly did in New York. In the States, people get hold


up all the time. Yeah, but not for the crash. We believe the economy


should be balanced. We want a strong City, and I totally agree with Boris


Johnson, we want this City to be strong, but not at the cost of the


people. That means you need proper regulation. And when somebody does


something so outrageous that it affects lots of people's lives and


livelihoods... Such as what?Some of the stuff we have seen such as LIBOR


and financial reform. Fiddling live there is already a rough -- already


an offence. I think people are about to be arrested on this. I think if


anyone would like to step back and look at what has gone on in the


City, all the different offences, from what happened at HSBC, at a


LIBOR, with the financial crust, -- the financial crash, and nobody has


taken responsibility. Economists will tell you that in any economy


you should use resources as best you can, and it is possible for them to


end up in the wrong place. We came into government saying that we want


to rebalance this economy, and we have more people in work than ever


before, despite the economic Times being tough, because we have allowed


some of the rebalancing to take place. As Nick Clegg admitted to me,


it has not happened. As a percentage of GDP, manufacturing, construction


is still... I was asked by Ed to do quite a lot of work into City crime.


I was looking at working on an economic crime bill. One of the


problems we have got is that if an individual behaves in a fraudulent


way within a company, it is difficult to prosecute the company


as a whole. You can get an individual defrauding others for the


sake of the company, the company is not prosecuted. In the United


States, which we do not have here, we do not have a large fines for


individuals behaving for companies. We should be looking at increasing


the fines, putting them back into the fraud office, who can start


doing real prosecutions. The problem with fraud as you tend not to have a


dead body or a blood Trail, it is difficult to get prosecutions going.


We launched that on Friday. The ideas from today are very


interesting. We need to look at it carefully and make sure we are


effective. One of the reasons you can get an agreement from both sides


is that we all know something needs to be done. We need to be careful


that it is not a George Osborne spin, and that we need to toughen it


up. Because Labour would never spin banking is an offence. We need to


make sure that we do it well. The last thing we want is to pass


legislation for the sake of it, looking at it as window dressing. We


have to change the corporate culture. You have had your say.


Politicians on all sides read in the opinion polls, they hear from their


constituents, they want the equivalent of the thing in a crime


show where you off was to walk to the police station in America, a


want somebody to do that. But I think in Britain, the perp walk is


facing the Treasury select committee, or the ultimate sanction,


we will take your knighthood off you! That'll teach them! People are


so fed up. I don't agree with Nick Clegg that the economy is not


rebalancing, if that is what he told you. We have 600,000 fewer people


working in the public sector, 1.2 million more in the private sector.


It is easy to bandy around manufacturing figures without


recognising that manufacturing is being more efficient, it is


producing great output. I am talking about a percentage of GDP. That does


not take into account the total amount of stuff being manufactured.


Unless the manufacturer takes a bigger share of GDP? This country is


manufacturing more in absolute terms and is bigger than before. Not as a


percentage of GDP, as the total that you manufacturer. Then it is good


for manufacturing, but it is not rebalancing. Reign will you break up


RBS? In response to the people saying that they just showed at each


other. .1, they watch it. I have a five-year waiting list of


constituents wanting to come to Prime Minister's Questions. Can we


see the family photo from the G8? The dress code! Let's see what they


should really look like. Much more stylish. Angela Merkel's is


particularly fetching. What was this business of not wearing ties? Did Mr


Cameron spread it about? There was definitely a dress code, President


Putin recognised it when he got off the plane in jeans and a casual


shirt. There is an element that is reasonable about it, but something


was serious and a bit different. The original idea of the G8 was that


leaders would get round a table, look each other in the eye and talk,


nobody else was in the room. It has become a massive jamboree. David


Cameron was trying to make it more like that. It was striking when you


saw the pictures that the table they were sitting around, ten, the two EU


presidents, was not much bigger than this. There were not other people in


the room. Did they achieve anything more as a result? What about Syria?


What did they do? They are just papering over the cracks. He talked


it up, the Prime Minister said, we will sort out Syria. What do you


want him to do? You don't want him to... What do you want him to do?We


think that you need to talk to the Russians about assuring... Just look


at the face of President Putin. Do you think he was charmed and brought


on board, whether or not he was wearing a tie or sitting at a nice


table? You can hardly blame the British Prime Minister for Mr


Putin's face. I can blame him for saying, we will sort out Syria, and


doing nothing. And then all we do afterwards is talk about the ties


and the tables. You are doing the best you can, with very little


material. I was just baffled that you criticised him on Syria, when I


sat in a statement on Syria and officially the position of the


Labour Party was what he should not do. I don't remember them suggesting


an alternative. I am sure that if Ed Miliband was there, Mr Putin would


have been eating out of the palm of his hand. The question they really


had to face is, was it worth keeping Putin on board? Was it more


powerful, the statement, without putting? Camera made the compromise.


I asked him about it, and he said he had not done so, but he had clearly


watered down the words to keep Putin on board. Pharmaceutical companies


do not have to reveal the results of all the trials they have done. So,


much of the time, negative findings go unreported, leaving doctors and


researchers in the dark. In his soapbox, the writer and medical Dr


Ben Goldacre explains why he wants scientific evidence to help us make


informed decisions about which treatment is best for the patient.


For this, we use randomised controlled trials, fair test 's,


comparing one treatment against another. But there is a problem.


Since the mid-19 80s, we have known that the results of these trials are


routinely withheld from doctors, researchers, patients and payers,


buried in document storage archives like this. The best currently


available evidence from the guest study, summarising all the studies


that have been done on missing data, suggest that around half of all


trials which have been on medicines that we use today have never been


published. They are buried in storage boxes like these. Worse than


that, trials with positive results are about twice as likely to be


published as trials with negative results. This week, the Public


Accounts Committee are looking at the issue. I gave evidence on


Monday. The UK government spends �12 billion a year on its drugs budget.


We spent half �1 billion a year on Tom Flynn, one drug alone, and yet,


the company withheld vitally important information on the results


of clinical trials. More amazingly than that, in doing so, they broke


no law. This is a huge medical policy line spot which has been


neglect did by politicians and senior doctors alike for many


decades. That is why, with colleagues, I have had to start a


public campaign. The petition now has the support of more than 50,000


members of the general public, more than 100 patient groups, and,


belatedly, almost all the academic and medical professional bodies in


the UK. Even GS K, the biggest drug company in the country, have signed


up. We need the full methods and results of all the trials that have


been conduct did from all of the treatments that we use today, to


make informed decisions. And we need politicians to understand why that


matters. Dr Ben Goldacre joins us now. Do you know why the decision


was made to retain the withhold the results of clinical trials? You say


it has been done since the middle of the 1980s. It has been done for


ever. It is a cultural blindspot, a historical anomaly. The bull had the


strange idea that if you did a trial and it found no difference between


the new treat and and the old treatment, then it was not


scientifically interesting. I think that is where it again. But it


snowballed from there to become a huge systemic album. We have known


about this since the 1980s. We know that about half of all trials never


get published. So, how can a doctor truthfully prescribed drugs if he or


she does not know the full facts of the trials that have been carried


out on that drug? That is the core of this problem. Overall, with a lot


of experience in writing about the blooms in medicine, I think it is


unusual that drugs come to market doing more harm than good. What we


are talking about is whether or not we know the absolute best available


treatment. If there is one drug that saves eight lives out of 100, and


another saves six, we want everybody to have the one that saves eight.


play devils advocate, you could say that if you made this oblique, you


would be making everybody a pseudo- doctor, going online, so should it


not be left to the experts? -- if you made this online. The reality is


that there are lots of organisations around the world, nonprofit bodies,


who summarise the evidence and produce gold standard summaries,


which docked tours and patients can use to decide the best treatment. We


cannot expect that they are not going to be able to have access to


this information, or that they are only allowed to see the most


flattering half of that information. That is not how science works. Do


you agree that actually, all of these clinical trial results should


be open and given to doctors, researchers and patients? I think it


is right that not even NICE GET THESE RESULTS, IS THAT RIGHT?


Actually, the European agency had a damning report of a finding by the


European ombudsman, after which they were forced to start releasing


clinical study reports that they had, not all of them, but at least


more. But loophole was closed just two weeks ago. Would you put


pressure on companies to reveal it? I think it is the right thing to do.


But in order to make it effective, we have to do it internationally.


Europe is big enough, I think, to be able to start putting pressure on


internationally. We do not want drugs companies to say, you are


making life difficult for us, let's all clear after Brazil. I think it


is a brilliant piece of research, and we are in relation to our


earlier , station about transparency, this is surely the


definition of that. So, will you make them do it? It is an amazing


piece of research, and I will speak to my colleagues and we should take


it forward. We have a quote - we firmly believe that health


authorities need to remain the gate keeper for drugs approval - in other


words, we are not going to do it. will certainly undertake to speak to


the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt about it. You can imagine in


previous decades, people did not even think about this stuff. But


nowadays, it is different. If they do not want to publish trials, you


have put a lot of money into trials, and they do not give the results you


want, they are not going to want to publish them. So why would your


company remain in your constituency if you were forcing them to do


that? Clearly it would have to be done by agreement across the


industry, as you say. But there is no reason why David could not get


together to do this. There is a long and dismal history of voluntary


codes of conduct which are unenforced and unaudited and


riddled, to be honest, deliberately, with loopholes. I would welcome any


lobbying advice you have, and I would like advice on how to get this


fixed, as I find it amazing that there are things we can do in the


immediate short-term, like, for example, the UK government could


strongly lobby the European agency to bring this to the European court


of justice, to get this to be more transparent. But also, to have


politicians making a clear statement that drug companies and researchers


have to work harder on this. There is the statement, Grant Shapps, you


can have that. Now, the part of the programme that makes things happen.


If you run a major NHS trust at a time of unprecedented financial


pressures, and you are worried about the physical fitness of your staff,


you might want to help initiate an exercise campaign. But what do you


# Is this the Way to Amarillo... Was Superman was played by Phil Morley,


the Chief Executive of Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust, and he has


caused controversy with his office exercise campaign. Staff have been


quoted as saying it was patronising and embarrassing. They found that he


was out of touch, but how did they work that out? ! What is the most


embarrassing thing you have done in public? Singing. I always seem. That


is what I do. On you go, carry on. No, please, I was singing along


earlier. You represent Islington, so you have that karaoke bar. I love


karaoke, and I love that bar. myself have never done anything


embarrassing in public, I am sure of They have obviously got a copyleft.


But you do that every time you leave the studio! I think that was one of


our most senior producers. Anyway, just time to put you out of your


misery, and find the answer to our guest the year competition. It was


1974. The clue was the petrol queues, which meant it could have


been 1979 as well, but there were other things in the film which


showed it was 1974, a pretty miserable year, certainly if you


were a political journalist, although there were two elections,


one in February, and one in October. There was really no distinct outcome


for either, but Labour ended up the largest party in both. Anything else


you would like to know about 1974? No, but we would like to know who


the winner is. If you just best that button... -- press that button.


Robert Taggart in Cheshire. Congratulations. Thanks to all of


our guests. The one o'clock News is starting over on BBC One. I am not


here tomorrow, I have got to go to Prague. I am flying solo. Gyles


Download Subtitles