28/02/2012 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman asks if metal artificial hips might be toxic, another company goes sour on 'work experience', the Barclays tax row, plus an interview with Herman Cain.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Here we go again. First it was breasts, now implants routinely


used by the NHS for hip replacements, may be leaking metal


fragments into their hosts. 49,000 British patients with all-


metal hip replacements will have to be monitored for life, with a view


to taking them out again. I'm glad we got there in time, metal debris,


front wall of the pelvis has been eaten away. I will be asking the


regulator, who is supposed to keep us safe, how on earth this could


have happened. He's the pizza millionaire who


claimed he could deliver the White House for the Republican party, and


found, he couldn't. Becoming President was Plan A, and before


you get discouraged, today I want to describe Plan B. We will ask


Herman Cain what Plan B is. Britain's biggest cake shop chain


is the latest to query the ingredients of the Government's


work experience scheme. Also tonight:


In the City they call Barclays Bank the bald eagle, now the Treasury


has decided to clawback the money from a perfectly legal tax dodge.


What other retrospective laws might they try out?


We have given lots of people a new lease of life, seeming to free them


from infirmity and pain. Tonight the regulator is saying anyone with


an all-metal hip joint should undergo tests every year for as


long as they have it inside them. Following an investigation by this


programme and the British Medical Journal, which has uncovered


serious side-effects in some people, and raises profound questions about


whether this sort of surgery is properly regulated.


Replacing a hip is about as physical as it gets for a surgeon.


But as tough as the operation is, around 70,000 people a year have


hip replacements. For most people this is life changing.


Taking away years of pain and disability, but for some, there can


be a down side. Surgeries are concerned that some


metal hips are wearing down faster than they should. There are fears


that metal debris from the joint is poisoning patients. Around 2,000


patients a year are having to have their metal hips replaced.


The UK regulator, the MHRA, announced that 49,000 patients,


with all-metal, total hip replacements, like this one, with a


large diameter, will have to have annual checks because of safety


fears. Particles of metal debris have destroyed tissue around the


joipbts in thousands of patients, we understand on Thursday, research


will be presented looking at the risks of bladder cancer in these


patients. No clinical trials were done before these hips were put in.


One campaigning group is calling it a large, uncontrolled experiment,


involving millions of patients around the world. Following on from


the breast implants scandal, experts say the whole system, for


regulating devices, is not protecting the public. Maureen


laughed walking in the Yorkshire Dales near her home in Richmond. It


was a surprise when the surgeon told her she needed to have two hip


replacements. When I went to the hospital I was told I would get


this new kind of hip joint, a state-of-the-art joint, it was


metal and would last almost probably my lifetime. Maureen had


two Pinnacle hips put in, they are mind by US giant, Johnson & Johnson.


They were fitted in 2005, they have already failed. I have swelling in


my lower abdomen, I had an ultra sound, and they said they are fluid,


but obviously they shouldn't be there. They do concern me, lumps in


my body, you don't want them. Nagel is Maureen's surgeon, he's


about to replace one of her failed implants. There is nearly no other


explanation, apart from the implant is wearing out abnormally. I'm glad


we have got here in time. Metal debris everywhere. The front wall


of the pel is -- pelvis has just been eaten away. But it really is


quite significant the damage. is scooping out a mixture of


rotting flesh and cobalt and chromium metal debris from around


Maureen's hip joint. Surgeries are worried about the levels of these


metals in patients' blood, because of the possible long-term damage to


health. We are seeing patients of 10, 20, 50-times normal levels, the


highest level is to nearly 300. Tony has removed the head of


Maureen's hip implant, and it is clearly damaged. That is where the


wear starts, and it goes right down to the floor. That is the wornout


part, it goes right the way round. This is mechanical wear, that is


the problems you get with mechanical. Maureen's hip has now


been sent to experts at Newcastle University, this is one of several


centres around the country trying to figure out what is going wrong,


let's see what they find. Maureen's hip joint is put on to a scanner


which maps the damage. Mechanical engineers then analyse how much


metal has worn away. We can see damage from the head, we can also


see damage from the metal cup. So whether we have metal surfaces in


contact, potentially that can generate metal wear that will go


inside the patient. Tom Joyce is an engineer, who has analysed hundreds


of tip joints. There is evidence that these large metal-on-metal


hips are failing at a rate we wouldn't expect. We are trying to


get the bottom of that and explain what is happening. Surgeries


decided to use metal-on-metal hips, because old versions, made of


plastic, were wearing down in active people. They thought metal


would be a more durable option. Some times of metal hips work well


in young, active men. How have these failing metal hips been


allowed to get on to the market? The scandal of PIP's breast


implants, expose the failure of regulators to protect patients and


cause a public outcry. The same failure of regulation has led to


thousands of patients needing their hips replaced. It is a long, costly


process to get drugs on to the markets. They have to be tested in


test-tubes, animals and large clinical trials by people, before


they are used on you and me. You would think it is the same for


artificial breast and hip implant, but it is not. Doctors are


concerned there is not enough regulation to stop harmful devices


being put into hates. Carl Henegan has studied the way medal devices


are regulated in Europe. We realise with drugs like thalidomide we


can't carry on with the current system, it is catastrophic. The


data can be eight to ten years of development and drug trial, then


you have to have on going trials for safety and efficacy. With


devices it couldn't be more different. My estimate is you could


get a device through with a two to three day literature review, and no


clinical data requirements at the current time. You are telling me


you could get a hip to market with two to three days work looking at


the literature? Yes, and 7 0hips have gone through the system in the


US, only three have clinical data, that is in the world. If you want a


new drug on to the market in Europe, you have to go to a central


regulator to get approval. But for a new, artificial hip or breast


implant, the manufacturers can choose who they want to approve it.


They can go to any of dozens of companies who are all competing for


their business. DePuy use the British standards institution,


which is better known for giving Kite Marks to such things as


toasters and baby buggies. DePuy wouldn't tell us what tests they


had done on artificial hips because of client confidentiality. They


Governments around the world have been very lapse in checking the


implants. An e-mail from a senior manager at DePuy and says it is a


"fun fact" that in South Africa you could implant a tent rod if you


wanted to. It is astonishing that DePuy could tweak the design


without testing how it works with patients. The head became bigger


and the stem shorter. The head of the MHRA has known since 2006 that


there were concerns about the hips. The data tells us since 2006 that


there were metal lines being -- increases in the replacements.


There was enough data to make the certain in 2006. As early as 2005,


internal DePuy documents show they were aware of the damage that could


be done to patients for metal-on- metal implants. They are being sued


by patients who have had to of the hips replaced. They have put


millions aside to cover potential costs.


Tony Nagel is an expert witness in the legal case against DePuy.


Originally he was paid by the company to train surgeries in the


use of their implants. Now his hospital trust has recalled call


patients with metal-on-metal hips. We have brought back all the


patients with Pinnacle caps, nearly 1 though, tested, screened them and


scanned them, we know exactly what is happening. We have out of 970


patients, 75 failures related to metal debris, that is high. DePuy


told Newsnight and the BMJ, that patient safety is their top


priority, and clinical data showed the Pinnacle was safe. Tony Nagel


first told the company about damage to tissue in Pinnacle in 2008?


But the metal-on-metal Pinnacle is still on sale. The UK regulator,


the MHRA appointed a committee to decide the fate of metal-on-metal


hips, it included representatives of the manufacturer. The committee


decided there was no need to stop the metal-on-metal hips, and


patients should be told about the risks. No I a lert was issued to


patients or surgeries. Today the MARA said all patients with large


diameter metal-on metal hips would receive checks because of the


evidence about them. Tony has fitted Maureen with a new hip, made


of ceramic and plastic. How are you feeling? Fantastic. The operation


went well, there was quite a lot of damage there, but we got there in


time before there was damage beyond repair. I'm glad it's out.


operation cost the NHS �12,000, if it is widespread it will cost the


cash-trapped health service tens of millions.


Our science editor is here. How worried should people be? According


to the regulator, the MHRA, there are some 49,000 people out there,


who have this larger diameter metal-on-metal type hip implant.


They have said today that these people should have annual checks


because of the safety concerns over the device. They are saying people


should go to their GP if they are worried, find out what type and


size of implant they have had, to see if they might require blood


tests or perhaps an MRI scan, to look for any possible problems, to


see if there is sign of leakage of these small metal particles. There


are parallels, there seems to be, to a layman, parallels with the


whole PIP breast implant thing? Common sense would tell us, in both


cases the current system has failed patients. The MHRA's own website


says it is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices


work and are acceptably safe. Yet, in both instances, it has seen


reports for many years and outside pressure, and then the regulator


acts. It is raising broader questions about how medical devices


are regulated here and across Europe. The question is whether or


not there needs to be safety tests before the devices are implants,


and better safety evidence. So we are not relying on reporting by


patients and healthcare professionals, but a more rigorous


set-up. There is concern over the kite mark system. The notified


bodies which have a contractual relationship with the makers, the


certify a device does what the manufacturer says. They don't


release data routinely, they can claim client confidentiality, over


any data they hold. Some argue they might have a vested interest in


aproving a contract, hoping for follow-on business from


manufacturers, for approval for further products. All of this is


increasing calls for perhaps a central European body to replace


the 70 or 80 notified bodies, and the ace sem ought to look more --


the system ought to look more like the system for aproving drugs, but


the system for clinical trials is much less rigorous, and then there


is the cost to the NHS of picking up things when they go wrong.


us is the chief executive of the MHRA, the regulator of medicines


and medical devices. How many clinical trials were


conducted on this hip joint before it was implanted in 40,000 people?


Standardised medal trials were not required. There were no clinical


trials? There are clinical studies required before a joint is approved


by the notified body, or it receives the Kite Mark. The nature


of the study depends on the nature of the device. Do you want to


apologise to all of the people for whom the operation has gone wrong?


I think the agency has acted with great thoroughness in recent years.


We have a situation in the UK where we are essentially concerned about


the patterns of wear of these joints which, have been widely used.


There are 500,000 metal-on-metal joints implanted worldwide. We were


the first agency to put out a safety notice. That safety notice,


for example, the advice that you gave today about people having an


annual check-up, what was the new information on which that advice


was based? The UK is fortunate in having the world's biggest national


joint registry, which contains over a million operations of knee and


hip replacements. When did you discover there was a problem?


problem has emerged over the last couple of years. When the first


five years of experience. You were warned six years ago, weren't you?


No. If you look at the data from the National Joint Registry between


2003-2008. Metal-on-metal joints were no more likely to fair than


alternative manufacture. It is only in the last couple of years that


the wear patterns and failure rates have diverged as they have done.


it not true that there were meetings held in 2006, in which


these dangers were discussed? meetings concerned the significance


of the metal irons that were released, as you have heard. That


the extent to which metal irons are released varies greatly from joint


to joint. In some patients the levels are high, in some patients


they are very low. Indeed and the patients in whom it is higher are


the ones we are worried about? is precisely why we gave out advice,


two years ago now, that patients with this type of advice, should


have the metal irons measured in their blood, if the levels are


raised, they have further investigations with images --


Imaging. What has happened between that advice and today when you are


advising an annual check-up? were advising all that for patients,


what we have done now, with further information from the Joint Registry,


this is longer experience with the joints, is we can focus the


monitoring on those who need it most, the ones that have the larger


head metal-on-metal device. These joints were put into people without


any clinical tests, you already conceive. Were you made aware of


the fact that the design of the joint had changed? You asked me


were there clinical trials, I said clinical studies, but not


randomised, controlled trials, of the type you might expect with the


pharmaceutical industry. We are talking about the rate of wear,


which can only be observed over many years, in use, over large


groups of patients. There were no such tests? It would be difficult


to devise randomised trials. can do it with drugs, can't you?


The way that drugs give rise to problems are fundamentally


different from the way that medical devises do. These people were being


used as Guinea pigs? I dispute that phrase. You don't like it?


cannot test the wear patterns of human joint replacements on any


animal species. No you can test them on humans, which is what has


happened? What we have done, and it is an essential part of all medical


devise regulation, is to ensure there is -- device regulation, is


to ensure there is good follow-up long-term analysis. Were you told


of the change in the design? change of the design would be a


matter for the notified body. that you? No. That is somebody else


is it? We are the notified -- we are the competent authority, the


notified body would assess the procedures. You are not aware of


the changes in design? We are aware of the changes of the design, it is


up to us to assess each change of design. Three of the committee who


did check the design were on the payroll of the manufacturers?


committee who have helped with the guidelines we are talking about


today, was composed of representatives from the British


orthopaedic organisation and the Hip Society, they were not


manufacturer representatives, they were experts in the field. They


worked with data from the National Joint Registry, which is


independent, to devise the best help for patients now. When the


Americans decided that these joints should not be implanted in women of


childbearing age, why didn't you do the same? The evidence on that is


extremely equivocal. Did you think they were being hysterical or


something? The metal-on-metal joint replacements are the most widely


used in the United States. The data on the effects of the metal irons,


to the extent they get into blood, and secondly on the women of


childbearing age, do not allow people to make firm conclusions.


You tried to stop pregnant women from eating certain kinds of cheese,


I suggest you that having a foreign body implanted inside your own body,


with the possible, catastrophic consequences that we know about,


would have been on the precautionary principle, a sensible


thing to do? What we are seeking to do, by monitoring, is to detect


those patients that do generate a raised level of cobalt and chromium


in the blood. Those patients will go on to have further investigation


with a view to removing the joint if it is necessary. We are intent


on protecting patients from the effect of raised metal irons in


blood. This monitoring is with a view to the NHS then paying to have


the things taken out of people, is it? The purpose of the monitoring


is to make sure that in that minority of patients, in whom there


is accelerated wear, the detection of that wear early ensures the


joint can be replaced at a time when it is most satisfactorily done.


What is the costs of removing one? I honestly haven't examined the


costs. We are talking about many thousands of pounds. We are, it is


hugely expensive? Hip joints wear out, it is a general phenomenon of


all hip joints f you look at the types of joints developed, most


have been driven by the attempt to reduce the rate that they wear out.


They don't all wear out while poisoning the patient, do they?


point you are raising about poisoning the patient, is exactly


the reason we are setting in place this monitoring arrangement for


patients with this particular type of hip. This time tomorrow night we


will hear from the Health Secretary, as we devote the whole programme to


the controversy surrounding the Government's health bill. The


latest stage of the steeplechase to become the Republican candidate


tole cha eing Barack Obama this year is taking place in Michigan.


Each of the four men left in the race say they will stay the course


until the party convention in the summer. In the meantime they have


all amplely demonstrated that no- one is meaner to a politician, than


one who claims to be on the same side. In a moment I will talk to


the man who thought he could turn his experience in running a pizza


parlour empire to running the United States, but has had to bow


out of the race. Herman Cain was the early Republican pace setter,


who inspired the bumper sticker "the pizza man always delivers".


And deliver, in many ways, Herman Cain did.


After announcing his presidential cadidacy in May last year, he


quickly earned the accolade of most covered candidate in the race. His


unorthodox tendencies had everything the media could ask for.


Whacky, viral ads. We can take this country back.


Foreign policy stumbles. When they asked me who is the President of U-


bek-ebek-beck-stan I will say I don't know, do you.


There was even singing. But he was propelled from businessman to the


frontline. His proposed 9-9-9 tax plan, along with debate


performances confirmed him as the Republican front runner, he briefly


led President Obama in the polls. A stellar record had made his name.


Herman Cain grabbed the opportunity to turn around two floundering


businesses. First, transforming the fortunes of 400 Burger King stores


in Philadelphia, from the least, to the most profitable in the company.


Before saving Godfather's Pizza from bankruptcy. Initial low Cain


managed to dismiss those who criticised his lack of political


experience, he, he said, was part of the solution, and professional


politicians, part of the problem. But ultimately, uncomfortable


allegations of sexual harassment tightened the noose around his name.


The charges and accusations are absolutely rejected. They simply


didn't happen. Finally, in December last year, off the back of sliding


poll results, in spite of his numerous public denials of


wrongdoing, Cain announced he was suspending his run for the


presidency. With a lot of prayer, and soul searching, I am suspending


my presidential campaign. The Godfather of common sense fell


foul of what Thomas Jeff son dubbed the painful and thankless office,


before even assuming the office himself. Leaving others to fight it


out for the White House. In his first interview as the former


candidate for the Republican party presidential campaign, Herman Cain.


Did you enjoy your runnout for the presidency? I did enjoy it, the


best part was the feedback and response of the people, and


secondly, their response to the bold solutions that I presented as


part of my campaign. But I did enjoy it. You sounded pretty bitter


when you quit? I wasn't bitter, I was angry, because the false


accusations could not be proved, and how do you prove you didn't do


something, or that you weren't somewhere that someone said. The


bottom line was, it was my word against someone else, and they had


absolutely no proof. That was the part that angered me. I might add,


that I was going to stay in the race. But because of the coverage


of the false accusations on the part of the media, it was causing


undue pain on my wife and my family. And I made a decision, family first,


rather than stay in, and allow them to continue to present these


accusations as if they were true, when in fact they were not. Why do


you think you couldn't cut it in that race? On the contrary, I did


believe I could cut it in that race. I did believe my appeal to the


American people was number one. I proposed common sense solutions to


our problems. Secondly, I didn't speak in political speak, I had


specific solutions. I cut it in the race, that wasn't the issue, the


issue was the constant spinning and respinning of unfounded allegations


that became a distraction, not only to me and my campaign, but it


became very painful to my family. I wasn't going to put them through


that. What did you make of things like, you know, your boast that you


couldn't name the President of Uzbekistan, that was a pretty silly


thing to do, wasn't it? I don't think it was silly, I think it is


silly to ask a candidate to know the head of every small country in


the world, without some reference. I was driving home a point, that is,


you don't have to be an international expert, in order to


be able to make the appropriate decisions, once you have the right


information, once you have the right intelligence information, and


once you have an opportunity to analyse the situation. It is


impossible, Jeremy, to answer thousands of hypothetical questions


about hundreds of countries without knowing exact low what it is that


you are supposed to talk -- exactly what it is you are supposed to talk


about. I called those questions, "goch cha questions", I wasn't


going to worry about answering those questions. An American


President has to know that sort of stuff doesn't he? You don't have to


know the head of every state in the world, before you become President.


That was my point. Yes you would need to know it if it was a


relationship you were going to cultivate or analyse. But to pick a


random country and expect a candidate to know off the top of


his head is unrealistic. The thing is, the American people agreed with


me. When you say the American people agreed with you, you made a


distinction in one of your comments about how there was a political


class in the country, a media class, and then there was "the people",


can youamify that? Sure, the politic -- political establishment


has a certain tendency as far as candidates they want to support.


Secondly, the political class, just about everybody currently holding


office in Washington DC, including the President, they make decisions


and proposals to sustain the status quo. The media class cover politics


and everything else. They also sometimes are very biased in their


coverage of stories. They do, what I call, fly-spec everything you say


as a candidate, especially if you get the lead in some of the primary


results. Then the people are every day normal people, trying to take


care of their family, save for the kids education, they have a job and


working hard. They see in the United States Washington is broken,


it doesn't solve things, it continues to move problems down the


road, and secondly, we have a serious financial challenge that


right now they are not adequate low addressing. It sounds as if your


system is pretty broke? It is broke, that is the word I use when


decribing it to someone. When you have got a $16 trillion national


debt, and over $5 trillion occurring in the last three years,


we have a serious problem. We have a serious problem because we have


to borrow from other countries to service the debt. If you look at


the fact we are now spending $10 billion a day in order to be able


to just service the debt, we are broke, and we have a serious


financial issue. The Employment Minister has his work cut out these


days, trying desperately to restore some credibility to the


Government's work experience scheme. One company after another has


pulled out of the scheme, embarrassed by accusations that


unpaid work is being forced on to them with the threat of withdrawal


of benefits. The head of the chain greings invited us Gregg invited us


to look at how it works there. Look at the rather thing, expanding


business, creating jobs, no wonder the Government took comfort when


Gregg's bakery signed up to its work experience scheme. In these


unassuming offices in Newcastle, support can no longer be taken for


granted, posing a threat to a big part of the national welfare-to-


work programme. They have told us they have frozen the offer of


unpaid work placements, they may go further. There shouldn't be a


question about whether companies should be offering work experience


opportunities to the young unemployed, but inevitably, when


there is criticism, as a company you have to review the scheme and


decide if you still believe it is right for the company to offer


those opportunities to the young. We still believe very much in the


scheme, but there is one part of it the Government needs to review.


That is the part that if, having taken up a placement, somebody


decides they don't want to complete the placement, we don't feel they


should lose their benefits. Atticus tomorrow mer care, the usual


concerns about -- at customer care, the usual concerns about sandwich


deals, they have been overcome by customer complaints about the


scheme. It has put Matthew Nelson in a difficult position, he's in


the office that is handling the calls, despite being on a work


placement himself. It is his first sniff of a job opportunity since he


graduated from Newcastle University last summer. I'm getting the most


out of this, because I'm getting the experience, the company isn't


getting that much, other than the work I'm doing, they are not


getting enticements from the Government or anything like that,


or financial support, just for me to be coming here. Well just me


getting the experience is really helpful in my development, and


personal development. You think you are getting the most out of it?


Definitely, yes. Since last June, Gregg's has offered more than 40


placements, 14 have led to permanent jobs. The scheme is


voluntary, but if, after a week, a jobseeker pulls out, they risk


losing benefits. It is this threat that means future placements with


Gregg's, between 50-100 per yor, are all now at risk. -- a year, are


now all at risk. The company says it is very sad. Gregg's is very


positive about the scheme it says is helping young people, they are


waviering, -- wavering. The tide of public opinion is pushing a


Government policy dangerously close to the rocks. Other companies have


already jumped ship. While others, like Matalan, Argos, and now Greggs,


are taking to the lifeboats. For 19-year-old Daniel Kelly, the


scheme rescued him from unemployment. He has been taken on


permanently by Greggs, in the payroll team. When I signed up for


a wage, I signed up primarily for the experience, that is all I


wanted from it. You don't think people in your position are being


exploited? I think we have people currently on it, I'm working with


someone on the scheme, they love it, they don't think it is exploiting


people. It gives awe bit of purpose. It is something to wake up and do


in the morning. This is a recent edition to the chain, it might be


because the firm is growing that existing staff have no problem with


the idea of unpaid placements. think most people when they are


working here would see it from the positive and see them as another


member of staff, that is finding a different path into the company,


rather than anything negative. scheme, run through the Jobcentre,


first attracted big business, but now risks losing it under the tide


of bad PR. Greggs tells us the threat of job seekers losing


benefits was never explained. wasn't clear enough at the


beginning. Even now it is not clear just how many people have actually


been penalise Ford not completing their placement. So I think --


penalised for not completing their placement. It was always going to


be an issue that affects a very small number of people, and it


wasn't briefed very clearly as a big part of the scheme. It was


always intended to be for one or two individuals, if indeed it was


required at all. But that should have been much clearer and up front


with employers, at the very beginning. Tomorrow, the minister,


Chris Grayling, will meet employers like Greggs, to keep their support


he may have to sacrifice a central principle of the welfare-to-work


programme, that the unemployed must fully engage with it, or face


sanction. The Treasury has found �500 million


down the back of the sofa, well, it has stopped banks not paying �500


million in taxes. Barclays says it is perfectly happy to pay tax, it


had been planning to dodge. They hadn't done anything illegal, but


trying to avoid paying taxes when banks have had to be bailed out by


the taxpayer, at enormous cost, is about as popular as a flat lent man


in a lift. What were these schemes? There were


two schemes Barclays was use to go minimise tax bills. It was claiming


tax credits on a flow of income that hadn't been taxed in the first


place. The second one I will refer to a graph involving corporate


bonds, IOUs. This is when a company sells bonds in itself to the market


t promises to pay the market a certain amount of money by a


certain date, we will call that A, in terms of the source of money,


last December Barclays decided to buy some of those bonds back from


the market, which garn earned an amount of money called B, so B


minus A is a profit, under the old loophole not subject to corporation


tax, so they didn't mention anything to it. Of that lop hole,


it was closed yesterday, -- loophole, it was closed yesterday,


it was backdated to December last year. It applies retrospectively.


But I thought financial legislation wasn't supposed to apply


retrospectively? Normal low that is the case. The key thing is the --


normally that is the case. The key thing is the retrospective part of


it. There are groups out there saying doing it for that group, why


not for our group. One tax consultant said you only lose your


virginity once, so serious is the precedent. Overseas companies might


think they will invest in Britain because of the stable tax regime,


but nas not necessarily the -- that is not necessarily the case now.


The Treasury wants to yield �500 million, Barclays are in the


picture for �300 million, �200 million is unnamed. Will it be


named? We hope so, we think the Conservative chairman of the all-


party Parliamentary Committee on taxation, he will write to the


Chancellor, asking him, the Chancellor, to name these companies,


if the Chancellor can't, because they are on going cases, so he


can't, he says why don't you put it in the parliamentary record, in the


library, then we will get a look at the names, when the loopholes are


closed and the tax cases are closed too. That may take a year. David


Gauke, the Treasury minister, with responsibility for the tax system


is here. �300 million of it is Barclays,


�200 million is company else's liability, is that right? I think


what I should say, on the numbers, is that as far as this particular


scheme, the debt buyback scheme is concerned, if a bank or other


entity is engaged in it, they should notify HMRC, under the


disclosure of tax avoidance set of rules, and nobody else has. Are you


getting back �300 million or �500 million? There is an amount, which


we think is, if you like, the retrospective element, that has


already happened, which is coming from the one entity, for example,


Barclays, they have declared themselves it is them. The rest of


the calculation. I know it is complicated, but let me make this


point. The rest of the calculation is about behavioral r ral change,


and that may be -- behavioural change, and that may be some


entities or those who have already taken advantage of it. I'm being


slow, I expect, but the figure is �300 million, that is what Barclays


say they think they are on the hook for, the other �200 million is the


speculative thing? It is the estimate HMRC have made. These are


preliminary estimates, and they will have to be run past the budget


of -- office of budget responsibility. With future bank


activity, so. Why can't you tell us who you might think might owe the


money? There is only one entity at the moment we are aware of, that is


doing this. The only bank you know about doing this was Barclays, and


bark close say the extent of their liability is �300 million not �500


million. That is what they say. believe Barclays are on the hook


for the full �500 million. We think the �300 million is up to now, and


the �200 million is the future. We can get hung up on the two figures.


It is a lot of money? It is, this was a very aggressive scheme and we


have closed it down. This question of retrospective legislation, it


has been a principle of financial legislation in this country, has


had not, that it isn't retrospective. If you are going to


do it in this case, why don't you just declare that the rate of


income tax last yor, shouldn't have been what it is, it should -- last


year, shouldn't have been what it is, it should have been 7 %, you


can do anything? There is a concern about how retrospective legislation


is used, if you misuse it creates uncertainty. I would be the first


to argue that point. There are particular circumstances that apply


in this case. There are always particular circumstances, look at


the Vodaphone deal, and the Goldman Sachs deal, any of those? If you


look at this particular case, what you have got here is that you have


got a taxpayer, that has signed a Code of Practise, saying it will


not engage in aggressive tax avoidance activity. You have also a


particular area, Joe described it very well, the debt boyback


arrangements. Actually the previous -- buyback arrangements. The


previous Government in 2009 made statements and legislated in 2010,


to try to prevent abuse of that, and try to close a loophole. This


was an area, if you like, where there was a very clear sign, keep


off the grass, I think everybody knew that this was an area where


there had been a loophole, it was closed and, and nonetheless, one


taxpayer went back into this area, in a way that was very aggressive,


very contrived, and clearly against what the spirit of the law was.


won't be doing this against Vodaphone and Goldman Sachs or


anybody else on other arrangements? We would only use retrospective


legislation in exceptional circumstances, where there was a


very stkroing case, where it is very -- strong case, where it is


very artificial and contrived. might do it again? Nobody will Raul


it out. You have already said it is undesirable? It should only be used


in very exceptional cases. Treasury's enthusiasm for


maximising the tax makers motivated by the need to close a huge hole in


the public finances f that goal will be met the economy will have


to start growing. Today the cabinet met to look at the progress being


made to promote growth ahead of next month's budget. Our political


editor is here. What did they discuss? It was a review of the


growth review. A year ago they said we need measures to get this


economy going again, and three weeks away from the budget, they


had to say where have we got to, in the words of one Downing Street


person it is shaking the tree on existing measures, can we get more


out of them. What was most striking is it was what we call, blue-on-


blue, and yellow-on-yellow, across the benches sniping. It was a line


that William Hague pushed, but today the Prime Minister pushed it,


and it is this, at the moment some of the big infrastructure projects


and the big things making a difference to UK Plc, appear to be


blocked by EU rulings. Things people have been talking to me


about, the Porton Down in Cornwall, if it got off the ground it would


be big. In other parts of the country they don't talk it as


gospel and sometimes they ignore them. The Prime Minister and the


Environment Secretary, who has to lock at things like the EU Habitats


Directive, says if there is a balance of risk and you might get


something from it, go for it. It is extraordinary for the Prime


Minister to say let's not err on the side of caution. Anybody else?


Ken Clark, the Justice Secretary, weighed in on business, he made an


intervention saying we are not doing enough for small businesses,


which we know. Banks aren't lending to them, he said, there is too much


red tape, how it was relayed to me is this is a guy, former Chancellor


from pre-1997, who had there not been a coalition, he would have


been the Business Secretary. It was interpreted as a shot across Vince


Cable's Boug h, and some would say he's a Chancellor not that keen on


business. The Chancellor wanted to know what was happening to another


controversial piece of legislation, another things causing problems is


how they are reforming planing. They think if they can unclutter


the planing system they can get growth going. He wants to know from


the community secretary if he will go forward on this. The National


Trust hate it, we need the Government response. Pickwick said


they will come forward with something -- Pickles said they


would come forward with something. This time last night, the City of


London police were readying themselves for removing the Occupy


London Protest from outside St Paul's in London.


There ain't no more # You have taken everything


# My belief in mother earth # Can you ignore


# My faith in everything # Away away


# And don't say neighbour Manage you will try


# Come up and see me Tuesday was a very cloudy but


exceptionally mild day, particularly across the north and


east. Keeping the cloudy mild conditions on into Wednesday, most


of us will start off with rather grey and overcast skies, things


will tend to brighten up into the afternoon. The north-east of


England will be favoured, seeing some decent breaks in the cloud.


Where we get these temperatures will lift to 14 degroos, that will


feel pleasant in the sunshine. We could see limited brighter spells,


the best of the breaks in the cloud are likely further west. A much


sunnier day for South-West England, Wales, the West Midlands and on


towards Greater Manchester, sunny spells reaching 11-13. In Northern


Ireland a similar day to yesterday, rather cloudy but a few brighter


spells. Western Scotland keeps the blanket of cloud, with a few spots


of rain over the western hills. East of the Grampians sunshine into


Aberdeenshire, it won't be as toastie as it was on Tuesday.


Staying rather cloudy for most of us, particularly into the morning.


Things turning a little bit brighter, in the London area,


temperatures cooling off a touch as we go into Thursday. That is not


just for London, it is a trend as we go on through the latter stages


of this week, across much of the country. For Thursday a good dole


With Jeremy Paxman. Following on the breast implant row, Newsnight investigates artificial hips accused of harming patients. Plus an interview with Herman Cain, the Washington outsider who was until recently running for President of the United States.

Download Subtitles