28/02/2012 Newsnight

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