04/07/2012 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



More and more of us are living longer and longer, some one has to


pay for T I mean I have lived in my house for 30 years. I can't bear


the thought of losing it. But, I'm going to have to. Should we expect


older people to look after themselves, or is it the duty of


younger tax-payers to support more and more pensioners? Between them,


these people have lived almost 1100 years. They face the minister, a


spring chicken at 56, a chit of a policy wonk, whose taxes support


them. And a man who embarked on a new career hosting countdown at the


age of 67. We test drive a mobility scooter. It is a bit slow, can I


make it go faster. The boss of Barclays faces angry MPs. With


respect, for the third time, what month did you discover the low-


balling was going on, give me date. This month. As late as this month.


And lives to tell the tale. Who can find out precisely who was


in on the scam? And the minister's also going to


tell us why he finds this formula intoxicating.


The days of our years are three score years and ten, the Pamist


tells us. Except, they are increasingly more than, that and


some how it all has to be paid for. Sooner or later, and it is already


much later than they told us it would be, the Government will have


to come up with some ideas. Why should old people expected to pay


for themselves, why should young people work to care for them. Why


should relatives bail out the taxpayer by unpaid caring. What is


the point of extreme old age, any way. To get some clues, I have been


in Christchurch Dorset. Welcome to the town that turned


grey. There are plenty of wore places to


see out your days, and out of every three people in Christchurch, one


is already over 65. It is the highest proportion in Britain, and


it is growing. People with a past are Britain's future. The high


street has changed, the present customers don't come for board


shorts, but they still like a bit of sparkle. They still like to


motor with the roof down. There isn't a roof, and the top speed is


eight miles an hour. Indicators, brake lights, suspension, there is


even a clock, a temperature gauge. Go-faster-stripes on them or


anything like that? No, no-go- faster-stripes! Spoilers. Have you


had cases of old people racing each other in them. Do you need a


license to drive them? There is no legal requirement for a license.


How do you know you are not setting it to a hooligan old person. It is


slow, can I make it go faster. Oh! Whoops! Ha ha! I wouldn't trust me


on one of these. It is not very interesting as a


ride. It would make a difference if Over 85s are the fastest-growing


sector of Britain's population. It is reckoned most of us can expect


to have to care for an old person at some time in our lives. Looking


after people who a generation or two would have been dead k dominate


people's lives. At the very point when they might have been expecting


to put their feet up. Mary is 60, when she was born, her mother, Rose,


did everything for her. Mary grew up and looked after herself, her


mother is now 89, and in the grip of dementia, and now Mary does


everything for her mother. What would happen to your mother if you


weren't there to look after her? She would probably have to go into


a home. Do you resent her? You would lead a different life if you


weren't caring for your mum? Yes, I do sometimes, there is no doubt


about that. Then I feel really guilty, when I look at her at times.


She doesn't really want to be like this. Had she to look at herself


when she was 60, say, and think, that's what I'm going to become,


she would be horrified. You are in that position, you are about 60?


Yes, I'm 60. You look at your mother and you can see the future?


That is terrifying to me. Unpaid carers save the taxpayer hundreds


of millions each year. But not enough. When the proportion of old


people gets this high, it becomes unsustainable. In the high cliff


area of Christchurch, seven out of ten people are over 60. The Local


Government Association is warning that within 20 years tax-payers


will have to find another �12 billion a year to look after the


elderly. Already councils are struggling. Dorset County Council


says it spends 44% of its budget on adult social care, which means cuts


elsewhere. It means if we are taking up more


and more of the expenditure of the county against a smaller budget,


there is less available for other services across the county as well.


Either you spend the money on old people or something else. The


problem here is worse than in most places, isn't it? Yes, because of


our demographic. We have a large proportion of older people wrecks


attract people who retire here, a beautiful place to be. They retire


very independent, and haven't thought through the costs of their


care, as they become less independent in perhaps 20 years


from the time they retire. There is an alternative. Dorset


County Council only runs one of the care homes in town. There are


another 10 residential or nursing homes. They are private enterprise,


and they don't come cheap. At lunch they get a choice of food,


and a glass of sherry. The average age of the residents is 85, and no-


one stays longer than four years. This place, I think, is absolutely


wonderful. How long have you been here? I have been here nearly a


year. I have been here a few weeks. Do you like it? Yeah, it is very


good. I haven't a clue what I pay, the family deal with it. I can tell


you it is a lot of money, it is averageing out at �1,000 a week.


Sorry? Didn't you know that. didn't know that. What happens


really now is that my pension just about balances what I have to pay


here. Ken is lucky, death is a certainty for all of us, but not


extreme old age. Jill Park was a fitness instructor for 30 years, at


70 she was diagnosed with what turned out to be terminal cancer.


Who would have thought with my life I would have ended up like this. It


is the last thing I would have dreamt of. My house obviously will


have to be sold. The proceeds of that house will go to pay my keep


here. Which is, again, not what I planned. I have lived in my house


for 30 years. I can't bear the thought of losing it.


But, I'm going to have to. They used to say that life is what


happens while Urbisy making other plans. So too is death. If we


cannot or will not provide for ourselves, -- while you are busy


making plans, so it death. If we can't or will not provide for


ourselves who will while we face our ever lengthening days.


When we talk to our guests, and put their concerns to the minister. It


is time to look at the statistics, stark, heading our way, all with


enormous price tags. Allegra Stratton presents them.


They have never had it so good. The 60s generation, who didn't pay


to go to university, and who bought their own homes when they were


cheap. Now they are paying very low interest rates on those homes, that


is if they haven't paid off their mortgages already. Equity, thought


to be tied up in their properties, is valued at around a trillion


pounds. And then, when they retire, they will be last to retire on


final salary pensions. Of this Government's combined tax and


benefit changes, pensioners have lost less on average than either


working-age families with children, or those without. Mrs Morris can


only afford to heat one room, she's confined to a makeshift bed. It was


not always like this. Benefits like the Winter Fuel Allowance, were


brought in to tackle serious pensioner poverty. I can't afford


to have it on all the time. In the 1980s and 1990s, reaching old age


had often meant penry, that is not the case now. Frrb figures looking


at income distribution, shows pensioner poverty at the lowest


level since 1984. But poverty for working-age households without


children is similar levels to those in the 1970s. While we are


associate somewhere like Carnaby Street with young people,


frittering away their salary, research during this recession has


found it is the over 65s who have carried on spending, younger


households have cut back. If you were born between 1980 and 1990,


you don't need me to tell you you are facing a raw deal. Graduate


unemployment is running as high as 20%. People wait until 40 years old


to get their first house, if you are lucky enough to save for a


deposit, the chances are these banks won't give awe mortgage. Why


can't this Government do something about it? While Labour's vote is


spread across the generation, the Tories peak with older supporters,


because they are more likely to vote, their effect for the Tories


is what pollsters describe typically as a double whammy. In


the last election the over 65s formed 40% of the turnout in 102


constituencies. But Ian Duncan Smith believes the Conservatives


have to pledge change at the next election, he believes they have to


go into 2015 pledge to go scrap universal benefits for all but the


poorest pensioners. It might not sound like a vote-winner, but it


shouldn't be a vote-loser, senior Conservatives don't think that


Labour can go against that. There are shades of grey to this debate,


pensions are seeing meagre returns. But sources indicate after the next


election they will ask more of this grou. Baby-boomers may never again


have it so good. The Government minister, Willets, is here to ask


questions from our audience, who range in age from 60-91. Nick Hewer,


from The Apprentice, has just finished making a film about old


people. And our token young person tonight is Ruth Porter from the


Institute of Economic Affairs. Let's start with you Ruth, do you


think there are benefits and entitlements that older people


should give up? I think there are. We are in extremely difficult


situation at the moment. We have got a situation where we have


promised our old age provision on taxpayer subsidies, we can't afford


that any more. We need to look at moving to situation where people


fund their old age more and more through direct payments. It will be


a long transition, but one we need to make. We have had successive


Governments who have stood up at election time, successive parties,


and they have promised reckless spending they couldn't afford. At


the next election, it is not going to be credible for people to stand


up and say we can still afford to give Winter Fuel Allowance to


millionaires. Do you think that you should and can give up some


entitlements, can't you? No, we cannot give up any entitlements. As


workers, when we were working, we paid into the tax system. We paid


into the tax system, we supported our families, we made a


contribution to the society, to our families and friends. You think it


is an entitlement which has to be honoured, indefinitely? Yes,


indefinitely. I do not think that having worked as long as we have,


having made a contribution, and we are still making a contribution, we


still making a contribution to the country, through taxation, pensions


are taxed. Through voluntary work that we do, through our care that


we gave to our families, our friends, our spouses, and our


spending power. We are putting money into the economy. Do you


think there is any entitlements that old people have that they


should give up? None at all. Once do you that, you're actually asking


people to give up, and turning around the Government saying, there


are rich people, or well-off pensioners. As far as I'm concerned


no pensioner is well-off, what they have worked for, they have worked


for all their life, all their working life. To get something back.


And remember, what they put in, they are not asking for hand-outs.


Means testing was what this Government and other Governments


want to put forward, straight away, if you start taking away from this,


remember, 11 million old age pensioners, by the year 2020 it


will be 14 million. One in ten votes will go up the creek for any


party coming into power. Let's leave aside the blackmail argument!


Let's stick with the moral one for now. What do you think about


universal benefit, entitlement for every person over the age of 60, or


whatever it is, to get free transport, or Winter Fuel Allowance,


that sort of thing? Well, the most important contributing benefit, of


course, is the basic state pension. Everybody understands how that


carries on. We made a clear commitment in our manifesto, on


these other special payments, to keep those. We are going to stick


by that pledge. More widely, I think older people do make a


contribution, the question is getting the balance exactly right.


One form of contribution older people make, of course, is many


pass on money to children and grandchildren. There has been one


calculation that pensioners already provide more cash to grandchildren


than the total value of child benefit. So there are all these


types of exchanges between the generations that already happen,


and a good thing too. Is there anyone here think there are some


things they are entitled to that they could give up, you do Sir?


much more ambivalent about some of the flat-rate benefits. Frankly,


even though I'm basic rate taxpayer, since I took early retirement, I


can afford transport cost, I don't need a free bus pass, I could also


do without the Winter Fuel Allowance. I would want something


in exchange, I would want some incentive that would allow me to do


part-time work, and contribute tax in that way. That would be a fairer


system than flat-rate benefit. Do you have a Freedom Pass? What is


that? The free transport? No. it absurd that someone like, or


someone like me, is offered such a thing? I think those that really


don't need it can well afford to do without it, should just not take it.


Absolutely. Go on? Can I say something. Yes. I think that those


benefits should be liable for tax. Now, if you are at the lower end of


the spectrum, existing on �107.45 a week, you have enough tax allowance


to cover that, you would still get those benefits in full, if you are


at the higher end of the tax allowance, it would probably be all


swallowed up in tax. So that would be the fairest way. If you are


going to look at every pensioner and see whether they are rich or


poor, you are going to have to employ an army of civil servants to


sort it out. Which is going to cost a lot more any way. That, to me,


would be the fairest means, and if it meant I have to pay a bit more,


I get an extra pension, I get a police pension. If it means I have


to pay a bit more, and my fellow pensioners are not stuck indoors,


on tranquillisers, because they haven't got a Freedom Pass, I'm


more than happy to pay it. Can you guarantee that everyone who is


currently entitled to a Freedom Pass will continue to remain


entitled to it? We made a clear set of commitments in our manifesto,


and we are going to stick to those. We have also already done things


that have tried to ensure fairness between generations. Nobody has yet


mentioned the fact that we are speeding up the increase in the


pension age. So the age that you have to reach before you start


collecting your pension. That has gone up. That is after the next


election, isn't it? We are speeding up that process. That, I think


people have by and large accepted it. Although it was controversial,


I think the Chancellor was absolutely right to say we should


have all the same income tax allowance. He has brought up the


income tax allowance for people who aren't of pension age. We are


trying to get this balance right. But it is tricky, in the process we


have got to honour the pledges we have made. We will do that.


Not only do people have to wait longer, for their pensions, they


have to pay more into it. So there is a double jeopardy there. And


also, if I might take you back to your introduction, when you said


that should younger people work to pay income tax to keep older people


going? We paid income tax when we were at work, what's happened to


that money? We took care of the pensioners when we were at work.


There were fewer of them, you are all living too long? At what age


would you like us to lay down and die. Successive Governments have


been mooting this. Do you accept it is a growing cohort of people?


may be the case, but we're still paying income tax. We are


contributing in so many other ways. Why are we being penalised, why are


we being denied things. There is talk about taking away the Freedom


Pass, yet on the other hand we are being told we have to contribute to


the Big Society. Without the Freedom Pass, we would not be able


to get around to all the meetings and the support that we give to


other people. Are we expected to pay out of our pockets to do what


the Government is asking us to do. There is a lady behind you pretty


agitated? Can I say, first of all, with a great deal of regret, that I


think the presentation so far has been very unbalanced, and the


platform is not balanced. We should have had an expert who would be


able to counter the arguments of the first clip we USA that is one


thing. But the question is how do other -- we saw, that is one thing.


But the question is how do other countries afford it, there are 157


countries in the world, this country, the sixth-richest in the


world, is fourth from the bottom in terms of state pension provision.


If other countries can afford it, so can we. We are still a very rich


country, and I'm still paying taxes. The whole thing is really absolute


nonsense. It is a question of political will, in the same way as,


in 1948 it was a question of political will when the deficit


that we hear so much about, after World War II, was bigger than it is


now, and yet we managed, from scratch, to produce the welfare


state, and the fantastic NHS that has now being taken away from us.


What reassurance can you offer a voter like that? In my experience,


all voters understand that we have obligations to each generation. It


is a matter of getting the balance right. Of course we have a great


obligation to pensioners, but we also have an obligation to young


people, not loading them with the cost and servicing and financing of


the debt we leave behind W if we leave behind thrillions of debt,


they will be paying taxes for decades to service the borrowings


we have taken on. We have an obligation to the younger


generation as well. In my experience older people understand


that, we understand older generations paid for us when we


were younger and we have an obligation to younger generations


coming after us. What about the moral argument, anyone want to


engage about it, why younger people, your children and grandchildren,


people that have generation, should pay to keep you in the entitlements


that you currently have? I believe that, at the moment, older people


are being made to work far longer. Because the state pension, that has


been pointed out, is so low, people have to carry on working. I don't


think at the moment having all these older people working for


longer and longer, is really in the interests of the community as a


whole. I think, when we have got mass unemployment among our young


people, and we are forcing our older people to carry on longer and


longer working, a lot of people carry on working because they have


to, because you can't live on the state pension. If that is your only


income. And now we are being told, no, you can't retire, as I did, at


60, and men used to at 65, it is going up, it is going to be 67 and


68, we hear 70, more than 70. We have all these young people with no


jobs, and we are keeping our old people in jobs, and we are


depriving our young people. It just seems to be completely on its head.


You have just been doing a programme about this, this question


of retirement. Do you see any point in a retirement age? The point is,


that a child born today will be 77 before the state pension kicks in.


And what we did on that programme, the town that never retired, we


took 14 pensioners and put them back to work, we put plasterers


back to work at 75 and joiners and plumbers, in the Arctic conditions


of a winter in Preston, on an open building site, because that is what


is going to have to happen. Because a great slab of society have never


earned enough in their working life to put something aside for their


old age, and they rely on their pension. If you want to see, or do


I want to see my father, as it were, at 75, up ladder, plastering a


ceiling. As a son, I would prefer to pay more tax so that he didn't


have to do that. And remember, the son, will be old too one day.


He will be the begin fishry it was the most extraordinary experiment -


- beneficiary, it was the most extraordinary experiment, these


older people had such pride in their work, it was extraordinary,


but they couldn't physically do it. You are assuming that technology


will stay the same in 20 years time, it is not. They will be building


houses in quite a different way. There is gentleman behind you?


would like to put a word in for the millions of people, of pensionable


age, who are still working and want to do so. If you're fit. You want


to work? I'm still working full- time. How old are you? If you are


fit and healthy, why not carry on working, it has benefits to


yourself, and the community, and if you still have an active role in


life you are going to live longer, happier, healthier and be less of a


burden on the state. So I would say for those people who want to work,


beyond the pensionable age, let them work, and let's remove this


prejudice against older people. have got rid of the retirement age


last year, no longer can anybody be forced to retire, Jews because of


their age, and a good -- just because of their age, and a good


thing too. Absolutely right. There is a conventional expectation?


There is no legal basis for that expectation. One of the things we


will have to expect when we get older is more of us will have to


work longer. We can't have the same period of working life and a longer


and longer time in retirement. Judges can work until they are 70s,


is it reasonable for manual labour, digging ditches, it is already


sitting here on high salaries with hand made shoes, but others don't.


There is less andless work like, that but there is evidence older


people carry on working and they should have the right. I want to


represent -- ask the representative of one of the generation that might


have to work for a lot longer. What does it mean to you with older


people going back into the work place? The fundamental issue is


people were told the amount of money they were paying into the


system was enough to care for them when they retired. And that hasn't


been the case. For younger people who are working, and for older


people who continue to work, they are, in a sense, facing a double


whammy. They are supporting, and topping up, the money for those who


are now in retirement, but at the same time, they are now looking to


the future and thinking, gosh, in 2050 we will have double the number


of people over 65 that we have got today. We need to be looking at


saving. A lady raised the question before, what are other countries


doing? If you look at some of the things other countries are do


places like Australia have moved from state pension system to a


compulsory savings system that can give you more flexibility in terms


of when people do retire. This very big cost of social care, in other


words, homes, effectively, when exactly are you going to tell us


what your proposals are. You keep on saying it will be very shortly,


and then a bit longer and a bit longer? I can assure you it will be


very shortly Next week? I don't know exactly how many weeks, we


have made it absolutely clear we will publish a draft bill on this


publishing our White Paper. We do want to work with other parties, to


try to agree a long-term settlement. Why is it taking so long to work


out? Because it is a very tricky issue. We saw with the emotions we


saw in the film earlier, we know people feel intensely about staying


in their own home wrecks need an affordable system. -- We need an


affordable system. I have a question about free travel, it


shouldn't be called that. The Government pays local authorities


�120 million a year to pay for that travel, pensioners contribute for


working for nothing, either looking after their grandchildren, a loved


one, �40 billion, not million, �40 billion a year, we save this


country. Let's look at the broader question of social care, the lady


you saw in the film, very upset that she was having to sell her


home, in order to pay for her care. She has very bad cancer, and she


needs proper care, she can't live at home. Is there any reason why


she shouldn't have to sell her home? I think so. If we get away


with the loophole that let's people in this country get money paid into


offshore accounts so they don't pay tax, that would cut our deficit


straight away. Pauline Turner, you sold your mother's house? Yes I did,


my mother has been in a care home for four-and-a-half years. I bought


a care package in case everything happened to me I wanted to make


sure she was taken care of. So far it has cost �96,000. What I wanted


to ask Mr Willets, is the Dilnot Commission going to be included in


this White Paper. Because it is so important, these are the only


people that have come up. This is the inquiry into how you fund long-


term care when you are old? It is much fairer than what we have now


my mother, in a way, she has Alzheimer's, so she doesn't know


what's happened to her mother. report was an excellent report,


Andrew Dilnot. I had input in that too. It is great report. Andrew is


a complete expert on this, but it does come with quite a high cost up


front, the Government has to look at whether that can be afforded and


how we pay for it. We do want to work to find a solution between the


other parties. Social care has always been the Cinderella of the


NHS. That lady who spoke earlier, none of the councils ring-fence


their money for the elderly. None of them. And also, let me point out


too, that where my mother lives, her costs this year went up by 5%.


What KCC paid for their hom people is 1.5%, self-funders are


subsidising councils. If you could ensure people there was a maximum


bill they could face, it might give them more confidence to say. We


understand that argument. What does a person do who is in my position,


I was perfectly fit in 2003, I came home from work, within a few


seconds, I just literally, quicker than you can turn a page on a book,


or turn off an electric light, collapsed on the floor. I was on


the floor for 72 hours. Until I was picked up. I had to literally pull


the telephone off the wall. But I can't meet my current accounts.


Because I'm simply not getting the support that I feel, with many


others, that we need. Do you own your own house? No, I don't. What


sort of comfort can you give? don't know the detales of your


personal circumstances. Every person in Government understands


absolutely we have obligations to people who have suffered personal


misfortune of the type you describe. But equally we have obligations of


people across the ages. We can't get into a mind set where it is one


generation against another generation. The best way to ensure


that we carry on standing by our older citizens, to whom we have an


obligation, is to ensure that the younger generation as well think


they are getting a fair deal, that we have also discharged our duty to


them. The Government believes in fairness to beginlation racial --


generations. Then we can keep the show on the road. Can we explore


that issue, responsibility to coming generations? I think that


the emphasis has been so much on that rich and poor that matter.


There is a study carried out in Europe, it is called the European


Pensions Barometer Report, which I would like a comment on from the


reporter, which shows that of the countries across Europe, Britain


has a very high ranking for being able to afford, this is pensions,


it would also apply to care, that has the lowest pension, and it also


has the very high ranking for sustainability. Do you feel a


responsibility towards younger generations? We're doing it for the


younger generations. You are doing what for them? This is from the


National Pensioners' Convention, which has a lot of information that


could have clarified a lot in your initial introduction. I'm just


saying is the minister not ashamed, that in Europe we have the


capability, high-ranking capability, but the failure to even make the


pension at a decent rate. You have your hand up? I am right


with you on this. The lady who spoke earlier, you seem to be


avoiding a lot, there are many, many young people out of work. Some


of them have been out of work so long they have never worked. There


will be more of them out of work if older people are in work? These are


our children and great-grand children and our families, the


rights we have we want them. To the Government should be putting money


into getting our young people working. And it is a point about


these people, these huge companies who owe billions in offshore


accounts, you can't just leave it alone, why aren't you, in the


Government, recovering that money? Do something about it, because


that's what is causing the deficit. It is not young people being lazy


causing it, it is not people living too long, which I find obscene that


you, it is something to rejoice that people are living longer.


course we have to extract a fair amount of tax from banks. There is


notes a pot of gold at the end of the garden to solve our sole fiscal


problems. There is a huge amount. Give him a chance to speak? We are


investing in young people's work, we have a huge number more of


apprenticeships. We want to get the balance right, so we can stand


beside the obligations to older people and standby opportunities


for younger people. We will cut it there. It promised to be something


of a spectacular, one of the most unpopular many in Britain facing a


mob of politician, eefpl more than willing to cast the first stone.


When Bob Diamond, the ousted boss of Barclays, popped up before the


Treasury Select Committee, we didn't learn a whole lot more about


how his bank rigged interest rates. Instead of asking difficult


questions, the MPs did what they are used to doing, and made


speeches. Tomorrow parliament will decide whether the scandal should


be investigated by another bunch of politicians for a judicial inquiry.


American Bob Diamond has probably had better 4th of July, like the


4th July 1996, the day he joininged Barclays. There was no -- joined


Barclays. There was no celebrations today as he arrived at the British


seat of power to defend his history. First thing you need to know about


Bob, he's a man in love. I love Barclays. David I love Barclays.


love Barclays because of the people. And you know what, Barclays loved


him back, paying him more than �120 million since 2005. A sum with


which he could have, if he wanted, hired a Barclays-sponsored bike in


London for two-and-a-half million years. The Barclays LIBOR scandal


fits rather neatly into three parts, the first has to do with the period,


2005-2007, when, traders working for Barclays sought to manipulate


the firm's LIBOR submissions, in order to make money. Not


surprisingly, Mr Diamond told MPs today that he didn't think this was


acceptable. I got physically ill, it is reprehensible behaviour, and


if you are asking me should those actions be dealt with? Absolutely.


While Barclays traders were trying to pump up the LIBOR rate, Bob, you


see, knew nothing about it. Despite the fact that the pumpers worked


for him. Well, love can sometimes be blind. MPs were, well, let's say,


sceptical. You didn't know anything about that, yet the regulator can


document a trader, sitting with a submiter, and shouting across the


room, "I'm going to, this is the rate we are going to declare, does


anybody have a problem with that?" I don't expect you to look at all


the e-mail, but did you run such a firm that nobody in the firm would


think that's something the boss should know. Because this is


crucial, this is the integrity of the bank? Again, George, this was


reprehensible behaviour. I know that. I know that Mr Diamond. I


know that, but I'm asking. Did nobody, what kind of firm were you


running? The second part of the scandal relates to the period 2007-


2008, by now the credit crunch is really biting, and banks, including


Barclays, are finding it increasingly difficult and


expensive to borrow money. In theory, this higher cost of


borrowing should be reflected in higher LIBOR submissions, except,


managers at Barclays decided to underreport the rate that they were


borrowing at, in order to make the firm look stronger.


Mr Diamond was asked repeatedly when he came aware this under-Rowe


reporting, or low-balling was going on. What month did you discomfort


low-balling was going on? This month. As late as this month.


and this is rather confusing, Mr Diamond also told MPs that it was


common knowledge at the time that this low-balling of LIBOR was


widespread among other banks. There were, afterall, prominent reports


by US regulators and journalists. And yet, apparently, Mr Diamond


hadn't considered investigating whether it was happening at his


bank. The final part of this scandal


relates to late October 2008, by now, financial institutions all


over the world are going Bill belly-up. In Britain, the


Government has had to pump billions into HBOS and RBS. And there is a


phone conversation between Paul Tucker, deputy Governor of the Bank


of England, and Bob Diamond of Barclays. In which, according to Mr


Diamond's note of the conversation, Mr Tucker tells hims that his


company's LIBOR submissions don't have to be that high, in other


words, doesn't have to be truthful about the cost Barclays is having


to pay to borrow money. What is it you thought Mr Tucker wanted you to


do? He was pointing out the problem. I was pointing out the problem


wasn't with Barclays, but with other submissions. Sorry, that's


too shorthand to say it. As I said, I didn't take it as a directive, I


took it as either a heads had-up that you are high, or an annoyance


that you are high. What I said is, I don't have the note in front of


me, I said the reality is that we at Barclays are reporting the rates


at which we bore ro. It certainly appears, given the number -- borrow.


It certainly appears, given the number of institutions who are


posting below us, and getting money from the Government, that they


weren't potion at these levels. This is graph showing Barclays'


LIBOR submissions relative to the other banks. Higher before the


telephone call, and then, before you can say "double my bonus", the


Ayr comes out of Barclays submissions -- the air comes out of


bash clees submissions relative to those banks. As Mr Diamond left the


political row continued. In the phone call, apparently, Paul Tucker


said Whitehall wanted the figures down. Was that a LIBOR reference to


a minister. And Labour said only a judge-led inquiry the scandal


should do. The Government says parliament should investigate.


Tomorrow the Commons will vote on this.


In a moment we will hear from two members of the select committee,


the Labour MP, John Mann, and the Conservative, Andrea Leadson. What


did we learn today, Paul Mason? much, this man ran a bank that


broke the law. He claims he knew nothing about it. Nothing about it


all the, until a month ago. Now the chairman of that committee, Andrew


Tyrie, said, tonight, he thinks that claim is implausible. He says


he has evidence that the FSA were worried about dime at the moment he


was made CEO of Barclays. We will - - about the time that he was made


CEO of Barclays. We will find out about that later. The it wasn't the


usual stuff you get from the select committees, they were precise. The


committee, as a structure was not able to pin Diamond down. What is


the issue? The issue is, not did Gordon Brown or Ed Balls order


LIBOR to be rigged, or Tucker, actually, Diamond, you saw it there


rode back from any suggestion that was indeed the case. The question


is, why did Mr Diamond's underlings think they had been instructed by


the Bank of England, when he said he didn't instruct them. We just


cannot get to the bottom of that. Let me ask the two of you, you sat


and cross-examined this man, did you feel you got the truth?


definitely not. It was astonishing. It really felt as though he had an


agenda, he knew exactly how to bat us back. It was very hard to lay a


finger on him. Even when we asked incredibly direct questions, like


precisely when did he know about the LIBOR rigging, and he said last


month ta, made him physically ill. This is man who started life in


banking himself. Did you think that? He came into block everything.


And of course, we don't have access. He did it pretty confidently too?


We don't have access to the documents, we are trying to ask


questions, and he's simply saying, he doesn't know. Constantly's paid


an awful lot of money to know nothing about the bank he was


running. Interestingly, you worked with Barclays, I'm not saying you


are anything more than the fact that you have worked at Barclays.


Is it plausible that the boss of Barclays claimed to know of this


pratice going on in other banks, but not in his own bank? It is not


plausible. It is either unbelievable incompetence, or he


would have known about it. This rate is the very interesting


question of whether this sort of forum is likely to make any


progress in a detailed investigation. And the decision


about that has to be made, is it tomorrow in the parliamentary vote?


Tomorrow afternoon. What's your view about that? I would have an


independent judicial inquiry into this. And I would let it take its


time. Because the detail is everything. I would let our


committee get on with some of the policy issues, for example, whether


we should bring forward the Vickers recommendations. Which I think


partly emanate from this. These are bigger issues, that we could


appropriately deal with, but to have a judicial inquiry into this.


Will you hear from Paul Tucker? Certainly next week. It sounds as


if you booked him in? We two don't, but the word we get is he will be


there next week. What is your view about a parliamentary inquiry, or a


judicial inquiry, as John Mann wants? The issue of a judicial


inquiry is one of speed. If you get a good judge, they are likely to be


busy at the moment. They have to get a team and terms of reference,


they will be six weeks behind where the Treasury committee is now. I


think there is merit in thinking whether there is the expertise in


the Treasury committee, but there is plenty of people to go and sk.


If you set up an independent inquiry, you have problems with


underlaps and overlaps and who is investigating what. If it expands,


does their brief expand or our's. I'm not sure about an independent


judicial inquiry. Which way will you vote? For the Government's


proposal, for a parliamentary inquiry. Despite your experience


today when you didn't get to the truth? The point is Diamond is just


extraordinarily well briefed on how to prevar Kate. He just kept


talking about the culture. You are talking about this extraordinary --


you are just bad at cross-examining. Nobody is pursuing anything? We did,


but he's extraordinarily well- trained to going back to his


original case, he loves Barclays, it was fabulous culture with a few


bad eggs. You have to bear in mind the only documents we have, is the


handful of papers Barclays has sent us, and media articles. That is


what we are going on. We don't have access and we can't requisition the


documents from inside the banks. This is a huge scandal of fiddling


and corruption. Do you co-ordinate. Do you get together and say I'll do


this and you follow with that? Absolutely, of course we do. It is


not working very well? It is, if you go round what happened this


afternoon, we went very thoroughly through the three stages, the first


bit which was criminally negligent. Why didn't you get to the truth?


Because he is incredibly well briefed on how to prevent you


landing a punch. He is better briefed than you are? He's briefed


on how to not answer questions. What we failed to get from him was


a straight answer, what we need to do now is talk to people around him


and get answers from them. Are you shaking your head you don't agree


with it or have you something to say? I sat through the Barclays


conference call with Agius, where the Barclays institution refused to


answer questions about this. They said wait until tomorrow, and now a


man today, who doesn't work for bark closed circuit and no matter


how briefed he is, he doesn't want to sit on a programme here, not on


any of interest programmes or rivals. He does not feel


comfortable of answering the traditional journalist probing. Let


him come and answer. Nostradamus made no predictions for 2012, but


our science editor did. She said the discovery of the Higgs boson


would be announced this week, and lo, it came to past. As a layman I


would saying, I think we have it. You agree?


APPLAUSE So this means we are now much


closer to understanding how the universe works, if not Barclays'


precise role in it! By happy coincidence, David Willets, who we


were talking to earlier is also the minister for science, and escaped


his own select committee appearance today to hear the announcement.


What is so excite beg it? Did I go to the select committee as well, I


started the morning by discovering the secret of the universe, where


mass comes from, which is what the Higgs boson is about. It goes to


the earlier discussion, we are the beneficiaries of scientific


discoveries from previous generations. This is a very serious


discovery that we have made, that future generations will attribute


to us. That is one of the reasons why there is a link between these


things and as science minister you can help maintain T we are passing


on to new generations new discoveries and understandings of


the world, we can be proud of it. What is it, you can't see it, what


does it do? What it does. The fact that we have discovered that it


exists? You may need Brian Cox on this not me. The main thing is mass


is created when you hit a Higgs boson particle, that is where the


origins of mass are. They have been able to able to show how previously


where they weren't properly able to include mass in the standard they


are yum, it looks as if the -- therum, it looks as if there is now


empirical confirmation because they have discovered the Higgs boson


particles. That changes our lives does it? When they first discovered


DNA Watson and Ciark said it wouldn't change our lives --


couldn't have said it would have changed our lives. The answer comes


back from experts, in future things some of these discoveries we can


tax them. You will be able to tax mass? There will be future


discoveries drawing on this discovery. That's t Kirsty gets to


grips with the army tomorrow, one almost feels sorry for them, good


almost feels sorry for them, good Another warm and humid night. Grey


start for many on Thursday. But like the last few days, it will


brighten up. There will be some sunshine, but again, there will be


also some heavy and thundery downpours. Particularly by the


afternoon, across northern England. Again, some sunshine, will lift the


temperature noose the 20s. Parts of the Midlands, East Anglia and the


south-east, also likely to see a scattering of heavy downpours,


still very much hit and miss, not everywhere catching them. Large


parts of England staying dry. The showers here could be very


persistent. Generally dry and bright across Wales. A fresh feel


here with temperatures 17-18, the same goes for Northern Ireland.


Maybe a few more scattered showers, again some sunshine. North West


Scotland has enjoyed largely dry and fine conditions for the last


few days. Sunshine here, but the chance of one or two more showers


during Thursday, and showers also in southern parts of Scotland. By


Friday we are looking at wet weather moving across the country.


The likelihood of some very heavy rain lasting for a good part of the


day. Some uncertainty about exactly where. But there are warnings in


force already for the downpours, there is the real likelihood of


Download Subtitles