04/07/2012 Newsnight

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