:00:00. > :00:10.The row over HS2: Newsnight has obtained government figures which
:00:11. > :00:14.show some areas will be big losers if the scheme goes ahead. Aberdeen
:00:15. > :00:19.could lose up to ?220 million a year, Cambridge ?126 million a year.
:00:20. > :00:24.We'll hear from HS2's chief executive and from the Deputy First
:00:25. > :00:30.Minister of Scotland. Plebgate and Andrew Mitchell - a new
:00:31. > :00:32.twist tonight. We'll hear live from Warwickshire's Police and Crime
:00:33. > :00:34.Commissioner who condemns the Independent Police Complaints
:00:35. > :00:38.Commission for a "gross distortion of what actually took place."
:00:39. > :00:48.And Pussy Riot - the Russian protesters serving time in jail. We
:00:49. > :00:55.bring you extraordinary scenes from their extraordinary lives.
:00:56. > :01:02.Good evening. Like one of those magic cabarets where the audience is
:01:03. > :01:06.invited to pick a number - any number - the numbers to do with the
:01:07. > :01:09.costs and benefits of building a new high speed rail link are open to a
:01:10. > :01:13.lot of guesswork. But the government insists they have had the experts
:01:14. > :01:16.assiduously studying the case to build HS2. The accountants KPMG have
:01:17. > :01:20.concluded that it could be a ?15 billion-a-year boost to the UK
:01:21. > :01:23.economy. Now Newsnight, through a Freedom of Information request, has
:01:24. > :01:27.discovered that behind that national figure, cities from Cambridge in the
:01:28. > :01:30.East of England, to Bristol in the West and Aberdeen in the north of
:01:31. > :01:35.Scotland could suffer substantial losses from the scheme as currently
:01:36. > :01:47.planned. David Grossman has the story - and the figures they did not
:01:48. > :01:50.want to publish. No-one can accuse the people behind
:01:51. > :02:00.HS2 of being pessimists - glass half full doesn't come close: the HS2
:02:01. > :02:03.glass is brimming over. Last month the Transport Secretary unveiled a
:02:04. > :02:06.new study by the accountants KPMG, describing the fantastic benefits
:02:07. > :02:17.that they said would flow from the new line. High Speed 2 will make
:02:18. > :02:21.Liverpool stronger, Leeds stronger, Sheffield stronger, Birmingham
:02:22. > :02:32.stronger, Manchester stronger, Britain stronger. A ?15 billion
:02:33. > :02:34.annual boost to our economy. Unfortunately, nowhere in the
:02:35. > :02:38.58-page report - nor in its 34-page technical appendix - was there room
:02:39. > :02:44.to detail the towns and cities and regions across the UK that would
:02:45. > :02:47.lose because of HS2. But thanks to a Freedom of Information request, we
:02:48. > :02:53.can now reveal those figures - suggesting some places are going to
:02:54. > :02:57.lose big because of the new line. The study says that by the time HS2
:02:58. > :03:02.is built in 2037, there could be big losers right across the UK - every
:03:03. > :03:07.one of these red dots is a place losing money as a result of the new
:03:08. > :03:14.line. Now we can put figures to the dots. Cardiff could lose ?70 million
:03:15. > :03:18.every year. For Peter Brooke, ?66 million a year. For Bristol, over
:03:19. > :03:25.?100 million a year. Norfolk could lose nearly ?200 million.
:03:26. > :03:31.Cambridgeshire is set to lose ?235 million. Even Aberdeen's oil-fuelled
:03:32. > :03:35.economy is susceptible, apparently - it could lose ?220 million every
:03:36. > :03:37.year - that's 1.3% of its GDP. It is really disappointing to see a
:03:38. > :03:45.negative impact on the north-east of Scotland. Looking at further depth,
:03:46. > :03:50.it is compounded by negative, indeed relatively large impact on Dundee.
:03:51. > :03:56.When you put that together for the north-east, you're looking at a lost
:03:57. > :04:02.GDP of over ?330 million, which is significant to say the least. We
:04:03. > :04:09.showed the figures to economic 's confessor Henry Overman at the LSE.
:04:10. > :04:14.He used to be an adviser and he says it stands to reason that some
:04:15. > :04:17.locations will miss out. When a firm is thinking about where to locate it
:04:18. > :04:25.thinks about the relative productivity, the relative wages.
:04:26. > :04:27.HS2 shifts that around so if you are on the line and you get productivity
:04:28. > :04:31.improvement, that makes you a better place than somewhere off the line
:04:32. > :04:34.that has not happy productivity improvement. The other way in which
:04:35. > :04:40.it happens is that firms compete for business. So firms that are in
:04:41. > :04:44.Birmingham benefit from productivity increase and am or able to compete
:04:45. > :04:52.in the British market, and that gives them advantage to firms say in
:04:53. > :04:56.Bristol, that are not on the line. -- and are more able to compete in
:04:57. > :05:03.the British market. Business leaders and Cambridgeshire -- in Cambridge
:05:04. > :05:06.are sceptical that their specialist knowledge will be harmed by HS2 but
:05:07. > :05:12.they said investment could be better spent. Free review want to drive our
:05:13. > :05:15.economy forward in the UK, -- if we ready want to drive our economy
:05:16. > :05:18.forward, then what you should do is put that money into the really
:05:19. > :05:24.successful economies, like Cambridge. And make sure we have the
:05:25. > :05:29.infrastructure to be able to continue the kind of contribution
:05:30. > :05:34.that we make to UK plc. Could the damage to some parts of the UK done
:05:35. > :05:39.by HS2 really be as large as these figures suggest? Professor Overman
:05:40. > :05:43.believes not. He thinks both the positive and negative impacts of HS2
:05:44. > :05:50.are overstated by a factor of somewhere between four and six. If
:05:51. > :05:56.the projected benefits are ?15 billion a year, what do you think we
:05:57. > :05:59.should discount? I think the kind of benefits that they are trying to
:06:00. > :06:06.pick up here, I think the number would more reasonably be 2 billion
:06:07. > :06:11.to 3 billion. If I was off the line, even if I was on the line, my
:06:12. > :06:14.major worry would be, could we be spending 40 to ?50 billion worth of
:06:15. > :06:17.money on things that would achieve more benefit for the British
:06:18. > :06:24.economy, and I am pretty clear that the answer to that is yes. So far
:06:25. > :06:28.the debate around HS2 has been dominated by those near the proposed
:06:29. > :06:32.line who are concerned about damage to their communities, and those
:06:33. > :06:41.who. These figures could increase -- the
:06:42. > :06:45.release of these figures could increase the pressure on ministers
:06:46. > :06:50.to reconsider. Joining us now is Alison Munro, chief executive of the
:06:51. > :06:55.HS2 project. In all the 92 pages of the original KPMG report, you didn't
:06:56. > :06:58.give any figures for the places which would actually suffer annual
:06:59. > :07:09.losses. Why did you hide be bad news. We did not hide the bad news
:07:10. > :07:14.at all. We published a map and the numbers that you talk about other
:07:15. > :07:18.numbers that lie behind that map. We were quite open. We needed a Freedom
:07:19. > :07:24.of Information request to get these figures. You trumpeted these losses
:07:25. > :07:28.just the same as you trumpeted the ?15 billion that would benefit the
:07:29. > :07:33.economy? They were in the report that was published in September, we
:07:34. > :07:36.have not hidden that fact. I think this has been totally overplayed. I
:07:37. > :07:41.don't get one will truly expect, if you were providing a high-speed line
:07:42. > :07:45.which was a major north-south network, you would expect that the
:07:46. > :07:50.places directly on that network would benefit from the released
:07:51. > :07:56.capacity, those places would benefit most from that investment. You can't
:07:57. > :08:00.look at it in isolation. Are you saying that these figures were
:08:01. > :08:04.clearly printed in the report and you were delighted to the people of
:08:05. > :08:10.Kettering they could lose 2.3% of GDP, Suffolk West 1.4%. You told
:08:11. > :08:13.people that in the report? We published the map which showed the
:08:14. > :08:17.places that would win relatively and those that would not. We did not
:08:18. > :08:22.provide the figures, there is a lot of information in that report. The
:08:23. > :08:28.general picture was there for people to see. But not the figures? We did
:08:29. > :08:33.not provide the figures but if you let me finish, it is showing, I
:08:34. > :08:37.don't think it is a disappointing that the places on the high-speed
:08:38. > :08:41.network, the places that enjoy new services and released capacity will
:08:42. > :08:47.then fit most from High Speed 2. But High Speed 2 is not the only
:08:48. > :08:52.investment the government is making -- will benefit most from High Speed
:08:53. > :08:59.2. To be clear, you did not provide the figures. We did not. We have
:09:00. > :09:03.been entirely happy to provide the figures, we are not hiding anything.
:09:04. > :09:10.You're happy now to provide them, now that we have got them. We're
:09:11. > :09:14.absolutely happy to provide them. There is no secret, High Speed 2
:09:15. > :09:17.will benefit our major cities which are on the network and places which
:09:18. > :09:24.will also benefit from services on the existing light -- line that will
:09:25. > :09:29.get extra services. No one would expect High Speed 2 to deliver the
:09:30. > :09:32.same benefits in Cornwall as Leeds and Manchester. We are not arguing
:09:33. > :09:38.that but we would expect that someone engaged in a major project,
:09:39. > :09:43.spending ?50 billion of public money, would be open as to who will
:09:44. > :09:51.benefit and how much people will lose if they do not benefit. Yellow
:09:52. > :09:57.we published the map. If we go -- We published the map. Why should we
:09:58. > :10:03.believe any of the figures you have come up with, it is all voodoo?
:10:04. > :10:10.These are predictions we are having to make into the future. We have
:10:11. > :10:17.also calculate it in fits and costs of transport investment. Those don't
:10:18. > :10:21.-- calculated benefits and costs. You would expect to see a
:10:22. > :10:24.concentration of growth in the future in the areas served by High
:10:25. > :10:27.Speed 2. This is against the background when the economy will be
:10:28. > :10:31.growing, it is not that the other places are losing, they are not
:10:32. > :10:35.growing as fast as the places that will be served by High Speed 2. You
:10:36. > :10:38.are talking about High Speed 2 in isolation, the government is
:10:39. > :10:42.spending a massive amount of money to help other places. So for
:10:43. > :10:46.example, electrification of the great Western mainline will help
:10:47. > :10:55.Cardiff and Swansea. Electrification of the Midland Main to places like
:10:56. > :10:58.Corby. Massive -- Midland mainline. You can't just look at what is
:10:59. > :11:04.happening with High Speed 2 in isolation. What you can't do is put
:11:05. > :11:09.this question of connectivity in isolation. The KPMG figures assumed
:11:10. > :11:15.the transport connectivity is the only supply side constraints to
:11:16. > :11:20.business location, it is not. It recognises, if you read the report,
:11:21. > :11:24.it recognises the fact it is making that assumption. It is the wrong
:11:25. > :11:31.assumption because people move businesses due to Labour, whether
:11:32. > :11:35.they can build on land, so to make the assumption it is about
:11:36. > :11:41.connectivity is nonsense. It is showing the connectivity of --
:11:42. > :11:44.showing what the connectivity benefits could be. High Speed 2 is
:11:45. > :11:50.not going to solve every problem in the country but if those other
:11:51. > :11:53.factors are there, it shows the connectivity can bring really
:11:54. > :12:01.substantial benefits to the economy for the future. We need to remember
:12:02. > :12:05.the railways are becoming increasingly full. Unless we tackle
:12:06. > :12:10.the capacity on the railways, the economy will come to a halt. If we
:12:11. > :12:15.don't have the ways for people to get around, for businesses to do
:12:16. > :12:19.their business. We will have more lorries travelling on the road. We
:12:20. > :12:23.need to address the capacity issue. We will leave it there.
:12:24. > :12:27.Now, The Scottish National Party have been holding their annual
:12:28. > :12:30.conference in Perth today and shortly before we came on air, I
:12:31. > :12:33.asked Scotland's deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon what she
:12:34. > :12:37.made of those figures Newsnight had obtained. The figures I have seen
:12:38. > :12:42.that you are reporting tonight simply confirm and underline the
:12:43. > :12:45.view of the Scottish Government. HS2 will be stronger, the business case
:12:46. > :12:51.for it will be stronger if it comes to Scotland, if it links up Scotland
:12:52. > :12:55.and England. Also, the benefits to Scotland obviously require it to
:12:56. > :12:59.come to Scotland. That is why the Scottish woman is talking to the UK
:13:00. > :13:05.government make sure proper planning is being done -- that is why the
:13:06. > :13:13.Scottish parliament is talking to the UK government. Aberdeen could
:13:14. > :13:23.lose 220 million a year, 1.3% of GDP. Dundee and Angus, a loss of
:13:24. > :13:30.1.9%. Do you oppose it as currently planned, if it is not extended to
:13:31. > :13:35.Scotland? The figures we are seeing are of concern. These are figures
:13:36. > :13:40.that we have now seen but they back up what our concern has always been.
:13:41. > :13:46.If you have HS2 that only goes as far as the current plans, it would
:13:47. > :13:50.be to Scotland's disadvantage. That is why we are doing so hard and have
:13:51. > :13:57.been talking to the UK government, we are in the process of trying to
:13:58. > :14:02.finalise vans for a study to link in Scotland and England -- finalise
:14:03. > :14:06.plans. I think there is another important point, the business case
:14:07. > :14:12.for HS2 is stronger if it includes Scotland. We know the government
:14:13. > :14:14.south of the border is ready under pressure for people worried about
:14:15. > :14:18.the project and that it might be over budget, that it is not being
:14:19. > :14:22.managed as well as it could or should be. It is important they have
:14:23. > :14:27.as strong a business case as possible and it is stronger if
:14:28. > :14:30.Scotland is included. You were clear in what you were intending to do
:14:31. > :14:34.about any geek costs, you were planning -- about green energy
:14:35. > :14:51.costs. Isn't it taking it out of one pocket
:14:52. > :14:56.and giving it to the other? The announcement I made was about to
:14:57. > :14:58.specific components, helping energy efficiency and more vulnerable
:14:59. > :15:02.customers. The trouble with having these levied on the energy bill is
:15:03. > :15:05.that everybody, regardless of their income, regardless of their
:15:06. > :15:11.financial position, has to pay that. We know the people are feeling
:15:12. > :15:15.pressure from rising energy prices. If we take that out of the bill and
:15:16. > :15:20.fund the scheme centrally, we can cut the pain of the energy bills,
:15:21. > :15:23.but it also means we can better integrate and join up the energy
:15:24. > :15:30.efficiency schemes. But you'll raise taxes to do it. You have to find the
:15:31. > :15:33.money from somewhere. We are not proposing raising taxes. We will
:15:34. > :15:38.budget as we do for the existing commitments as a Scottish government
:15:39. > :15:44.to make sure we prioritise the energy efficiency schemes. You will
:15:45. > :15:47.cut something else? There will be other revenue sources that go to the
:15:48. > :15:51.Westminster Treasury that come to Scotland, the emissions trading
:15:52. > :15:54.scheme for example, so we can take budget decisions that allow us to
:15:55. > :15:58.prioritise the things that matter. The important points are that it
:15:59. > :16:02.will reduce the pain that people are feeling from energy bills, and 5%
:16:03. > :16:06.reduction energy bills will come, but it will allow us to have energy
:16:07. > :16:09.efficiency schemes and I will reiterate the point I was going to
:16:10. > :16:13.go on to make, that we fund those schemes to the tune of about ?80
:16:14. > :16:17.million directly from the Scottish Government and another ?120 million
:16:18. > :16:20.comes from the energy companies. That makes it difficult to organise
:16:21. > :16:24.and deliver the schemes as effectively and we would want to.
:16:25. > :16:30.This is a common-sense solution that people will welcome -- as we would
:16:31. > :16:34.want to. Another common-sense solution debated in Westminster day
:16:35. > :16:41.was whether we should put on another woolly jumper. What is your advice?
:16:42. > :16:45.As I understand it that comment came from Downing Street spokesperson,
:16:46. > :16:49.and that signifies a government that is deeply, deeply out of touch with
:16:50. > :16:55.the pain that people are suffering from energy bills that are going
:16:56. > :16:57.totally in the wrong. What we need are common-sense, level-headed
:16:58. > :17:00.solutions, which is why the announcement I made today would be
:17:01. > :17:04.welcomed across the board. Nicola Sturgeon, speaking to me from Perth
:17:05. > :17:19.a little earlier. In a moment, Pussy Riot.
:17:20. > :17:24.The row over who said what to whom in the Plebgate affair deepened this
:17:25. > :17:27.week after the Prime Minister suggested the former Chief Whip
:17:28. > :17:30.Andrew Mitchell was owed an apology. Three police officers from the
:17:31. > :17:33.Midlands who met Mr Mitchell after his row in Downing Street gave a
:17:34. > :17:37.public account of their conversation which was at odds with a recording
:17:38. > :17:40.made by Mr Mitchell. The Independent Police Complaints Commissioner waded
:17:41. > :17:42.in and questioned the integrity of the officers and whether they should
:17:43. > :17:45.be disciplined. Warwickshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Ron
:17:46. > :17:49.Ball told Newsnight on Wednesday that he wanted to get to the bottom
:17:50. > :17:51.of what had happened, and tonight we will see if he has done so. First,
:17:52. > :18:00.Zoe Conway reports. On Wednesday the never ending saga
:18:01. > :18:03.of Plebgate took a surprising turn. Deborah Glass, the Independent
:18:04. > :18:06.Police Complaints Commission, suggested that the police had
:18:07. > :18:10.changed its mind over whether to discipline police officers for being
:18:11. > :18:16.misleading about a meeting they had with Andrew Mitchell last year. She
:18:17. > :18:32.said in a letter to Warwickshire's Police and Crime Commissioner:
:18:33. > :18:37.this led to speculation that senior police officers could have
:18:38. > :18:47.interfered with the investigation and got the report changed. So why
:18:48. > :18:50.were there to different reports and why the apparent change of mind?
:18:51. > :19:01.This was the Commissioner two nights ago. When you say what happened,
:19:02. > :19:03.what do you mean? How they can come to contradictory conclusions and
:19:04. > :19:09.then apparently ignore the request from the IP CC to reconsider? Since
:19:10. > :19:12.I have had that information I have had nothing other than media
:19:13. > :19:15.interviews. I've not had the opportunity to talk to the Chief
:19:16. > :19:21.Constable about it. I most certainly will ask the question, the people to
:19:22. > :19:26.explain to me how the process happen. Since then he has been doing
:19:27. > :19:27.some digging. And he now says, in a statement written exclusively for
:19:28. > :19:55.Newsnight. So he has been able to prove what he
:19:56. > :20:01.said was true, and what the police officers said was untrue. The drama
:20:02. > :20:04.is far from over. The police are now reviewing their investigation, and
:20:05. > :20:07.the action returns to Westminster next week when senior police
:20:08. > :20:11.officers give evidence about Plebgate to the home affairs select
:20:12. > :20:15.committee. The Warwickshire Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Ball told
:20:16. > :20:20.us on Wednesday that he wanted to get to the bottom of what went on,
:20:21. > :20:22.and he joins us now. You said that the three police officers had caused
:20:23. > :20:25.considerable loss of trust and confidence in the police and they
:20:26. > :20:30.should reflect on this. What do you want them to do? What I want is for
:20:31. > :20:34.the truth to be out in all of this and for the public to know what
:20:35. > :20:40.happened, and to get a proper investigation done. Those three
:20:41. > :20:44.officers clearly, the view of the public is, they misled and
:20:45. > :20:51.misrepresented what happened in the interview with Andrew Mitchell. So
:20:52. > :20:55.should they apologise? The trouble with the word apologise is its
:20:56. > :20:59.almost use these days as a word or weapon to demean people. What I
:21:00. > :21:04.think is those officers should reflect on the fact that there is
:21:05. > :21:08.great reputational damage being done to the police in this country by it.
:21:09. > :21:13.There is great damage being done to their fellow officers, and, in my
:21:14. > :21:17.view, they should find some way of acknowledging that to the public.
:21:18. > :21:24.Have you got to the bottom of this? What did take place? Unfortunately I
:21:25. > :21:27.do not have all of the information today. I was hoping that by this
:21:28. > :21:31.evening I would have it. I've commissioned a report and I said I
:21:32. > :21:35.wanted it really quickly. It looks as though the complete report is
:21:36. > :21:38.going to be available on Monday, but there is enough information for me
:21:39. > :21:43.to be able to say that I am really concerned. You do seem to have
:21:44. > :21:48.enough information to condemn Deborah Glass. You said what she did
:21:49. > :21:51.constituted huge concern in publicly in questioning the integrity and
:21:52. > :21:57.judgement of senior officers, and perhaps it is her job to do that if
:21:58. > :22:00.she thinks they have failed. Provided it can be justified. The
:22:01. > :22:03.letter sent to me has left an impression. I have spoken to a
:22:04. > :22:08.number of members of the public to find out what their perception is.
:22:09. > :22:11.Sorry to interrupt, but their perception is interesting, but the
:22:12. > :22:16.people who know what went on presumably the Chief Constable. The
:22:17. > :22:21.perception is incredibly important. But you knew what the perception was
:22:22. > :22:30.on Wednesday. The question is what happened? Have you spent time with
:22:31. > :22:33.the Chief Constable to find this out? I haven't spent time with the
:22:34. > :22:35.Chief Constable because what I did was commission investigations. That
:22:36. > :22:37.is what is taking place at the moment. I want that information to
:22:38. > :22:41.be available for the home affairs committee when the officers can be
:22:42. > :22:44.grown. You are the Warwickshire Police and crime Commissioner, so
:22:45. > :22:48.people would think you should find it out and get on with it? That is
:22:49. > :22:53.what I am doing. I am setting in motion the investigation to be done
:22:54. > :22:56.as quickly as possible. There are three forces involved, so not
:22:57. > :23:00.unreasonably there needs to be communication between them. I want
:23:01. > :23:06.an accurate report, not a report in 24 hours that is misleading. I
:23:07. > :23:11.understand that, but on what basis can you say that Deborah class --
:23:12. > :23:15.Deborah Glass appears to have produced a gross distortion of what
:23:16. > :23:24.took place when you don't know what took place? I'm able to say that the
:23:25. > :23:29.letter she sent to me has been interpreted that everybody takes
:23:30. > :23:32.that that there was a report that recommended one thing, and senior
:23:33. > :23:36.officers intervened and changed it to come to a completely different
:23:37. > :23:41.conclusion, and there is no evidence to support that. There is evidence
:23:42. > :23:47.to support a different view. If that were true, if that assertion were
:23:48. > :23:50.true, why did Deborah Glass not do what she is perfectly capable of
:23:51. > :23:57.doing, which is take over the investigation? Why didn't she do it?
:23:58. > :24:00.The Independent Police Complaints Commission says that Deborah Glass
:24:01. > :24:04.did not suggest that senior officers had changed the statement, just at
:24:05. > :24:08.an earlier draft recommended misconduct. She is not impugning
:24:09. > :24:13.anybody there, that is the statement they gave. Very clever wording. Very
:24:14. > :24:19.clever wording. This is why I have done the survey as to what people
:24:20. > :24:23.think, and she is perfectly aware of the fact that out there a message
:24:24. > :24:28.that has gone, the thing that has done reputational damage, including
:24:29. > :24:32.to my chief officer, and she's perfectly happy for the view to be
:24:33. > :24:37.taken that senior officers intervened to change that report.
:24:38. > :24:41.There is no evidence of that. The fact they have said that to my
:24:42. > :24:44.justifies my stance on it. Thank you for joining us.
:24:45. > :24:49.The feminist band members Pussy Riot scandalised some in Russia, or, more
:24:50. > :24:52.accurately, in the Kremlin, with their protest activities, including
:24:53. > :24:56.in a church. They are now serving jail sentences. One of the band
:24:57. > :25:00.members was reported today to have been moved from a Corrective Colony
:25:01. > :25:04.outside Moscow to a new jail after a period on hunger strike. So who are
:25:05. > :25:05.these young women? Our colleagues on BBC Storyville have been finding
:25:06. > :31:13.out. And you can see the full 90 minute
:31:14. > :31:20.Storyville documentary on Monday night at 10:00pm on BBC Four. That's
:31:21. > :31:23.it for tonight. After hearing that members of parliament were not very
:31:24. > :31:26.good at giving up their seat for their colleague Liberal Democrat Jo
:31:27. > :31:30.Swinson, we decided to see if the general public were any more gallant
:31:31. > :31:38.on the London Underground. As it happens, they were. And remember,
:31:39. > :31:43.wrap up warm this weekend. My name is Claire Adams and I am eight
:31:44. > :31:47.months pregnant. I will be going on the tube, in the commuter rush hour,
:31:48. > :31:51.to see how ready people are to give up their seat for me. Wish me luck.