10/10/2016 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. With an exclusive RBS investigation and reaction to the US presidential debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Or a Rotten Bank for Small businesses?


Damning new evidence that RBS penalised distressed firms


to make money for itself, ignored warnings of potential


conflicts of interest, and mistreated healthy businesses.


But there's nothing worse when you know that you're - it sounds really


arrogant - you know you're good at what you do. This was, this was 35


years of my life and I knew I'd got it right.


We'll hear what the bank did, and what we should do in return.


Also tonight, we are leaving the EU partly to restore power


So should our Parliament not be allowed some say


It's a new a battle in the Brexit war.


It's not been a good week for clowns.


Donald Trump has had his troubles too - but did the debate


If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney-General to get a special


prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never


been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been


anything like it. To my mind, she's wrong about


everything, but she's wrong within the normal parameters of wrong. It's


the kind of wrong we've had before. It's a wrong we can endure. With


him, who knows. You don't need to get bogged down


in the details of the RBS story. RBS lent money to


lots of businesses. Some of them had problems -


maybe minor, maybe But then a cash-strapped RBS decided


to use business distress It would pretend it was there


to help the firms, put them into special measures


in its supportive turnaround And then, in some cases,


it fleeced them, tipping RBS even appeared willing to force


perfectly sound companies Now these allegations are not new,


but Newsnight and Buzzfeed have obtained a cache of interesting


documents the bank did not want Andrew Verity has


been through them. It has been another extraordinary


day of fast moving developments for Britain's financial world, so with


an economy eatering on the edge of recession and a squeeze on other


Government spending, where is all the money coming from?


2008, overborrowed, overlent and bailed out, RBS was under pressure


from its shock new owner, the Government, to get bad debts off the


books and boost its depleted cash. A fair goal, perhaps, but it was


accused of using foul means to achieve it, looking for ways to trip


up business customers so it could drain them of cash and get their


assets on the cheap, for a disregard for the owners who created them. RBS


furiously denied it. Now there's evidence these highly sensitive RBS


documents were leaked by a whistle-blower prompting an


investigation by Buzzfeed news and BBC Newsnight. They contain secret


information and internal e Mails, showing that while one part of the


bank was claiming to help business customers, another part of the bank


was collaborating with it, looking to buy up customers' property when


they got in trouble and extract maximum economic value. I'm sorry.


What I've always held onto is that I - I know what I'm doing. In what one


e-mail described as a dash for cash, RBS commercial bank staff could


boost their bonuses by scouring their loan books for defaulting


customers. Even if they'd never missed a payment, the bank had ways


of finding them in default. Imagine your mortgage lender telling you


it's revalued your property, the price has dropped and it's now worth


too little compared to your loan. Even though you may never have


missed a payment, it wants its mortgage money back. Then later you


find out that all along it had a property division that wanted to buy


your property for a gain. That wouldn't happen with residential


mortgages, they're regulated. But it's very much like what happened to


many business customers. This was the old back of the shop... Andy


Gibbs aan entrepreneur and architect. He made his dream real,


designing and building a thriving hub for creative companies. A lot of


my work is giving a hand rail to the past... In May 2008 RBS mis-sold him


a financial product, supposed to protect against rising interest


rates. When rates fell, it started draining cash from the business. The


bank's response to his business trouble was to put it in what it


says ways turn around division, the global restructuring group, GRG.


Then he was told the property had been revalued. It was now worth too


little compared to the loan. Tell us about the fees and interest rates.


At one stage, I found out that they'd cancelled my professional


indemnity insurance premium, which I have to have and could have damaged


me professionally. Foreignly I manage -- fortunately, I imagined to


sort that without a gap of time. They cancelled small Energy Bills,


the smallest one something like 6. ?6.53. It was all the time taking


away, taking away the control of what I had which was a beautiful and


energetic business really. Andy was warned he may have to sell assets or


go into insolvency. He raised more than ?500,000 selling the family


homement That money was swallowed up by GRG and it didn't change any


course of action whatsoever for a ten month period. So ?500,000 was


wasted? ?537,000 completely wasted and the family home gone. GRG wrote


demanding repayment of its loan. They continued to support his


business if they sold a stake in the business to West Register, the


bank's property company. He decloind and within days the bank called in


the receivers. He and his staff were thrown out. Andy lost his business,


then his health and then his marriage. I'd had a breakdown. At


one point, I'd lost four-and-a-half stone in hospital. I didn't actually


know when I was going to get out of hospital. What, for you, was the GRG


treatment? Sorry... Oh, God. Sorry. What I've always held onto is that I


erm...... I'm a good... I know what I'm doing. RBS says it's winding


down GRG but agreed business customers are now clubbing together


to try and sue the bank. I've spoken to a lot of people and I've heard a


lot of stories and I can hear within them a great repetition of the same


kinds of activities and actions. These are very unsavoury. These are


not the behaviour of a normal banking process to deal with


customers in stress. These appear to be the activities of an organisation


trying to acquire the assets of people who otherwise seem to have a


perfectly solid business. The bank's claimed for years GRG was an


intensive care unit to help stricken businesses recover. The documents


show that you didn't even have to be distressed. Falling out with the


bank or just wanting to leave and bank elsewhere, could mean a


referral to GRG. I've not seen one case where the evidence points to


the fact that they were artificially distressed to transfer to GRG. It


wasn't true. Just because of a break down in relationship with the bank.


No, there are a range of factors that point to financial distress. In


one e-mail they discuss provoking a default event for a customer. All


businesses that were transferred to GRG were in financial difficulty.


That's contradicted by an e-mail I have here. Would you look at it? It


might enlighten you to your bank's practises. It says they could


provoke a default event. This is in relation to GRG customer, provoke a


default event. Doesn't that suggest that GRG was engineering defaults?


No, look, I've spent two-and-a-half years looking at all the cases in


terms of GRG - You don't seem to want to look at this. I know what


your document says. You've seen the e-mail? I'm clear - Doesn't that


bother you. If you let me finish my answer, I'm really clear in all the


evidence I've seen over two-and-a-half years, looking at


millions of documents, there was no artificial distressing of businesses


to put them to GRG. Alison Loveday a litigation lawyer says RBS goes to


great lengths to stifle customers claims of wrongdoing. They were a


necessary evil, that's how the bank saw it. They knew most business


owners wouldn't have the mental resilience or the finance to be able


to challenge them and they were typically acting aloan, so it took a


long time for people to realise they weren't the only ones treated like


that. Why would the bank behave this way? Well, it could charge customers


in its turn around division much higher interest and fees, much of


the debt could be written off with a taxpayer supported the bank.


Crucially, capital, held against the risk that the loan went bad, could


be released, because it already had gone bad. Then there was what the


bank called its upside. If it could take a stake in the business or some


of its property, when the market bounced back, there should be big


gains. The Financial Conduct Authority ordered a report by two


firms of consultants checking out the allegations of mistreatment.


Nearly three years later, it's completed and with the FCA. The


regulator won't say when it will be published.


With me now is Andy Keats, a former RBS customer, who,


like Andi in the film, has had problems with the bank.


Also here is Sir Vince Cable, former Business Secretary,


with responsibility for overseeing the regulation of


Can I start with you, you represent many of the victims of what we've


seen described there, the SME alliances, you're involved with


that. How many of the businesses that were dragged into this GRG


group, how many were fundamentally bad businesses, had got into trouble


or needed help? As you say, I deal with hundreds, we support and


investigate hundreds of businesses and I'm one of those businesses


myself. It really annoys me actually to hear RBS saying what they've just


said that - They say no-one was made a distressed business that wasn't a


distressed business. I can tell you categorically that I've dealt with


literally tens of businesses myself, investigated them and found that


they were honest, proper businesses, properly run, with no defaults, no


distress and they were put into GRG just like me. Your case is an


interesting one. You weren't put into GRG... I was put into the


intensive care exposure committee and I didn't even realise for five


years that I was in it. You say that's because you were selling your


business and it was going to move the account to Barclays. Then they


started cutting up rough basically. We told them we were moving to


Barclays and four weeks later we had our merchant account terminated with


30 days' notice. They said that we were financially distressed. We were


moving to Barclays. Why would they say that? 14 days before that, we'd


had an offer for the purchase of the business, after four months of due


diligence. What was going on? You lost that offer and you lost the


move to Barclays because Barclays said, hang on, RBS has found


something dodgy here. Exactly. Then this has got caught up into your


personal life as opposed to your business life because now, they're


trying to repossess your house. What they did in the business, they then


took all my money. So they retained all of my business money until we


went bust. After we went bust, I unfortunately had a mortgage with


RBS and said to them, what do you want me to do, do you want me to


sell. They said no, they didn't want that. Wait until later


down-the-line. We entered into more borrowing facilities on the basis


that I was a good customer. We have so little time. Basically it ended


up with them saying, we're claiming money back from you and we need to


repossess the house. They said I was in arrears of ?50,000 when I was in


borrowing facilities. They've obviously been playing quite a rough


game with a lot of small businesses. What do you see today that you


didn't know when you were Business Secretary? Well, I discovered,


partly through lots of individual cases, but partly as a result of a


report that was done by somebody called Lawrence Tom Lynnson, who I


appointed. He collected case material which was exactly the kind


you've just heard and is corroborated in your report. The


problem we had was that there wasn't a smoking gun. There were a lot of


people who had been shot but we couldn't see the evidence within the


bank itself. I asked the bank to investigate this properly. They


called in Clifford Chance, who as far as I know, did a fairly


professional job, that they didn't have access to the material you've


now got. Crucially, I asked the regulator, the Financial Conduct


Authority, to do a proper investigation. They should have


published last year, but they haven't. It's worse than that


because I think they started the report back in the third quarter,


the end of 2013. And they said it would be ready in the third quarter


of 2014. I think we're now in the third quarter of 2016. What is going


on? Well, the conspiracy theories or just inefficiency, I don't know.


What would the conspiracy theory be? That they're covering tracks from -


Why would they cover the tracks of RBS? I don't know. From my point of


view, I was the minister who asked them to investigate. I'm very, very


disappointed that they haven't published it. Why they haven't


published it I don't know. Looking at the documents that we've got,


they lock a smoking gun because they are the conversations going on


internally. That's what we lacked before. There were a lot of people


damaged, there was circumstantial evidence that the bank were


profiting from these activities. But the other people would looked at it


have hitherto said well there's bad practice, but there's no evidence


it's been done systematically. Now this evidence you've acquired,


suggests that it may well have been. It is possible, the bank would say,


we are just people who are not understanding the game they are in,


they are trying to retrieve money for a taxpayer, incidentally, and


businesses who are in trouble are probably making the money in fees


and interest rates but are losing money on the fact they are writing


off chunks of their loan, and they are entitled to say they are going


to play hardball and by going to get everything they can? We are talking


about events in the aftermath of the financial crisis, there is a long


time lag, you are right, they are acting in the interests of the


taxpayer and even if they are found at fault, they will be fine, with


the taxpayer taking the fine, ludicrous situation. The fact is


many thousand companies will have been affected and many people will


have been ruined, marriages and mental health will have been


affected, and when it has happened on this scale, we cannot let this


matter drop. Thanks for joining us. Who in Britain should decide


what Brexit looks like? The Government is clear,


and it reiterated its position again today in a statement to the Commons:


it has to negotiate withdrawal and it has to decide


what we negotiate. It says the mandate for Britain


to leave the European Union is It also says it doesn't want any


kind of obstruction from So get out the way, leave the three


Brexiteers and Theresa May to it. But there is another view,


which is that Parliament should have the say on what kind


of deal we aim for. Now it is mostly Remainers who want


that, but not exclusively. This Conservative MP voted to Leave


and trenchantly made Nearly half of those who voted


wanted no substantive change at all in the relationship


between this country Their voices, although they did not


chime with my own, appear entirely to have been forgotten


in the rhetoric of hard Brexit which has somehow become


received wisdom on the part The government has


no mandate for that. You cannot extrapolate


from the result of the referendum the specific terms upon


which the majority of those in this country wish their relations


with the European Union And that can only be done by seeking


a mandate from this House to which the citizens of this


country return honourable members Our political editor,


Nick Watt, is with me. Are the government going to stick to


this? Very much. That in passionate plea from Stephen Phillips was


rebuffed by the speaker on the grounds that the Labour Party is


having a debate on this matter on Wednesday, so let them get on with


it. Some people were taken by Stephen Phillips who say maybe that


is a better option, if he had got his way he would have knocked out


the Labour debate and there would have just been a vote on a


generalised motion instead. But now with the Labour debate we have a


vote afterwards on a specific motion which is likely to call on the


government to seek the consent of MPs in Parliament regarding its


Brexit negotiations and there are some Labour MPs and a small number


of Conservative MPs who said they will maybe defeat the government and


that will not use David Davis who had ruled out a vote in parliament


on those Article 50 negotiations. It is a non-binding vote on Wednesday.


Yes. In terms of the substance of the negotiations, anything we didn't


know? David Davis said he would update MPs, and to days word he


covered a large piece, you play down the significance of the fall in


sterling and he gave a strong indication that in his mind UK would


not remain a member of the single market and it would not remain a


member of the customs union, but eyebrows were raised when he had a


pop at the French president Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel, remember


last week Francois Hollande said the UK would have to pay a price for


leaving to discourage others and Angela Merkel said if the UK wanted


to remain in the single market outside the EU it would have to


accept free movement of people. This is what he said in his exchange with


Crispin Blunt about Francois Hollande.


What plans does he have to publicly to publicly ennumerate


the implications of there being no deal at the end of two


What I will say to him at this point, is that...


If the European Union adheres to a punishment plan and it fails,


as I believe it would, then that's an even bigger


incentive to countries that want to leave, than a punishment


One senior Whitehall source said that by taking on Europe's two most


powerful leaders, David Davis was displaying what this person said was


an unhelpful swagger. Thank you. Joining me now is the Shadow Foreign


Secretary, Emily Thornberry, and Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP


who was one of the leading He also chairs the Commons Public


Administration Committee. How would the House of Commons


express a view on a complex multidimensional negotiation? What


form would that take? It has a commons is not very good at voting


for complex things, it is very binary -- the House of Commons. I


understand that, but we're getting no information from the government


about how it is they are going to negotiate Brexit. We start on the


basis that we have instructions on the British people that they want to


leave and we want to do our job properly and we want to leave in the


best interests of the British people. I don't think this is right.


That the Tories have a mandate to go into a locked room and fight it out


amongst themselves and then decide which way they are going to leave


Europe, it is the future of my children and my grandchildren at


stake, the future of the economy and we think the government should come


to Parliament and put forward a plan. A plan before they negotiate?


Yes. They say they are paying their cards close to their chest because


it could undermine their position, but we know they have a load of


different ideas for stop what Philip Hammond things is different to what


Theresa May things and is different to what Liam Fox things, so on what


basis are we going to Europe? And different to what Bernard Jenkin


thinks. I'm sure it is. What is the mandate for the government taking


this ahead and doing it? The biggest ever vote cast for any single


proposition in this country ever, that is the mandate, to leave the


EU. The Leave campaign was very clear that leaving the EU meant


leaving the single market and the Remain campaign said if you vote to


leave we will have to leave the single market, so I don't see why


there is any argument about this now. What you are relying on is


Michael Gove, on one television programme saying he was... Saying we


would have to leave the single market. During the Brexit vote,


there was no, it was not clear what the options were, yes, we were going


to leave, but there are different ways of leaving the European Union,


and those options were not made clear. If you are lying on Michael


Gove, remember he is the man whose wife said you are only supposed to


blow the doors. He was not even serious in terms of leaving. It is


an important point, we are holding the Leave campaign to its promises


because they are not giving us 350 in pounds a week for the NHS. -- 300


?50 million. Norway is not in the European Union, so that is


compatible, if we adopt their model, that would be compatible with the


vote? On the question of accountability. Just answer the


question. It would be compatible with what the public voted for?


Except the Leave campaign said the Norway option would not be our


choice and we made that clear, and the Remain campaign said it would be


the worst option of all possible worlds, so who was advocating for


the Norway option? Nobody. The Swiss model is compatible with what the


public voted for, and the Canadian model is compatible. All of these


models are compatible. If I can just make my point. If I could make one


point about accountability, in the introduction to this discussion, it


was pointed at their is a debate on Wednesday and there will be a vote.


You could have put down a vote about what kind of Brexit you want, but


you are not doing that, you are having a family row about procedure.


It is not a family row. -- phoney. Your party is more divided than we


were about Brexit. You guys are in government, you have a new leader


who is taking a new direction and she did not even stand for


leadership herself, she has no manifesto, she has no mandate. It is


not clear on what basis you are leaving and it is right for us as


the opposition to hold you to account, excuse me. We are saying,


tell us what your plan is, we want to have a debate, the British people


need to know. You owe it to them. At the moment the government is


developing a plan, and when they have a fully fledged band I've no


doubt it will be tabled. -- fully fledged plan. The idea is that


Parliament will not have a say on that plan. That is not the case,


there will be a second reading of the vote in May or June on the


repeal Bill. That is not the same point. By that stage you will have


triggered Brexit. We need to have it before you triggered Brexit. They


are a motion. We need to know on the basis on which you are going into


those negotiations, you have two years after triggering Brexit and we


want to know the basis on which you are doing it. What is the plan on


migration and the continuing relationship with Europe. The single


market. I can answer those questions. The Prime Minister made


clear in her speech two weeks ago that what migration policy we have


as a country after we leave is a matter for the British Parliament,


that is a separate matter from taking back control over migration


which is not negotiable, end of story. What you think the majority


view in would be? -- what do. If you take the spectrum of options, exit


options, where would the majority be? The majority in parliament and


in the country, I think whether they voted to remain or to leave, did not


vote to take someone else's job away, did not vote to undermine the


economy, that is the priority. Where do you think the majority in


parliament would be? When it becomes clearer what the government is


proposing, that is the only practical way forward, and when


people understand that there isn't this Armageddon black hole in front


of the country, because we are leaving the European Union, the


House of Commons will support the position of the government, that is


what I think. What ever they come up with they will support. And if they


welcome you when put it to a vote, anyway. There are lots of votes. --


and if they won't come at you when put it to a vote, anyway. We will


come back to this. It is a procedural point, she's arguing. It


is about substance. Or a debasement of American


democracy? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had


a messy 90-minute encounter, And if you thought it might be


the end of Trump, you were wrong. Mark Urban has been looking


at what we learned. Donald Trump went into the second


debate after a wretched weekend, where he is demeaning comments about


women resulted a one poll putting Hillary Clinton 14 points ahead. She


sought to capitalise on her advantage. I said starting back in


June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief and


many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we


all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he


thinks about women, what he does to women, and he has said that the


video doesn't represent who he is. But I think it is clear to anyone


who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. With Republican


party bigwigs melting away, and facing widespread condemnation,


Donald Trump went on to the offensive, fighting on multiple


fronts, first off, his attitude to women. He called out Bill Clinton


for alleged sexual assaults but also attempted deflection, than Bastin


Hillary Clinton for breaching of secrecy laws with her private


e-mails -- than Bastin. And covering up afterwards. I did not think I


would say this, but I'm going to say this and I hate to say it, but if I


went, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special


prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never


been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been


anything like it, we're going to have a special prosecutor. In this


90 minute onslaught Donald Trump interrupted her or the moderator 27


times, she interrupted just three times. And at moments she was on the


ropes. Nobody wants dizzy Hillary Clinton thrown into a, but they do


want to see her held accountable for the e-mails and the foundation and


it is the reason why Trump has done so well in this campaign, voters


think that he is the only one that would actually hold Washington


accountable. As the debate moved past its first half-hour, it allowed


Trump to allow a second perceived weakness on policy substance where


he tried to make the running on health care tax and foreign affairs.


But he ran into problems here, as well, disavowing remarks on Syria by


his own vice president shall running mate. He and I haven't spoken and I


disagree. You disagree with your running mate? Right now Syria is


fighting ices and we have people that want to fight both at the


signed time. -- Isis. The sensor disarray means he hasn't done enough


to reassure the party grandees who now wonder if they should let him


hang out to dry. I'm not sure if they would publicly abandon him,


that would probably impact the down ticket just as badly so they are


trying to figure out the way they can triage the situation. As the


house bigger told its members, it is important to find out what is


important in your district. He is not going to defend Donald Trump,


but they do not think abandoning the nominee is going to get Republicans


to the polls. Here Trump has shown contempt for


the GOP elite, may delight his base but it could hurt him on polling


day. I definitely think it hurts him. There's no question about it.


He needs to have as many people supporting him as possible. The


truth is Donald Trump is never really been a Republican in my view.


He's an independent. He's always really been an independent. After


nearly 90 minutes of slugging it out. They were asked to name one


thing they admired about the other. Hillary went first. Iery inspect his


children -- I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and


devoted and I think that says a lot about don oold. That hit Trump where


it hurts, with his lamentable attempts to improve his image with


women, where after the last few days, he has further to go than


ever. I don't believe he will have improved among women. His apology


wasn't well received. The comments that he made really bothered women


in particular. And frankly, in that debate, Hillary Clinton has run as a


champion of women. That's going to do well for her. What I do see


happening is that Trump continues to improve among men. You've got the


biggest gender gap in the history of American politics. Good night


everyone. The debate hardly revived Trump's fortune, but it did


supporters argue, show his refusal to buckle under pressure.


Well, this is clearly no ordinary election and Mr Trump does


not have the support of many natural Republicans.


He's in the UK at the moment, speaking at an Intelligence Squared


He has declared his support for Hillary -


I spoke to him earlier today, so does he think Donald Trump's


I would say yes, but I've been absolutely wrong


And so I think I may hex it if I just said yes.


Before this latest revelation of the inner Trump.


He was already slipping in the polls.


Now the thing to keep one's fingers across is, Hillary has


the electoral maths on her side, and yet she remains dependent


on groups of voters who are famous for not voting.


So, will she be able to get them out?


Of course, he's doing everything he can to help.


So my guess is, yes, I don't think his campaign is viable.


What portion of good college educated, professional


Generally speaking when pressed they will say, well,


he was my 18th choice for Republican candidate.


An office like the Presidency of the United States has to have


It is to the point for me, simply, that I would rather have


someone whose judgment I don't think greatly of and whose character


To my mind she is wrong about everything, but she is


wrong within the normal parameters of wrong.


It's a kind of wrong we've had before.


And I think a phenomenal like Trump is part of an underlying frustration


That has shown itself in all sorts of populist outbreaks


Trump, a rather comic version of that.


And if you want truly tragic, Vladimir Putin, too, is a populist.


And Brexit is a sort of example of it.


So is the rejection by the Colombians


So, you know, to what extent it is a comfort


What do you think of the Republican establishment?


Is there anything they could have done to stop him?


And a lot of them lined up to endorse him but were then


apparently shocked at this tape of sexual predatorship.


Did you find anything surprising in that tape?


Did you get a new insight into the real character


To be perfectly fair to Donald Trump, it was a weak field.


It may have looked good from afar but in point of fact


each of the candidates turned out to be lukewarm.


Dividing up the good sense vote, and leaving the poor sense vote


Then, not universally, but they lined up pretty quickly


to endorse him and then did Rick from Casablanca.


That this man should say those things.


Do you think impartial broadcasters and impartial newspapers should try


and cover this election in the way they would normally cover


an election between two candidates?


I think we just have to endeavour to do our best,


to find the best obtainable version of the truth.


To keep a straight face through some of this,


Would you use the phrase American politics is broken?


It's always had difficulties, hasn't it?


Are we in a particularly silly moment?


And is there danger in that silliness?


All of the above, yes. But, you know, democracy is always


It's a scary way to govern ourselves.


And the scariest part of it all of course being the famous


Churchill quote," it's worse than everything except everything


So, don't want to fall off that tightrope.


Now, you may have been following the rather worrying spate of people


dressed as knife-wielding clowns, terrifying unsuspecting punters


here's and abroad. The traditional view of the happy or at least sad


clown seems to have been consigned to history's rubbish bin. We've


tried to pin point the exact moment when clowns became irredeemably


scary for this generation. Our best guess is this: From the adaptation


of Stephen King's It from 1990. If you're afraid of clowns, look away


now. Good night. Come on up Richie. I've got a balloon for you. Don't


you want a balloon? What's the matter, one balloon not enough? Try


a bunch! LAUGHTER


Presented by Evan Davis.

With an exclusive RBS investigation, reaction to the US presidential debate, and a PJ O'Rourke interview. Plus, should parliament vote on Brexit?

Download Subtitles