19/10/2011 Newsnight

The outcome of the confrontation isn't in doubt, soon the police and

bailiffs will have evicted the 80- odd families living illegally on

green belt land in Dale Farm in Essex. The United Nations claims

this amounts to state bullying of a minority. Is it? What alternative

is there when people refuse to obey the law? One of the UN committee on

the elimination of racism, believes we are being willfully blind to an

injustice. Newsnight reveals the story of an

undercover policeman who was then arrested and gave false evidence in

court. It is a perversion of the legal process. I think it's

institutionalised police corruption of the legal process for this to

happen. As we go on air, it has emerged that our story has delayed

an HMIC report into another undercover cop case, which was due

tomorrow. What does the former Director of

Public Prosecutions think of that? For the first time in British

history, you can vote in a referendum, a referendum to shape

the lives of your children. It has been the best part of four decades,

and many Conservatives think it is long past the time that people in

Britain had the chance to say what they think of membership of the

European Union. Why doesn't their own party leader? Has the Fox

episode brought lasting taint of scandal to - Liam Fox episode

brought lasting taint of scandal to the Government. This week of all

weeks, my advice to the Prime Minister, is show a bit of humility.

I think we should have a little bit of humility from the people who

gave us cabs for hire, passports For so-called travellers, they have

been extremely reluctant to travel any where It kicked off early this

morning after the legal process had been exhausted, and police and

bailiffs moved in. It has been the staple fare of the news channels

all day, as at an estimated cost to tax-payers of some �18 million, the

illegal settlement in Dale Farm in Essex is cleared. The confrontation

between them and the balaclavaed supporters, and the men and women

in high-visibility jackets, provide the scenes that the electronic

media love. We tried to look a little deeper.

Dawn, in a once quiet corner of the Essex countryside. Hundreds of riot

police moved in, as Dale Farm became a surreal battleground.

Rocks, barricades and taunts, where all the travellers and their

supporters had left to defend the largely illegal settlement. They

have lost a ten-year courtroom battle. The eviction operation is

budgeted to cost up to �17.5 million, enough money to have

provided many new traveller sites. The defendants' defiance showed as

a caravan went up in flames. They intend to fight yard by yard, over

a site that is still a legal minefield. Some constructions can

be knocked down, others can't. and 38 have full residential use,

the yellow sections have full residential use.

Inside the site, beyond police lines, there was an uneasy calm,

but travellers claimed legally held property had been damaged.

REPORTER: Why did they cross here? I don't know. We will have to ask

them. Many families were beginning for evictions to begin in earnest?

There is complete confusion with people here unsure how many more

nights they will be able to stay and where they will move on to.

There is also increasing uncertainty nationally over

Government policy towards gypsies and travellers. Dale Farm is a test

case, being closely watched by groups involved in similar

controversy up and down the country. By councils, by travellers and by

permanently settled residents. Gypsy activist Candy Sher din, is

worried what other councils will learn from what happened here,

where the council has worked so hard to remove the settlement.

Firstly, I can't provide for my community, if the council won't

provide the land or assist them in planning application, it sends the

message, why bother, and that it is acceptable just to ignore us. That

is appalling. The total number of gypsy caravans in England has risen

What gypsies and travellers fear is that major changes to the planning

rules, being proposed by the Government, would make it even

harder for them to find authorised sites to live on. The Government is

proposing to Regional targets. It is also bringing in a Localism Bill,

which would give voters increased powers to object to particular

developments. We know that the key obstacle against provision for gip

say traveller sites comes at the local level. Discrimination at the

local level, misconceptions at the local level, that gypsy sites will

lead to crime and dysfunction in the communities. That isn't, in the

majority of cases not true. With the regional spacial strategies

combined and others will lead to a huge shortage of gypsy sites in the

long-term. Current guidelines say that councils should address the

underprovision of authorised sites, and should recognise, protect a

facilitate the traditional travelling way of life. But the

coalition Government's consultation document on planning for

In Basildon Council says it is not against travellers, and will

continue to provide sites for them, if they show more flexibility.

There has to be a deal between travellers, local authorities and

communities. The onus is on the travellers to find land that is

suitable for development. Travellers in the past have gone

for green belt sites, which is obviously not suitable for

development, and very hard to get planning permission for. I really

think there is an opportunity for the travellers now to move on and

act within the law as well. But it won't be easy for travellers to

find more appropriate sites. When so many settled residents oppose

their presence. Dale Farm is being cleared in the interests of

creating a level legal playing field for all. As its defenders

prepare for another night of resistance, many here feel that the

evictions are just another blow to a community whose way of life is

being slowly, but steadily eroded. A little while ago I discussed some

of the issues raised with Anastasia Crickley, a member of the United

Nations committee on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination, and with John Baron MP for Basildon and Billericay. I

asked Miss Crickley what a planning application had to do with the

United Nations. The situation in Dale Farm was something considered

previously by the committee and brought to the attention of the

committee by a number of groups representing the residents there.

We are saying it is a matter that deserves consideration by a

committee which is looking at the possibilities of racism and

discrimination. John Baron? Basically it is a lot of tosh and

nonsense and mindless meddling by an organisation that should know

better. This is not about racial discrimination, this is about a

planning regulation that has been brong, contravened, it is about us

- broken, contravened, it is about us putting those planning

regulations right on behalf of the local majority. They talk about

human rights, but what they forget is we all have human rights,

including the law-abiding majority, and one of those is an expectation

that the law will be applied equitably and fairly, and there

should be no exceptions to that. Why should these people be treated

any differently to everyone else in in country? It is absolutely the

case that in every country, which is a party to the Convention on The

elimination of racism, that there is an impolicement acknowledgement

that there can be racism in that country. It is the case that you

don't achieve equality in any country, in any circumstances, by

pretending that everybody is automatically equal, and

automatically has equal access to the law or their rights. Otherwise.

You're absolutely right. You are barking up completely the

wrong tree, make this absolutely clear, this is not about racial

discrimination, this is about enforcing the law, which has been

broken by a group of people who knew they were breaking the law.

Our courts decided they were breaking the law and we are

enforcing that law. Can I suggest something useful for you to do, get

on to the travellers and tell them to call off their protestors using

violence against the police. This has involved arrests, throwing of

stones, iron bars and so forth, because the protestors are there at

the behest of the travellers, and courts have told them that site

should be cleared. That is something you could do on behalf of

the law-abiding majority and help minimise the violence at present

taking place there. First of all there seems to be an implicit

assumption that the law-abiding majority do not include travellers

or gypsies or include any of the traveller or gypsy community who

happens to be living in Dale Farm. That's a useful assumption to make

I don't think. Secondly, the circumstances in which people find

themselves is ones they must judge and they must make their own

decision about the best action to take at this time. Can I take you

will not do anything useful and ask them to stop the violence.

committee that is responsible for monitoring the implementation of

the UN Convention on The elimination of racism has said, we

have said there is a case for culturally appropriate

accommodation to be provided and identified and provided for the

people who are residents in Dale Farm. For the avoidance of any

doubt, what is culturally appropriate accommodation?

Culturally appropriate accommodation, is accommodation, as

I understand it, which has been looked at by other UN committees,

which allows for collective expression of culture. Look you

signed up to this report, can you please tell us what you meant by

talking about the provision of culturally appropriate

accommodation, what is it? What we invited and encouraged your

Government and your authorities to do is to look to the provision of

accommodation which meets the needs and requirements of the community

that are there. What do you mean? I'm aware that there have been,

what I mean is we do not consider provision of homeless families

accommodation to be culturally appropriate accommodation. Because

they are not homeless families? This whole situation has emerged

because of the reality that the Roma and travelling people that

live there, want to live in the way in which they have traditionally

lived. That is not the desire of all traveller people in the UK or

other parts of Europe, or other parts of the world. It is an

acknowledgement of their diversity on their difference. That is what

we are asking that your Government and yourself does. Can you help us,

why haven't you provided culturally appropriate accommodation? We have,

we have 110 authorised sites and pitches locally, many more than any

other local authorities. We have offered bricks and mortar, so

nobody needs to be homeless, but the travellers themselves have

refused that. We have also made the travellers aware of other vacant

authorised sites in other parts of the country, they have said they

don't want to travel. There is only so much we can do. At the end of

the day they have broken the law and that site will be cleared, we

hope, as peacefully as possible. Where are they tonight those

families who have left? We don't know for sure, they are not on the

side of the road, or in the Tesco car parks as they said they would

be. There are all sorts of reports, but they are not homeless, as far

as we know. The game is over, the problem is finished, once they are

somebody else's problem? It is not quite like that. We have said we

have obligations to meet, we have offered accommodation, that is

refused by travellers. We have made them aware of vacant authorised

sites elsewhere, that has been refused, we have provided more

sites than anywhere else. We are not trying to wash our hands of it,

this site needs to be cleared, because they have broken the law

and the law-abiding majority expect that site to be cleared, and it

will be cleared. Could I suggest to you that there are a number of

useful things that you and your colleagues might be able to

consider doing as well. Such as engaging in direct consultation

with the travellers and with the people who have been evicted to

make sure that their circumstances are not worsened over the next few

weeks. We have engaged for ten years, the time for talking is over.

I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of the current situation,

I'm aware of the hardship it has caused for the travellers, and also

the extent it can exasperate further discrimination against

travellers. If I could call on the honourable member of Parliament and

others watching the programme, I would call on them and the media to

ensure this does nothing to exasperate further the real

discrimination experienced by travellers and gypsies in the UK

and other countries in Europe. Thank you very much. So far this

year there have been no fewer than eight inquiries set up after the

discovery that undercover police have been used to infiltrate

political organisations. There may be a ninth soon, tonight Newsnight

has evidence of another operation where an undercover policeman gave

false evidence in court. He became an undercover activist on Reclaim

the Streets campaign. These latest revelations have delayed the report

into another undercover cop case due tomorrow.

Though this story has only just come to light, it can be traced

back to this demonstration in central London in August 1996.

Traffic was brought it a halt by protestors from a non-violent, pro-

cycling Campaign Group, called Reclaim the Streets. Prominent

among them was an activist called Jim Sutton. Jim was very practical,

he was the man with the van. He was super-practical, he was there right

at the centre of stuff. A splinter group of demonstrators left

Trafalgar Square and came here to St James's Park, to the

headquarters of London Underground, amongst them was John Jordan, an

activist, and Sutton sut, the undercover policeman. They went

into the building and up the stairsment their aim was to get to

the seventh floor and the chairman's office, to unfurl a

banner. Jim Sutton, the policeman, was playing a leading role. The

protestors were here in support of a tube drivers' strike. Jim Sutton

was an undercover cop, working with the Metropolitan Police unit,

charged with looking at protest movements. As part of the protest

group, John Jordan was one of the targets. We occupied the building,

we went up, some people got up to the chairman's office, including

Jim. Jim went out, put massive banner, which said "don't squeeze

the tube". He said the police arrived remarkably quickly, and

there were scuffles, as he went upstairs he picked up a policeman's

helmet on the ground. Lift doors opened, riot police out, arrest us

all, I had the policeman's helmet under my jumper. Clearly I wasn't

pregnant. I get arrested. Get to the police station and I'm charged

with assault of a police officer. Clearly something I didn't do.

activists, including Jim Sutton, were brought here to Charring Cross

police station in central London for questioning. They sought legal

advice, and a solicitor, from the birm, Bindmans, attended. We have

obtained copies of the custody records, it shows Jim Sutton was

using his fake name and cover as a cleaner, what police intelligence

experts call, his legend. His Jim Sutton and 12 other activists

were later charged with public order offences, the undercover cop

was entering the legal process. This didn't emerge until now. After

all the reporting earlier this year about undercover cop Mark Kennedy,

Jim Sutton's name appeared in the media, as another undercover

operative. The solicitor working on the Kennedy cases of curious.

looked at our records, our records confirmed one of them, Jim Sutton,

had been a client of our's. must have been amazed when you saw

that? I was shocked. I thought it couldn't be true. But it is true.

John Jordan, and the others, thought Jim Sutton was a fellow

defendant, when their cases all went to a criminal trial. He would

have given evidence under oath about who he was b what had

happened, and - about what had happened, and as serious, he

allowed himself to be put in a position where he was arrested,

charged and prosecuted, and potentially convicted of a criminal

offence. Just because the District Judge found him not guilty that he

wasn't convicted. He and his minders allowed him to be put in a

position where he could be found guilty of a criminal offence. If

that is a criminal offence committed by a serving undercover

police officer, giving evidence on oath, with the benefit of

privileged legal advice, he shouldn't have had, that is most

serious. Bindmans have asked for an

explanation from the Metropolitan Police, and the CPS, but are yet to

receive an answer. We asked a Lib Dem member of the Metropolitan

Police authority for her reaction tonight? It is almost beyond belief.

I'm coming to terms with the fact that it has happened, but it is

just, it beggers belief. How on earth can that happen? It make as

complete mockery of the judicial system. There are some very serious

questions that must be asked of the police, that is, who in the Met

authorised it, if anyone? If they authorised it, why did they

authorised it, and is that - authorise it, and why are they

working for the Met. That is what I will be asking at the meeting of

metropolitan police officers. John Jordan was found guilty, and

is wondering if that is safe? have jobs where I'm working with

students and to have assault of a police officer on your record was

difficult. I think it is a perversion of the legal process. I

think it is institutionalised police corruption and the legal

process for this to happen. At the very least they ought to have

explained up front what their acceptable limits are, so that the

public, politicians and judges, who might or should be regulating their

activity, could have a say and a view. They seem to have gone

freelance on this. The Metropolitan Police declined to

comment today on this specific case, but pointed us towards new

legislation from 2000 that should have made it impossible for

undercover police officers to give evidence in court under their false

identities. The question is now, how many cases went through before

this case. Further developments tonight, I

gather? Extraordinary development, 15 minutes ago, the HM Inspectorate

of Constabulary, due to launch a very important report tomorrow,

about the use of undercover officers and the protocol

surrounding that. They say in light of the revelations in the media

today, they are delaying the launch of the report, so they can consider

the relevance of this information, and the recommendations for

improvements in undercover policing. We will write to the Guardian and

Newsnight to find out additional information they have. The

Metropolitan Police have been changing their line on this, I

think it is fair to say, all day, at first it was a "no comment",

then it became a procedural amount of information about the use of

undercover officers. Just tonight in the last six minutes, they have

said that the Metropolitan Police Service acknowledges these are

serious matters, and is continuing to review the situation and taking

account of any additional information becoming available.

This story is moving very fast. former Director of Public

Prosecutions in England and Wales is here now to react to tonight's

story. What do you make of this latest disclosure about an

undercover policeman? Well they have crossed the line. You don't

send police officers into court to lie about who they are b their

identity b what their role is - about their identity, about what

their role is in investigations. You don't send them into

solicitors' offices and pretending to be party to legal conferences.

It is a serious issue and they have crossed the line. What does it do

to the convictions of anyone arrested and convicted in those

circumstances? It causes issues, if I was in the dock with an

undercover police officer and I had advised both defendants in the

trial, I would go to the Court of Appeal saying the conviction is

unsafe and it has to be overturned. I'm sure that is what will happen

were defence lawyers are confident this is the situation. Has to be

overturned because? Because you have a situation where a police

officer is posing as a defendant, is party to defence conferences

with his lawyers, the other defendant's lawyers, is party to

confidential information, may be passing it back to his handlers,

and going in to court as part of the defence team, telling lies.

knows what the defence likely to be? He knows the defence. He may be

reporting it back to the police, that may in all sorts of ways

affect the way the case is conducted. It is clearly, it seems

to me clearly the Court of Appeal with regard a conviction in those

circumstances as being potentially unsafe. Do you think this latest

revelation makes the case for yet another inquiry? The report that

was to be released tomorrow has been held back. I'm not at all

surprised by that. I think the authors of that report are going to

have to stand back, look at the evidence that you have produced and

the Guardian has produced, and see how that impacts on the research

they have done. This is a very serious development. This seems to

be part of pattern of behaviour of undercover police officers in

groups that are not particularly dangerous. We are not talking about

terrorists here. It is a bunch of cyclists? We are not talking about

terrorists, it is a cyclist Campaign Group. This is what is so

difficult to understand the police would have taken the risk of

putting people into these situations and into court, not

because they are combatting serious crime, but because people are

stopping the traffic. That seems to be, on the face of it, a monumental

misjudgment. Thank you. The British people

aren't going to be given the chance to vote on whether the country

should remain part of the European Union. At least they won't, if the

Prime Minister gets his way. He says such a vote would be a

distraction at a time when the EU needs to be dealing with issues

causing riots in Greece and threatening the whole European

project. But the deeper issue of whether

Britain should be in the EU at all is in the bloodstream of the Tory

Party, like some dormant, but potentially paralysing, virus.

This was David Cameron's response to a question on the vote on the

future of Britain in the European Union? I completely understand and

share the frustration that many have about the way the European

Union goes about its business, about the costs and butter oxcy.

But I have to say, I think the - bureaucracy. But I have to say the

key point here is to get on top of the budget, keep Britain out of the

bailout schemes, make sure the single market is working. As the

Conservative Party we are committed to the return of powers from

Brussels to Westminster, we are also committed as a Government, if

power passes from Brussels to, from Westminster to Brussels, there

would have to be a referendum. That promise is good for the whole of

this Parliament and beyond. But I don't support holding a referendum

come what may. That is not our policy and I will not be supporting

that motion. What is in this motion? I think never mind Dale

Farm, there is a stand-off going on at Westminster at the moment. An

act of rebellion against the Prime Minister a bit of hostility, it is

this motion at the core of it. This isn't a motion simply about

withdrawing from the EU. It is a backbench motion which is designed

to maximise Euro-sceptic report, by giving three potentially options in

the referendum. Those options would be, remaining a member of the

European Union on the current terms, leaving the European Union entirely,

or renegotiating the terms of membership to carry on a new

relationship with Europe. That is quite clever, because the centre of

gravity in the Conservative parliamentary party is in the last

point on renegotiation. Only about 30 MPs across the House want to

leave. That puts pressure on the Prime Minister. Officially 46

backbench MPs have signed up to the multioption motion on the

referendum, I'm told tonight as many as 80 Conservatives might be

prepared to rebel against the Government line by voting this down

when it is debated early next week. The reason the Government sees it

as a an act of rebellion, is because the option of - as an act

of rebellion is the option of complete withdrawal from the

European Union is there. Presumably Labour won't go along with this,

maybe they will, I don't know, the Liberal Democrats certainly won't?

The Liberal Democrats certainly don't. And the latest from Labour

is they will whip against it too. The Prime Minister is in a hole, he

doesn't necessarily want further splits and divisions on Europe.

This was supposed to be discussed next Thursday, it is brought

forward now to Monday, when the Prime Minister and the Foreign

Secretary can be present. The reason for that is partly the Prime

Minister's presence, which will communicate to waivers they

shouldn't mess with him if we want a career. William Hague is a famous

Euro-sceptic, but in the current circumstance in the mids of the

European crisis remotion isn't there. It is a backbench motion and

not binding, so there are calls for a free vote on it, and wipe out the

rebellion at one fell swoop. For the Prime Minister it may look like

an act of weaks in, at the moment it looks like - weakness, at the

moment they willth looks he will try to face them down. I'm joined

by my guests now. My guest was expelled from the

Conservative Party after arguments over European partners. Why do you

want to embarrass your leaders? don't, I want to make sure the

British people have a right to decide their future. People are

crying out for a referendum. This will undermine him? No, actually,

what needs to happen is the British people to express their views.

David Cameron has a very strong negotiating tour - tool when he

goes to Brussels to sort all this out. We were told was a market and

not a European Union, and that is not what we voted for and people

are fed up with it. It says a lot about the state of the Tory Party?

I think David Cameron is right. This is a Daily Express engineered

operation, I think he's right to say that it should not lead to

something - anything but a debate in the House of Commons. That is

what the 100,000 signatures get, but nothing else. If, on the other

hand, at some point in the next few years, during the lifetime of this

Government, there should be any fundamental change proposed between

the UK and the European Union, then there will be a referendum. That is

absolutely clear. I'm sure Andrew will agree, that is the right

approach. To have some sort of, as David Cameron said, willy nilly,

and I'm agreeing with him for once, referendum that would be wrong.

Suppose there is a three-line whip next week, would you defy it?

point is, we have three options, in, out or a new relationship. There is

thrae-line whip saying there is no referendum? I think the majority of

the population would like to see a new relationship with the European

Union based on trade and co- operation, not political union.

you prepared to defy the Prime Minister? We will all talk to

constituents this weekend and make a decision. Of course I'm prepared

to vote for a referendum, I said that today in the House of Commons.

Even if there is a three-line whip telling you not to? We don't know

the situation on Monday. Would you defy it? I'm sure Mr Cameron would

want to keep the party together. Would you defy a three-line whip?

would sooner a free vote. Would you defy it? I'm prepared to vote for a

referendum. Would you defy a three- line whip? If necessary, what is to

be done to obtain the referendum. You still haven't answered the

question? Yes, I would. That is what the British people deserve.

With the Prime Minister present in the chamber, you feel sufficiently

strongly to defy? We don't know the situation on Monday. But the mood

of the country and the parliamentary party, is to have a

referendum. I hope the Prime Minister will give us a free vote

on that. Edward McMillan-Scott, what does this tell us about the

state and the mood of the Tory Party now? And for years there has

been a problem in the Tory Party, it is what led to my moving out of

it. The increasing Euro-scepticism of the Tory Party has been marked

by all commentators. Andrwe Rosindell is part of that it's a

long standing right-winger, and adorns his dog in the Union Jack

and so on. Not a crime? Not at all. But it is part of a process that

has led the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, and in the

country at large, from being a broadly rational party on Europe to

one that is now becoming rather more extreme than it should be. I

think David Cameron's problem is, in Government, as Prime Minister,

and sharing power with the party, which has been broadly speaking

pro-European throughout his lifetime, not madly,. Has it

occurred to you why so many people in the Tory Party would want a

referendum is because the European Union has turned into something we

were never told it would be and it is a walking disaster? It is not

walking disaster. This weekend we have a European Summit about the

euro, the euro is in crisis, but it has created 14 million jobs and

kept inflation at 2% for ten years. It is not walking disaster. But

there are problems, systemic problems. We want reform, that is

what we should be doing. This noises off from the House of

Commons is not going to help in the crisis the European Union is in. We

want the European Union to work. David Cameron says he wants it too.

The mood of the country has changed dramatically. People want the

choice. People want to be part of Europe for trade and co-operation.

The Express does. They don't want to be part of political European,

they never wanted that. You are dancing to the UKIP tune. And the

Express tune? UKIP and the Express have worked together on this

campaign, as you know. As apologies go they tried to have it both ways,

Liam Fox conceded he had done wrong in blurring the distinctions

between professional responsibility and personal loyalties, and not

listening to the warnings he was given during it. He couldn't do

anything else after the nature of the findings against him. He did

point out the media hounding people close to him and throughout the

affair. His behaviour has cost him sis job.

The new stage version of the classic Yes Prime Minister, is a

reminder that the language of Westminster village can be

difficult to decipher. That might precipitate operational

uncertainties down the line. So that there would be a presumed

modicum of iron clad resipcosity that would be to everybody's

advantage. The corridors of power resound to rumour, who is in and

out, but Liam Fox's resignation has been eagerly followed by a much

wider audience. He made it clear today that the last few weeks have

been far from a laughing matter. I'm very sorry to my colleagues

here in the House and all those let down by the decisions I have made.

He said his resignation was without rancour, and it almost was. Last

week's media frenzy was not unprecedented, it happens. Where a

free press and politics collide. I believe, there was, some from

quarters, a personal vindictiveness, even hatred that should worry all

of us. The feeding frenzy could tfpblt the Parliamentary

Commissioner for Standards is to investigate Liam Fox, and the

Government is to publish a full list of ministers who have met his

unofficial advisor, Adam Werritty. The public's perception is the

politicians, not the media, are to blame. Outside the Westminster

bubble, the public perception is that this has impacted David

Cameron and the Conservatives, and it is, once again, raising the

issue of whether people can trust politicians. So I think that's

actually the key things that Cameron is going to have to now

address. In the House of Commons today, Ed Miliband tried to exploit

this? A piece of advice to the Prime Minister, this week of all

weeks, show a bit of humility. think we should have a bit of

humility from the people who gave us, cabs for hire, passports for

favours, mortgages for mates. Dodgy dossiers. This is a Prime

Minister and we see a pattern of activity with him. A pattern of

activity he doesn't ask the tough questions of those around him, and

when anything goes wrong, it is nothing to do with him. He may have

rattled David Cameron, but the leader of the opposition shouldn't

be too satisfied. At the moment Cameron has to deal with this issue

of trust in politicians widely, actually the whole of Westminster

is facing that. But Ed Miliband, currently, doesn't really hold the

confidence of the public that he will be any better. So who are the

real winners in the drama surrounding Liam Fox. Some seem to

regard the Civil Service as the real opposition, people don't like

sofa Government they like everything minuted and recorded,

today marked another shift in that direction. Or to put in Whitehall

speak, the senior echelons of the Civil Service decided to oversee

surveillance to people appointed to ministerial office by the Prime

Minister. Or something like that. Today the Government said they

accepted the recommendations of the Cabinet Secretary, which would

allow civil servants to keep a closer eye on their ministers.

should attend all meetings overseas. If ministers step out of line,

civil servants will report them to higher authorities? The permanent

secretary should take responsibility for-to-make sure

departmental procedures are followed and raising concerns with

ministers, advising the Cabinet Secretary, and ultimately the Prime

Minister, where such concerns are not resolved. A former Conservative

cabinet ministers, believes this place has too much power in the

face of unelected officials. I was a junior minister under Peter

Walker, who confronted this issue, and had ministerial meetings most

mornings without officials present. There was a degree of confrontation.

And the permanent secretary said to Peter, well, first, how will we

know what your ministers have decided if one of our people are

not there. Peter replied, and he said, I will tell you. That, they

didn't like. They fought again and he eventually turned and said I

will do a deal with you. If I let you have one of my officials in my

ministerial meetings, you will let me have one of my ministers in your

official meetings. Game, set and match. The Cabinet Secretary hasn't

responded to that kind of criticism. I asked the next best thing, Sir

Humphrey BaAppleton? I will give you a serious answer to be

considered in its context. Certain proadvisors have to be considered,

postu lated, designated and specified, a number of

considerations have to be conceded sometimes.

Is that a yes or a no? Don't you think that yes, and no, are rather

broad and unspecific in their applications Mr Watson?

With us now are Philip Collins, who writes for the Times and a former

speech write Forcione Tony Blair, and my other guests.

How big a deal do you think this Liam Fox scandal is? Well, not many

things in politics really matter all that much. This problem isn't

one of them. I think for most people they will celebrate the

resignation of Liam Fox quietly at home. But it matters in this sense.

That anyone who is inclined to think that politicians have all got

their noses face down in the trough, has got ample confirmation. It is a

tiny little world, politicians, lobbyists and advisors, it doesn't

look good, does it? I think that's right. The trauma that was the

expenses scandal has not been digested by the political world. I

think they are still really in denial about how angry the public

were about that, still are. They are not paying enough attention. A

story like this reconfirms people's worst beliefs. Do you think there

is a possibility of the whole sleaze thing coming back? Number

Ten were relaxed about the story, because they thought Liam Fox was

so distant in Westminster terms from David Cameron, this wouldn't

attach personally to Cameron or his Government. Clearly the Fox

situation was where no other minister has a friend following him

around the globe like Liam Fox did. You have MPs expenses and trust in

politics never being lower, combine that with the incredibly tight

economic standards, putting a squeeze on people's living

standards and an anti-politics mood out there. It will only take one or

two more cases like this for a real public backlash against it. That is

the danger for the coalition. dangerous for the Government f they

allow the idea to take hold that they play by different rules from

the rest of us, and they can carry on doing whatever they like. Liam

Fox's statement today exhibited the exact arrogance and detatchment

that got him into trouble in the first place. This if that attaches

to the Government they could be in trouble. It could snowball, if it

remains an incident in its own light that it is goodbye Liam Fox.

I thought that Ed Miliband led on PMQs, and David Cameron was

dismissive of him and effective. There was one moment when you saw a

tremor of fear pass through the front bench on the Tories, when Ed

Miliband said to David Cameron, by being different did you mean your

press officer would get arrested and your Defence Secretary had to

resign. You saw them all leaning back and going crikey, that is the

danger. On the Werritty story there are these strange echos of the

Coulson story, the peculiar idea that if you are loyal to your

friends, that is a higher good than being transparent and whiter than

white. Let's move on to the question about the relationship

between Government and Whitehall. Because Liam Fox went into the

Ministry of Defence, determined to sort out the Ministry of Defence,

and in fact t sorted him out? - it sorted him out? Or didn't. I think

he sorted himself out. He has lined up a whole series of culprits for

this and the one person he hasn't lined up is himself. The Civil

Service emerges from the whole thing stronger doesn't it? Ever so

slightly. The Government have slightly got themselves to blame

for this. The Brown Government did the same thing. When you denigrate

political advisors you leave yourself open to this kind of thing.

Special advisors are a special thing in Government, they do

something quite different from unelected officials. Saying we are

part of cleaning up politics and not having special advisors you

leave yourself open to this kind of thing. They are slightly more

powerful than they were, the civil servants, not especially so.

agree. This Cameron idea of limenting the number of SP -

limiting the number of SPADs. Special advisors? It has left Nick

Clegg unequipped in the Cabinet Office. And Liam Fox needed more

people around him. It is not transparent, at least if you have

enough political staff in each ministerial office, or Secretary of

State, rather, at least you noi who is doing what and everything has to

be transparent, and funding issues don't come into it as they have in

this story. Part of the problem for the Liberal Democrats is they

haven't had their own special advisors in Government. Every

department with a Tory Secretary of State. There was a story when one

minister called up 9 special advisor saying these stories keep

appearing and I don't know where they are coming from, and they came

from the advisor. It is a real mistake this, to try to limit the

number of special advisor, they do something important and necessary.

We should also point out that Adam Werritty was doing something not

necessary, which is running, essentially, a fanciful parallel

national security policy. There are still lots of questions to be

answered about this? Many, many. The Lyons Inquiry will be important.

That confusion and unanswered questions makes the issues we were

talking about earlier to do with public perceptions worse. The

confusion, it looks like such a mess. Fox was the opposite of pen

tent in the House today, I thought. I thought - pen tent in the House

today, I thought he did himself no favours. Not to be there for the

George Young response, and then to give your statement and be so

unapologetic. That went down bad with colleagues. There was not a

feeling among Tory MPs that he came and gave the speech they wanted.

They give the passive, the Ministerial Code has been breached,

rather than I broke it. All the people who supported him

vociferously last week, it puts them in a difficult position?

people who supported him last week were not natural Liam Fox allies,

they were people the leadership had asked to do a job. One of the

misapprehensions about Liam Fox is that there is a bunch of loyal

backbenchers rallying to him. After 2005 and his failure to win the

Tory leadership, Liam Fox has spent remarkably little time cultivating

backbenches, he doesn't go back to a ready-made group. On the whole

Europe question, Liam Fox is nowhere to be seen. It is not like

Tory backbenchers will be waiting to see which way he comes down on

the EU referendum question, one way or the other. He's not the force

people think he is on the backbenches. Gavin will be here

A cold one tonight. It means most of us will have a frosty start

tomorrow morning. Quite a few of us will have a sunny morning. However,

through the day, steadily it will cloud over with outbreaks of rain

for Northern Ireland. Most of Scotland by the afternoon. Some of

the rain dribbling into northern England. Dry and bright. Most of

the Midlands and the south-east having a fine day. After a cold

start, by the afternoon, with light winds in the sunshine, not feeling

too bad, temperatures 12-13. Clouding over some what for South-

West England and steadily through the day t will cloud over across

Wales as well. Eye vently some light rain dribble - eventually

light rain dribbling into the south west. By lunchtime it will be damp,

and the afternoon staying grey with further outbreaks of rain. The same

for the west of Scotland. Further east some sunshine but rain late in

the day. Friday promises further cloud and rain across Northern

Ireland, parts of Scotland, in the south most of England and Wales

will have a dry day on Friday, and you will notice the temperatures a

little bit higher with sunshine. So Friday it is a bit of a north-south