05/04/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, wanted on terror charges in the US, this British man has

spent eight years in a high security prison, fighting

extradition, we have an unprecedented interview from behind

bars, in which he asks the British Government to put him on trial here.

I would ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to please put me on

trial in this country, and to find out what has gone wrong in my case.

On Tuesday he will learn his fate. I will speak to the US legal

attache, about our controversial extradition laws, and will be

debating whether they need to be changed. Newsnight has learned that

Government is gearing up to charge for freedom of information

inquiries, which David Cameron has described as furring the arteries

of Government. The rigours of the Freedom of Information Act, that

called mallet, has shrunk the space in which politicians feel they can

talk freely, so much so that the back of a London taxi may actually

be the last place they feel they can have a conversation privately

and honestly. Last night the candidates for

London mayor challenged each other on Newsnight to reveal the tax they

pay. I'm happy to publish details of everything I have earned in the

last fuer four years, are you going to do the same? Of course I will.

Tonight we will tell you what we found out.

Good evening, this week the political debate has been around

secret courts, e-mail surveillance, and issues of justice, human rights,

and now extradition. We begin the programme with the case of Barbar

Ahmad, who has spent eight years in jail fighting extradition to the

United States on terror charges. Next Tuesday the European Court of

Human Rights will rule on his case and others. Following an

unprecedented High Court battle, the BBC won the right to interview

him in prison. He's the longest- serving British prisoner in jail

never convicted of a crime. The US authorities are fighting to

extradite him, claiming he ran extremist websites to support the

global Jihad. They were the authoritative source,

number one, for Jihad and mujahideen on the web. There was

no-one else that came close to them. Not even close.

In days he will find out his fate. In an exclusive interview from

prison, Barbar Ahmad tells Newsnight he has been denied

justice by the British authorities. I would urge the Director of Public

Prosecutions to please put me on trial in this country, and to find

out what has gone wrong in my case. There has been a serious and

unprecedented abuse of process that has gone on in my case.

For opponents of the extradition treaty with the US, this case

highlights how unfair that treaty A British citizen, banged up in a

high-security prison, in his eighth year, without trial, without charge,

that is a Kafka-esque situation here, happening on British soil. I

think this case shames us all. Barbar Ahmad is the man the

Government said we couldn't meet. But the BBC challenged ministers in

the High Court, and judges said it was in the public interest to hear

his story from Long Lartin Prison, in wore chesser. He has been held

on a special unit for half-a-dozen men, each of them is accused of

being among the most dangerous extremists in the world. In a few

days time the European Court of Human Rights will deliver one of

its most important judgments, can men like Barbar Ahmad be extradited

to the United States. When did they interview you?

first interview was the next day. He was first arrested in 2003, in a

Scotland Yard counter terrorism operation. Officers were briefed

that he was providing logistical and financial support to terrorists

abroad, through a website he had allegedly stet up. Days later he

was re-- set up. Days later he was released without charge, and

accused the police of assaulting him. That area is swollen, I had

bleeding in that ear. I was punched all over my body, I was sneeed,

handcuffs were placed on my wrists, and they were tightened until I was

screaming in agony. They took me in the van, and for 20 minutes there

was more abuse and more abuse of the handcuffs, until my throat

became dry from screaming. Last year four police officers were

prosecuted for support, and acquitted, it came after the Met

agreed the assault had happened, and paid Barbar Ahmad �60,000 in

damages. Months after he was released, he was re-arrested by

Scotland Yard's extradition unit, now he was wanted by the Americans.

At the heart of their case against him, a website they say he ran.

matter where they are hiding, be it a cave, be it in the ground, be it

in safe house, or the dark corners of cyberspace, law enforcement is

there as well. The website was called azzam.com, the Americans say

he used to raise funds and raise support for terrorism, first in

Chechnya and then Afghanistan. The site no longer exist, but the words

live on. Azzam Publicatinos has been set up to propagage the call

for Jihad, among the Muslims sitting down, the purpose of Azzam

publications ...This man is likely to be called for evidence if Barbar

Ahmad will be put on trial. He does his research in the United States.

It was not hard to come across him, it was the undisputed king of

Islamic Jihadi on the web. He shows me graphic footage filmed

in Chechnya. This scene became known globally, because of Azzam

Publications. You have here, foreign fighters dragging the

bodies of dead Russian soldiers out of this convoy they have just

ambushed. This is something nobody has ever seen before.

The leader of the group then machine guns to death, a wounded

Russian soldier. This video is going to appeal to

people who are so angry, and are so furious, and so mobilised, that

seeing people being murdered on camera, even soldiers, is something

that is inspiring. I asked Barbar Ahmad if he agreed

with the Americans, that this video had a sole purpose. They say that

material was used to recruit people for violent Jihad, and that's why

they want to put you on trial? there was anything on there that

broke any law of the United Kingdom, or if there was anything in there

that was wrong, I don't understand for the last 16 years where the

police and Crown Prosecution Service have been. It is just a

question of taste and decency as well? Something like that is a war

crime, obviously I don't support the wanton killing of captured

prisoners of war. Did you run the Azzam website, as the Americans

allege -- Azzam.com website as the Americans allege? I want all this

proved in a court of law, I call on the Crown Prosecution Service to

put my heart and everyone else's party at rest, and put me on trial

in this country. Barbar Ahmad is a British citizen, who grew up in a

middle-class family in south London. As a teenager he became sickened by

events in Bosnia. He revealed to Newsnight that he joined a

volunteer brigade of the Bosnian army and force against the Serbs.

Here were a defenceless people, to whom horrific things were happening,

and everyone was sitting, and international community were having

conferences and negotiations, and nobody was doing anything to stop

the slaughter of the innocents. Bosnia was a turning point for some

British Muslims, Al-Qaeda later tapped into the anger it caused.

But Barbar Ahmad denies he ever supported Osama Bin Laden's Jihad.

If by Jihad you mean defending yourself and your home and your

family, then, of course I support that, as every human being should

have the right to defend their home and their family and themselves. If

by that one means attacking innocent people, or blowing up

nightclubs or violence for political means, then I don't

support that. After 9/11, everything changed for

the man from Tooting in south London. MI5 installed a secret

listening device in his home, and the Americans were slowly building

their case. Investigators were alerted by a

tip-off from a company, tucked away in a quiet corner of Connecticut.

Days after 9/11, staff at this web hosting company contacted the

American authorities. They were concerned about allegedly extremist

material found on one of the websites hosted here. That website

was Azzam.com. UK investigator -- US investigators say the records

show the website was operated from Imperial College London, where

Barbar Ahmad worked. This is a serious allegation made against me,

I have never been questioned about this allegation or shown the

evidence against me. The alleged crimes were on computers in London,

but the website was based in America. It is this question over

where he should be tried that is at the heart of Barbar Ahmad's battle.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided in 2004 he couldn't face

trial. But the CPS has told Newsnight, that it only saw a small

number of documents seized by British police. Barbar Ahmad says

the rest of the evidence was sent directly to the US.

That allegation has led to questions in parliament, including

questions about the role played by the Metropolitan Police.

I would love to know exactly what happened to the evidence that they

collected, how much of that was given to the CPS, how much of it

went directly to the United States, why did it go directly to the

United States, who asked for that to happen? I think there is a whole

grey area here. It is very murky, we need to get to the bottom of it,

which is why I called for a public inquiry.

The Metropolitan Police say they Barbar Ahmad is appealing for an

11th hour review of his files. His lawyers have compiled a dossier of

evidence that could be used against him in Britain, they say other men

have been prosecuted for similar crimes, including having material

that began life on Azzam. If they charge you with fundraising for

terrorism? I would happily stand trial for anything that the Crown

Prosecution Service decided to charge me with. Because I wish to

clear my name, I wish to get my life back.

Although Barbar Ahmad alleges he has been the victim of an abusive

process, the US says everything was above board, and cases like these

are what the extradition treaty with the UK is designed for. Here

we have an example of transnational terrorism, that, in our minds,

continues to go to the top of the list, so to speak. The example of

having him extradited to the United States to stand trial for what did,

as a violation of US law, is the rightness of the issue, from our

side. The US case goes wider than the

website and terrorist fundraising. Prosecutors say Barbar Ahmad was

sent classified material from a US sailor on board this battleship.

Information about the ship's movements, that allegedly could

have been used to mount a terrorist attack. Barbar Ahmad denies this.

If he's extradited he will probably end up before a judge at this court

in Connecticut, he wouldn't face the death penalty. He would have

the opportunity to assert all the arguments that any other defendant

would get to assert. He would be accorded all of the right, the many,

many rights that are guaranteed to criminal defendants under the

United States constitution, which is a very, very generous document,

to criminal defendants. If convicted, he faces life in this

maximum security prison in Colorado. His lawyers say conditions there

are inhumane, this is the core issue that the European Court of

Human Rights will rule on next week. If judges say he can't be

extradited, the British authorities face a dilemma about what to do

with him. I just try to take each day as it comes. Either way, for

Barbar Ahmad the clock is ticking. I'm fighting for my life, and I'm

running out of time. In a way, this interview is my last

chance to try to convince the authorities here to end my

nightmare by putting me on trial in this country.

Barbar Ahmad is not the only extradition to the US that has been

controversial in recent times. The called NatWest Three or Enron Three,

the alleged computer hacking, Gary McKinnon, the Richard O'Dwyer, the

student accused of copyright offences, and the businessman,

Christopher Tapping, have all had public campaigns. To discuss

extradition as the US embassy's legal attache, a former adviser to

the former general attorney. I know you won't discuss any particular

case, but there is disquiet in the US, and in a sense, the kind of

crimes we are talking about, on- line, cyberterrorism, are very much

20th century crimes, which is hard to decide where the site of the

crime actually took place? You are right, I think there is public,

there is some more difficulties in those kinds of cases in

understanding where the crime took place. No-one has any difficulty

when I talk about someone who is in London, picking up the phone to

order a hit on someone they want to be murdered in Florida. And then if

that hit takes place, that crime took place in Florida, even though

the person who was on the telephone may have never left London. When it

comes to things like computers, and on-line crimes, and even banking,

banking is a global issue now, it is very hard to establish, and that

is we're not talking about a specific case, but for a number of

cases, it is hard to establish where the scene of the crime was?

Computers make it thatch easier to commit crimes all over the world, -

- that much easier to commit crimes all over the world, that is why it

is increasingly important to detect them, because crime increasingly

crosses boundaries, that is why the treaty is so important. One of the

suggestions is there is an independent forum, to decide to

judge where the scene of the crime took place. To decide between

Britain and the United States where this crime should be prosecuted, if

indeed it is a crime, an alleged crime. What do you say to the idea

of an independent forum? Many people don't understand the system

that presently exists for determining where a case should be

tried. What happens is fairly early on in an investigation, prosecutors

in the United States and in the United Kingdom, if there is

jurisdiction in both place, will confer with someone another and

discuss the case, and talk about the factors in the case, not only

where the accused is located, but where the harm was insecured, where

any loss was insecured, where any victims were located, and also

where the witnesses are, where the investigation was conducted. There

are quite a few factors that the prosecutors consider. The

prosecutors are those who know best what the evidence is. Often the

investigation itself may not even be public yet. But there is an

imbalance, there is an unevenness between the United Kingdom and the

US, for an extradition to take place from the US to the United

Kingdom. Not only has the judge to decide if there is evidence there,

the defendant is also enjoyed, it is not the case for the UK to the

US, it is simply a judge deciding whether there is a quality of case,

the defendant is not involved at all, so it is imbalanced? Many

people think that is true, but the system you have just described is

actually a myth, it does not work that way. People in the United

Kingdom and in the United States have the ruent to challenge their

extradition, in fact -- right to challenge their extradition. Many

people in the UK have done that successfully. Many requests have

been denied by the courts. People in the United States have a similar

opportunity, yet nobody has successfully challenged their

extradition from the US to the UK under the treaty. It is interesting

but not correct. Isn't it absolutely right to say

that in the US, for a UK extradition to the US, the judge

doesn't have to decide if there is a prima as ifia case? That's

correct. It is the same in the United States, if you are in the

United States the United States don't have to present prima facia

evidence, the standards are the same. Does it frustrate you that

the idea of the treaty was to speed up the process, and actually, the

process, in many cases, is elongateed beyond anything anyone

could have imagined? It is frustrating, I don't think the long

delays in these cases serve anybody's interests.

One of the problems of extradition from the UK to the US, as some

defendants see it, is the conditions in US prisons,

particularly, but not only the supermax prisons, that actually,

that conflicts with human rights, like that one we saw in Colorado?

There are a lot of myths about prison conditions, our systems are

very similar in so many ways. Our trial systems are as alike, I don't

think there is another system in the world that is as much like the

system in the UK as the system in the US. Our prison conditions are

very similar as well. We have been talking in the United Kingdom about

the question of secret courts, and the reluctance of the CIA to hand

over evidence, which they then say would be used in open court, which

would be counter to their modus op Peter Mandelson die, there is talk

in -- modus operandi, there has been talk about secret courts here?

We want a system to protect classified information here in the

UK. The proposals under consideration are not for us to

judge, because it is not our system. But it is important for our

intelligence community that information be projected.

Amy Jeffress thank you very much indeed.

To debate Britain's extradition treaty with the US, is David

Bermingham, one of the called NatWest Three, whose book The Price

To Pay has been published, Mike O'Brien QC, solicitor general in

the last Government, and Tory MP, Dominic Raab, who has campaigned

for reform. Do you think, Dominic Raab, at the

moment, it is dangerous now to talk about crimes committed without

borders. Because, indeed, crimes committed without borders is very

hard to decide where prosecution can take place? That is an abstract

academic question. At the moment there are two fundamental problems,

first of all, British citizens in this country, will not have the

evidence against them locked at by a judge in the same way as it

happens in the US. That is crystal clear. What about Barbar Ahmad, he

has been eight years in a high- security prison, without charge in

the UK, does that speak to justice? Absolutely not, it is reprehensible.

The other issue, the idea of anyone held in pre-charge detention, for

seven or eight years, is wrong in principle. If they are guilty they

should be prosecuted, if they are not, they should be let free. The

other problem is forum, where you have the cross-border cases, which

is the bouyant you are making. The -- point you are making. This the

US offers this foreign arrangement to other countries for protection

for their citizens. When you have a cross-border case, that shouldn't

be hagled by prosecutors behind closed doors, but under criteria

set by the UK Government. Let's talk about Barbar Ahmad before we

talk about the forum, is it justifiable to have a man in the UK,

in jail, for eight years, without charge? No, that's much too long,

and the system needs to operate much more effectively. I do think

there needs to be some changes in it. Should there be a forum for

deciding an, an independent forum for deciding where the alleged

crime took place? I think that's a much more complicated issue, of

course there is legislation in 2006, which tried to insert into the law

an issue of forum, as they call it, where the case should be tried,

with the idea that defendants should be able to be tried in the

UK, if that's where the most significant part of the offence

occurred. That is, of course, what some people want. However, the

problem is, that is not where the witnesses may be, it is not where

the victims may be, it is not where the investigation probably took

place. Why did they not bring it into force. Therefore, it is the

case that, I think forum needs to be looked at, I think there is an

argument for a change on it, however it is not the change in the

2006 act not brought into law. Actually a man or woman's chance of

freedom or conviction, that should be the primary reason for having

the trial, where it should be most he have Kayious? What we are

looking at with extradition is an issue of arrest, what is the cry

tear yum of which you should arrest someone, not the criteria of where

you should convict someone. were part of the system. It should

seem as if it works, you were tried, you were guilty and you did your

time and you came back? extradition worked and we we were

there. You pleaded guilty? We did what 80% of people did in the

country, we took the plea bargain and we came home. Particularly with

this case, it has striking parallels, not only with our case,

but with a terrifying case of someone called Mr Riases, there is

no ability for a judge to take a reasoned look at all the

circumstances and say, hang on a minute, depifrpb all the

circumstances of the case, this is -- differences of all the

circumstances of the case, this ought more properly to be heard

here. In terms of conditions, and we have heard Barbar Ahmad, the

whole the point of going to the European Court of Human Rights,

means the inhumane conditions would mean he wouldn't have his human

rights, you were not in a super-max prison? I think the mere fact that

the European Court of Human Rights has taken so long to look at these,

suggests a real issue. There is no doubt, it is not a secret, in

supermax in Colorado are in solitary confinement for up to 20

years, they never see another human being. Some say the system works

perfectly well, David Cameron and Barack Obama talked about it, an

independent inquiry, is it worth upsetting the relationship with the

United States when the point about terrorism is one that is very well

made all over the world, and is a global issue? The extradition

arrangements for terrorist offences and serious crime are vitally

important, which is precisely why you don't want the relationship

soured by lots of these relationships becoming a thorn in

our side, because there is no fairness to us. I find Mike

O'Brien's position untenable. They brought in a lousy deal, and in

2006 they partly corrected it, by enacted in law this forum test, now

he's opposing bringing it into force. I can't understand it.

you think the Tory Government will change it? I hope so, the House of

Commons has unanimously called for the US and EU regulations for

extradition to be reformed. What would that mean, you heard the

ambassador here saying this works well, there is no need to change

it? With the greatest of respect, the principle position of the

United States Government is that they are more than happy to support

their request for extradition with evidence. They have 130 treaties

worldwide, there is only three where they don't produce evidence.

France who don't extradite to the US, Ireland who will not extradite

if the crime is deemed to be committed in Ireland, and us, that

is it. There is no issue with the US saying they won't give evidence,

they happily will. We gave it up, the Labour Government in 2003.

Dominic has misrepresented my position, my position is we need

change. There is a political crisis in relation to this legislation,

rather than a legal one. The problem is, not only that we have

Barbar Ahmad on detention, also the McKinnon case, which has raised

serious concerns, but also the Government has come in and said

this legislation is imbalanced. you agree with that? I think that

is arguable, what we have now got is Dominic Grieve, no mean lawyer,

saying it is not imbalanced any more, we listened to Scott Baker's

report and we think it is not imbalanced. I think there is a

crisis of confidence in this legislation, that must be addressed

by the Government. Whether that is by trying to renegotiate the treaty

with the US, that will be difficult, and EU partners, there is much of

the same legislation in place. That is a big problem they have got.

crisis of confidence is not enough for the legislation to be changed

in itself, surely it is about imbalance? I'm not convinced that

the argument that Grieve puts that there is an equality there is right.

I think the argument that Dominic puts is there is a big difference.

Will the treaty be be here in three times? We extradite five citizens

to one of those that comes in, we need balance and a fair system.

You idiot, you niave, irresponsible nincompoop, that is how Tony Blair

describes his own actions in bringing in the Freedom of

Information Act in 2007, which David Cameron says is furring up

the arteries of Government. It is thought to have cost the Government

almost �8 million, some say it is money well spent, others say it is

a waste of precious Government time and tax-payers' money. Newsnight

has heard there are moves afoot to reform.

Looking back at bringing in the Freedom of Information Act, Tony

Blair said it was a pretty imbecileic position. For political

leaders he said it is like saying to hitting you over -- someone

hitting you over the head with a stick to give them mallet. The

Prime Minister's text messages letters and e-mails are going in.

The rigours of the Freedom of Information Act, that called mallet,

means that politicians feel the space where they can talk openly

has been shrunk massively, the back of a London taxi may be the last

few places they can talk to each other privately. A senior official

is on the verge of putting out guidance saying no personal e-mails

can be used for Government business. They want to put ministers in the

position of being able to say all Government business is on the

record. The aim of the civil servant,

Whitehall head, is to draw a line under the issue, to protect the

primal text messages. If everyone signs up to the new regime,

personal correspondence of the past might be unknown.

In an unnoticed case, the Information Commissioner has

recently ruled that if you were once in Government, and when you

are in Government you used your personal e-mail account for

Government business, even after you have left the job, it could still

be searchable. For the people in this office, Labour headquarters,

that could be quite a lot of searches, they were in power for 13

years. But all of this is house keeping,

compared to some of the really big freedom of information requests.

Today the Government is facing new calls to release the risk register

on the health bill. You are used to seeing the front of Downing Street,

this is the back of Downing Street, the inner workings of the office,

it is freedom of information requests that allow us to get

closer in and see how they make their decisions. If you actually

work inside the building, it doesn't have quite such a benign

effect, at a recent meeting of senior civil servants, they

discussed the FOI act, and the "effects" it was having across

Government, according toe one official, it is simply paralysing.

Someone who has been in Government and managed freedom of information

requests, says it wasn't difficult. FOI requests, people could be loose

about talking about things, it didn't mean they were better at it,

FOI could make people more professional in the way they put

things, it couldn't stop people having discussions, but they had to

think about it being on the front of a newspaper. If you are positive

enough about your policy decisions, you should have no problem

defending the policy in public if it is released to. You have to look

at people's loosely-worded e-mails that are personal about people,

that is unprofessional, what is the problem. The Prime Minister has a

different view? In my two years of experience with the Freedom of

Information Act and all the rest of it. It seems to me the real freedom

of information is the money that goes in and the result that is come

out. Making Government more transparent is a positive thing. We

spend an age of dealing with FOI requests that are all about

processes. What the public, country and parliament needs to know, is

what are you spending, how much are you spending and what are the

results. The solution being discussed, no doubt on official

Government phones and computers, is to make freedom of information

applicable to more organisations in the name of transparency, but to

put down on the frifous requests, the Government is gearing up to --

friflous questions, the Government is gearing up for a change of tack.

If there is a slight tweaking of the Freedom of Information Act, to

deal with a few of the slight oddities coming out, that will be

fine. If there is any sense of what we are seeing is a reduction in the

access of information about what is going on in Government, I and the

Liberal Democrats would be concerned about that and do our

best to stop it. This will be a fight to define

transparency s the Government believe it is about a barrage of

data relosed from these departments, others believe it is about the

public's right -- released from these departments, other believe it

is the public's right to see what is going on The journalist Heather

Brooke is a freedom of information specialist, and Steve Bomford of

the first division association, -- and the first division association

head. David Cameron said at first it was a disinfectant, what changed

his mind? He will have to explain his change of mind. It is about the

change of balance, there has to be a degree of transparency, we are in

a an age where a great deal of information is available. Ministers

have encouraged that. But there has to be a private space in which

ministers and civil servants can discuss key policy issues. There no

benefit to the public, indeed it will lead to worse quality

Government f you try to make too much of that public as debate and

dialogue takes place. Heather Brooke, you do agree, surely, that

civil servants and ministers should be able to have private

conversation about blue sky thinking, about some extraordinary

things, that you don't need to know everything do you? Let's go back to

why he has changed his mind, that is because he has been in power

nearly two years. What always happens with transparency laws is

politicians like them when they are in opposition, as soon as they are

in power. That is true isn't it. They suddenly lose all appetite for

them. That is true isn't it? There is truth, that is because Tony

Blair and David Cameron had not held office before, once you hold

office you realise how complex the issue is. You then realise what a

pain it is to have the public asking you questions. I think

that's what is lost is this idea that the citizen has a right to ask,

and why should they have to justify being able to access information

which was actually collected in their name by public servants, such

as yourself, who are paid for by the public. The public, by and

large, are smart enough to realise that there must be a conversation

between civil servants and ministers, that might not lead

anywhere, that might be misconstrued, and is aren't in some

way sinister? I understand that, people have a real misunderstanding

if they think it is a simple process to get information under

the Freedom of Information Act. In my case I thought I was looking for

basic information, how MPs spend money in the course of their public

duties, that took five years and a trip to the High Court. That is not

acceptable. You are by nature secretive? I think Heather ran an

excellent campaign with MPs, and did the country a great service in

bringing issues like that into the public domain, it has improved the

quality, I think, of politics. We are seeing that in the Civil

Service, a lot more information available, including about salaries

for people at senior levels, which people have signed up to. I am

concerned around the issue of policy determination. I do take the

Prime Minister's point in that clip you ran, that a lot of the requests

are trivial and about process. That doesn't add anything. I think it is

this question of getting a balance. I think what's happening at the

moment is the Government is sitting back and reflecting on what will

allow considerable transparency and a lot more data that people can use

as they wish, but still protecting the quality of debate within

Government. We will end up with a technocratic Government, rather

than a Government that makes radical policy? We are in danger of

not reading the law. The law has an exemption for policy making.

Ministers do have a veto over this sex section of the -- section of

the Freedom of Information Act. They are protected in that sphere.

It is a straw man argument to say we need to reduce our access.

do you feel about, this is going to be a kind of minefield in itself,

that there will be possible charging for different kinds of

FOIs? I want to go back, when the act was first in place, in 2005,

charl low Faulkner, if you remember, was the minutes -- Charley Faulkner,

if you remember was the minister of justice, this is like history

repeating, we had exactly the same conversation. The same arguments

were put forward about frifl rouse requests. There are a lot? I made a

freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice, I want to

know how many of those requests are frivilrous, there were two. Civil

Service resources are very stretched and every part of

Government will have to be scrutinised in terms of value for

money. It is for the Government to make the case about a particular

fee structure, what I am concerned about, and we saw that today for

example with the arguments about the NHS risk register, which I know

we haven't touched on and which is technical and complicated. What

that decision has done is threaten the quality of advice that comes in

future. There is not only the danger of moving towards

technocratic Government, because Governments are there to make

ideolgical decisions and other decisions, that is appropriate, but

about civil servants becoming politic sized, if they believe too

much of what they say flows into the public domain.

In America candidates for President regularly publish their tax returns

and other financial statements. Will that soon become normal here.

Last night on our debate for London mayor, all four candidates in the

studio made a pledge to publish their tax returns.

I'm just wondering why we don't end this by everybody just publishing

what they earn, and what they have paid in tax, why not bring it out

into the open. Then there is no more arguments, we can talk about

some of the issues we all have in our manifestos. You will all do

that? I will publish my accounts for the last four years and let the

public see who is paying tax and who is not. I will put out my

accounts, and I would love to see the former mayor's. You will

publish your's? I will publish details of everything I have

concerned in the last four years. Are you going to do the same?

course I will. Allegra Stratton has been casting

her eye over what happened the morning after the night before.

What went on? This morning Boris has published what he earns, which

is over �400,000, which is a lot of money. He has also published what

he pays in tax, which is over �200,000, which is also a huge

amount of money. He did campaign to reduce the 50p tax rate? We now

know fully why. Brian Paddick has published his salary, and what we

have learned from that is a large part of it is a generous police

pension. What then happened was Ken Livingstone was also forth coming

with some details. What he did was more technical, he published the

dividends he gets from a company, his own company, what he didn't

fully make clear is exactly what else is in that company. The man

who campaigned on absolute clarity about tax issues will be dogged by

more questions in the next few weeks. Here to work out the

difficulty maths our tax experts. What do you make of this? I think

two things, one that people like Ken Livingstone, who at their peak,

were very astute politicians, should not have let this single

story run for weeks and weeks, and add fuel to it himself at times,

like in your debate last night. How brilliant to remember all those

figures, but the issues should be, the tax thing is relevant, but it

shouldn't be quite so central one you are discussing things. He was

selected in September 2010 by Labour, you would think they would

have got their ducks in a row in the last two years? The trouble for

Ken Livingstone is he's guilty of such hypocrisy, having made such an

issue of it, having said all this stuff that he thought nobody should

be allowed to vote if they are evading tax, he made it an issue,

having done so, just as in many ways in the 1980s he has changed

British politics again. This will now become part and parcel of

British politics. People will have to and be forced to reveal issues

like this, we will see more and more mud thrown. I completely agree

with Ian, it is a central issue and deeply damaging one for Ken

Livingstone. Whether, as a result, we should be determining the

outcome of elections on what people earn, it will get ridiculous.

at Boris Johnson, we know now he earns a huge amount of money, on

which he pays tax, that might play a different way for him? It might

be one more reason we have a chasam in the vast sums some people are

earning. We live in a transparent age and we need to get used to it.

There is nothing wrong with him earning vastly different sums of

money with people in London, and there is nothing wrong with Ken

Livingstone having a company through which he pays himself?

has to explain why he does that. And he has done many times, perhaps

not convincingly. People lol know Boris Johnson earns this money as a

columnist, I note it with jealousy, as others note it. It is not the

decisive issue. There is an interesting issue about transport

and fares, and how the heck repay to renovate what is a rundown

transport system. For selfish reasons, surely, we should make a

judgment on who can deliver all of that, it is a tough call this time

round. Isn't that, in the end, more important, that -- than what they

earn. After the budget, George Osborne was asked what his taxman

will be, it comes along with your CV as a candidate for community

council, local elections, parliamentary elections, Europe,

that will be one of the bottom lines? Steve is doing a noble job

pretending this is an election where policy matters, the reality

is it is about personality. Boris and Ken are cartoon characters and

character is a big part of the question people are voting on. The

reality is this is an important part, if people make an issue of

tax, it is inevitable it becomes part of the test of character.

Presumably true in times of austerity, these things have

greater significance than in the boom years? Tax evasion and high

earning and tax has become big issues. They are big issues today,

and that is why we have seen other people caught recently. It would

have been the same fascination bust or boom, they are fascinated by

what people earn. In a political contest it becomes more highly

charged. I'm not as ernest about people, I'm fascinated by what

people earn. Interestingly if this debate had happened the first time

round, we wouldn't have got the Congestion Charge, which has

changed all our lives, those in London and outside. What in the end

what decides elections is not the money. Do we ask Ed Milliband and

David Cameron. If we move to a situation like the

American presidential candidates, who have to be transparent about

what they earn and what assets they have as well. Maybe we should go to

the Norwegian system, whereby every single person has to put their tax

returns in public, maybe we will end up there. We are going to a

situation whereby politicians are, like it or not, rightly or wrong

low, there will be questions asked on these sorts of issues. Likely

there will be more mud thrown and putting a lot more people off

plilgts. If in the end people make a decision on what people earn, and

the individual flaws of candidates, rather than the policies that

affect their lives, they will be the ones that suffer. You can't

appreciate a great artist because he was a Nazi, you can still

appreciate the art. We are not accusing any candidates of being

Nazis, or great artists, if only they were. In the end you have to

look at the art in this case, which is the policies here.

He was the man behind the ants who were in turn behind the greatest

names in rock. Born in Southall in London, and called the father of

loud, Jim marshall died today at the age of 88. We will leave you

with ringing in your years curtesy of Jimi Hendrix and Mr Marshall.

Hello there, we have a frost tonight across the southern half of

the UK, it could be down to minus four in some rural areas. The frost

lifting in the morning. Cloud continuing to stream down from the

north. A scattering of showers for England and Wales, but patchy rain

for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Not much rain through the Midlands,

not much sunshine either, or the cloud through the afternoon. As you

move into southern counties of England, so we see more sunshine.

Less windy than it was today. Temperatures higher, 12, 13, a big

improvement on today. It should feel a little bit warmer as well.

As you move further north back into Wales, we move into more cloud

again, some brighter skies across the south of the country, more

likely to catch showery bursts of rain in the north of Wales. For

Northern Ireland not much sunshine here. Clouds getting into double

figures, a little bit of light rain or drizzle. Most of the rain in

Scotland will be across the northern half of the mainland, cold

in the Northern Isles, double figures through the central

lowlands. As you look through Saturday, there is cloudy skies in

most areas, not a great deal of rain. Similar story across the

south, always brighter on Friday across southern parts of England

and Wales, again cloudy skies, generally dry on Saturday. It