26/10/2012 Newsnight

26 days later, we're still talking about Al-Assaf, with police and

charities reporting a big increase -- Saville, and charities and

police reporting a big increase in reports of abuse. Are we re-

examining old attitude towards the safety of our children. Charlie has

reminded me I shouldn't go off with people I don't know. If 1970s ideas

about childhood seem niave, are we any less deluded today. Child

protection experts will try to answer. As the Conservatives edge

closer to a referendum on Europe, Newsnight discovers even if the

European Union budget is frozen, our contribution will still go up.

We will debate whether our future now lies in splendid isolation.

And, media magnate, Italian Prime Minister, bunga bunga enthusiast,

could Silvio Berlusconi's career take another turn, to jail. America

have a Commander-in-Chief, we have a disillusionist chief. We wasted

18 years. Good evening, if anything good can come out of the mess that

surrounds Jimmy Savile, might it possibly with a change in attitudes

in this country, about how we regard the safety of children, and

vulnerable young people. The police and charities have said many more

people have come forward to talk about allegations of abuse, often

going back years, and walled it a watershed moment. Charlie and I

were in the park. Then this man came up and said would I like to

see some puppies. In the 1970s, when this Government video was made,

it wasn't just children who needed warning about sexual abuse, our

whole society of ignorant. Or some would say, at least partly in

denial. The main threat to children, it was believed, came from

predatory stranger.. Rare monsters like Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

we are talking about sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, the cases

that went to court, the children that were abused that we became

aware of, in terms of sexual abuse, were of very small number. I

remember as a social worker and managing teams of social workers,

over a period of two or three years, three instances where children were

talking about sexual abuse and we were talking about that. A social

worker with a piece of paper that said my children were taken off me

for 28 days. In 1987 the Cleveland scandal led to discussion about the

problem. Highly controversially more than 120 children on Teeside

were taken away from their families as suspected abuse victim.

Meanwhile, in America, police were learning lessons from pioneering

academic research into abuse. They began specialist training that was

later copied in Britain. I went to Scotland Yard in 1989, and took

over what was then the Obscene Publications Branch. At that time

there were two officers dealing with paedophile cases out of 16. I

very soon made the decision that I wanted to change it into the

paedophile squad. Because there was no point in trying to persue

prosecutions against people publishing pornography, it was much

more important to protect children. We were seeing a lot of child

pornography pass through. And so, bit by bit, I changed it to such

that all of the officers were dealing with child abuse inquiries.

Today, it is estimated that around one in five children in Europe are

victims of some form of sexual violence. It is thought that in 70-

85% of the case, the abuser is known to the victim. The police

recorded 17, 727 sexual crimes against children under 16 last year.

There is still a lot we don't know. I have no doubt at all, no doubt at

all, that 2,300 children with child protection plans, is a significant

undercounting and underidentification of the number

of children and young people experiencing sexual exploitation,

and sexual abuse. It is almost bound to be so. It is a very

difficult issue for children to talk about, and to declare. It is

hidden by the people, the perpetrator, so there is no reason

to believe that we are identifying, at this point in time, most young

people and children are experiencing sexual abuse.

Legislation to protect children was strengthened by the murder of

Victoria Climbie by her guardians in the year 200. The aim, following

an inquiry, was partly to get better co-ordination between

agencies. In some cases the opposite may have happened. Yorking

together is vitally important in cases of child abuse. But

unfortunately since the Leming report on the Climbie affair,

police and social services have drifted apart, because the report

recommended that the police should get on with arresting people, and

social services should get on with looking after families. And where

as before we actually worked in the same offices, that's not so today.

This is vital work that you should work together, because, social

services will have probably a mass of information about families that

they have been trying to help. And the police will have a mass of

information about something else, you have to put them together.

went and told mummy, and she said we had been very good. Even harder

than safeguarding young children in families, is coming to grips with

the sense of sexual exploitation of older children, sometimes by adult,

sometimes by other children. A survey last year suggested one in

six children aged between 11-17 have experienced sexual abuse. But

it is estimated that more than a third of abused secondary school

aged children don't report their abuse. Our reporting systems don't

necessarily immediately accept what the child is saying. So you could

have a 13 or a 14 or a 15-year-old involved in sexual relationships

with adults, and is saying that they are choosing these

relationships, and it is possible that professionals would accept

that, and wouldn't challenge it. If you have a young person who is

saying they want to have these sexual relationships, if they don't

understand it as abusive, it is very difficult for the professional

to start to work with the child to engage with the nature of the abuse

that's happening. Hello, would you like to play

football with me? Don't you realise you shouldn't talk to people you

don't know. Don't talk to strangers! That was still the

message even 20 years ago, we know now that preventing abuse isn't

nearly as simple as that. Could be more be done and what

could be done. With me is my guests, the former head of the see ops, the

on CEOPS, the on-line protection service. Is this a watershed with

the reports of abuse? I think it is a real positive we are talking

about it, and we are starting to understand more, this real

imbalance of power between children and people in powerful positions.

Is part of it, do you think, thatm so of the taboos have been broken

and we are talking about it more openly, and people in various

organisations have realised they have a responsibility and will be

held to account eventually? I think that is clear. One of the positives

and the potential for this to be a watershed is the way victim, I hope,

are perreceiving the manner in which this is being dealt with by

the police and other agencies. They are being encouraged to come

forward, the messages are right that victims are received

sensitively. We have become too focused on the BBC. The BBC, and

some people might not like me saying this, they are cupable by

regard of being complicit in act or omission, but actually, Jimmy

Savile probably groomed the BBC in the same way as sexual predators

groom all the people around them, as well as their victim, to protect

their offending pattern, so they can carry on doing what they do.

You can see it in churches and other individuals who have a

supervisory role, are groomed to believe that the person who is

committing these offences couldn't possibly do it. This is a good

moment in time to reflect on some of that messaging. Reflecting on

that, and also, we heard there, this question came up in the

Climbie affair and so on, about how joined up various authorities are,

do police speak to each other, NHS, social workers and so on. What is

your sense of that picture, it any better than it was 20 years ago?

is certainly better. But what we can't get away from, and every time

a child dies, a we have a review of what happens, one of the issues

that comes up again and again communication. The way we

communicate with each other. When you do the reviews after a child

dies, after I do, all the information comes together when it

is too late. When you look at the piece of the puzzle you think why

was that child left there with all the information, the answer is,

nobody has the complete picture until it is too late and the child

has died. Is that partly because it is sensitive information, you don't

want everybody to know about it, what is the problem then? Part of

the problem is the way that different professionals work. It

can be surely the logistics of speaking to people. You have a

health visitor who is part-time, a social worker who is part-time, a

police officer who has been to the house who is uniform police, trying

to get those three people to speak to each other can be difficult.

Speaking to a teacher it can be as fundamental as that, it is also

people within the wider community and organisations within the wider

community, don't realise their responsibility. If you have a

concern about a child, you need to talk about it. You need to contact

your local authorities. It is always better to get it wrong and

err on the side of caution than leave it too late. I don't know if

you feel that the lessons of the last month. Even crimes people

thought they got away with 20 years ago they might be arrested. If the

perpetrators are watching the TV programmes they might be nervous.

They are panicking every time there is a knock on the door and a car

drives down the street. If they were offending 30 years ago against

children, I'm willing to bet they have been offending in the 30 years

that followed, that is the critical issue here. We start with historic

child abuse, very often and in lots of case, the nature of offending

bi-sexual predators is they will be offending today, that is why it is

so important that victims listening continuing to come forward and

engage with the police and charity, and provide the critical

information that means they can turn this on its head. They can

play a part in saving people from suffering what they have suffered.

But do you agree, to a certain extent, with what Joanna was saying,

which is the bureaucratic habit of not actually communicating with

other bureaucracies, is still quite a problem, it may have got a bit

better? Following the murder of Holly and Jessica in Soham, the

review looked at the police not having systems to share information

probably, the Climbie review highlighted we were making

improvements but not as good as it should be. One of the problems is

at a Governmental level, if you look at the previous Government,

they had created an independent adviser on child protection to

Government, someone who could stand apart and provide that critical

independent advice thafps Sir Roger Singlton, that is gone, that is a

pity, that was the high-level strategic approach improve

throughout child protection organisations. We need improvement.

Is there more of it now, or are we more sensitive to it, there is more

coverage in the media or more reporting, or are there more cases

of child abuse? There are more cases, is it because we are more

aware of it or there is more of it, we don't know the answer to that.

We must stress that a victim coming forward, that victim is never, ever

responsible for the abuse done to them. Perpetrators will always make

victims feel responsible. Particularly with sexual abuse,

where children are groomed and sexually abused, they are made to

feel responsible for what has happened, they don't realise until

they are much older what is happening to them, they are never

responsible for what has happened. This is really important that

victims have the courage to come forward if they can. In recent

years Conservative leaders have always had problems over Europe.

Today saw the first ever debate in the House of Commons on leaving the

European Union. Instigated by Tory backbenchers. The party appears to

be edging closer to the possibility of a referendum. One thing David

Cameron has been very clear on, is he will not accept an increase in

the EU budget, threatening to wield the British veto. Even so, could

the British contribution go up. Germany cleent tell, Belgium

waiters and the British upstart that is not me. Imagine walking

into this room and pick ago fight with these continental types, there

would have to be a really good reason. The last time the Prime

Minister picked a fight with the Europeans, the famous veto of last

December, it made him very popular with Les Anglais. When the Prime

Minister heads to the continent in November, he clearly wants another

brawl in a brasserie moment. The Government's current position is we

don't accept any real terms increase in the European budget.

Newsnight has seen figure that is we might be presiding over exactly

that, even if the Prime Minister vetos current arrangements and gets

what he wants. We have information that shows over the next seven

years that Britain's contributions to the budget will go up by as much

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 147 seconds

as two billion euros. A molt that contributions to the EU, including

the UK, and benefit the states that need it.

The centre left think-tank, the IPPR, will soon call on David

Cameron not to veto the budget, but instead Britain should give up its

dearly cherished rebate, for accepting a reduction by up to 25%.

This would target the commonkg cultural policy most, and it would

mean our hosts today, France, would be the biggest loser. Meanwhile

away from the kind management of the bassry in Petit France, to the

moment where the euro-sceptics had their moment. For half an hour MPs

debated whether Britain could withdrew from the EU We are drawing

to the point where Britain leaving the EU is no longer thought

unthinkable. It is a legitimate point that is starting to go

mainstream. Membership of the European is in the national

advantage of the British people, in terms of what it gives us, through

trade, through market access, through attracting foreign direct

investment, and through increased diplomatic leverage over foreign

and security policies. The hoaxy cokey over Europe

intensifies this year, if those vote against the Prime Minister

over the budget offering. We have the head of business for

New Europe, and the Conservative rp, Mark Reckless, was one of the

sponsors of the bill heard today on the EU. Even if there is a freeze

in the budget, our contribution still go up, how will that go on

with colleagues? It is extraordinary, last surgery I did,

I had had a number of police officers coming in. They were

saying why when their pay was frozen, why were benefits being

increased by inflation? I found that difficult enough to explain,

without trying to explain to them that, while their pay is frozen,

the EU should have an inflationary increase or more. That's guaranteed

and its budget can only...It unacceptable to you? To be a member

of an organisation where the budget can only ever go up, or as William

Hague says in terms of powers, it is always powers being taken from

the nation states to the European Union, and never being returned,

that is democratically unsustainable. Unsustainable, and

not very popular, you would think? There is obvious lie a problem with

the EU budget. The interesting thing is so many people in this

country, when asked how much they think we contribute to the European

Union, they will say something along the lines of 20-25% of our

GDP or national income. Reality is it is about 1%. It is not as much

as people think. The idea of it going up, our contribution going up,

even if it was frozen in the budget? The commission isn't going

to get 5%. The big challenge for David Cameron and British foreign

policy is, if we veto it, it will go up in 2014 by 2% any way. That

is a reason to negotiate. That is what we should be doing. Picking up

the point in the film, when you were elected a couple of years ago,

of the idea of leaving Europe bonkers? I think it was more on the

fringes of politics, where it now seems to have come to the

mainstream. If you look at the polling of this, there has been a

fairly consistent trend of ignoring "don't knows", a fair margin of

leaving the EU and becoming an independent country once more. That

feeling is breaking through into parliament. How will that go down

in the business community? I think the business community is obviously,

by and large, in favour of our membership of the European Union,

because it is so good for us economically. That is what we are

really talking about here. Leaving the theology to one side for a

moment. This is about people's jobs and growth. The debate has changed

over the last couple of years. But the reality is, people have an

opportunity to vote for a party that would take us out of the

European Union, and when it matters, people don't vote for UKIP. They

got 3.1% in the last general election. I think that when it

matters, they won't vote for what UKIP represents, if there were to

be a referendum. I'm trying to think, you were talking about

police officers and other constituent, but if you had to go

to businesses in this country, or the Prime Minister had to go to

businesses in this country, and say we are the Conservatives, the party

of business, we would like to get out of Europe and it will cost you,

that will be a hard sell, won't it? What Douglas's debate did today was

it opened up the issue of what would we do if we come out of the

EU, all the law passed over the last 40 years, what will we keep

and look at, and say what can we do better for our country. You have to

get there, not only do problems with the Prime Minister and others

in parliament, but even the business community, which is

broadly supportive of your party, one assumes, you will have

difficulty there? The same point can be made with the money. Last

year our contribution to the EU was �19.5 billion. That is about the

same that is spent on the whole of police anything this country. If

you say to business, the worse, I think we will get a Swiss-style

free trade relationship and we should trade freely with the whole

world, not just a declining part of it. Even if you had to pay the

common tarrif for exports from here to the EU, that would cost between

�6-��8 billion, you would have enough to half the corporation tax

bringing it to Irish rate. That would be tantermount to economic

self-harm. If we were to leave the EU. If you take one very practical

example, it is useful to look at it in terms of people's jobs. About

700,000 people in this country are employed in the automotive sector,

50% of cars we make in this country go to other E United States F we

were to leave the -- EU. If we were to leave the EU we would pay 11%

tarrif on cars. The idea that the Government would pick up the tab is

fanciful. Fanciful? It is not going to happen? To compare the size of

the numbers, the cost Philip is talking about is tiny, compared to

even just the amount we pay in the budget. I don't think that is right.

If you talk to Japanese car companies, they will say we are not

going to stay if you leave. We have to leave it there.Y about that.

For years Silvio Berlusconi has kept all of Europe entertained and

amused, the man who saw himself as "the Knight", made Chancellor

Angela Merkel laugh and grimace, in his bunga bung party were an

experiment in social mobility, bringing together actors and

politicians and, it seems, prostitutes. He's been sent to jail

for the crime that finally nailed Al Capone, is this a conspiracy s's

claims, of left-wing journalists, and journalists. I spoke to the

Italian writer of an Italian paper, I asked how, after all these years

of finally trying to prosecute him, they finally got him on tax evasion.

Can I rephrase your question, how is it Berlusconi got away with it

for so long. How is it? We don't know. Sometimes maybe he was not

responsible. We have to accept that. But it is a fact that legislation

has been passed by the Government, when he was in Government, by his

own majority in parliament, helped the statute of limitations to kick

in sooner. Many of his prosecutions were cancelled because of statute

of legislation. Now he's out of Government and it happened, four

years, but he won't go in jail. won't go in jail. This is it, isn't

it t he has excellent lawyers, limitless funds, he's an elderly

man, he will never serve time in jail? To be honest I don't think

the lawyers and the money matters here. Not even politics. I think it

is a fact that now he can appeal, and the Italian justice system is

unfortunately slow, so it can take another two or three years, then

again he can appeal to the Supreme Court. Again he's going to be over

80, he has his parliamentary immunity, he will try to get back

into parliament as a senator, I imagine. If you put all these

things together, you won't see Berlusconi in jail. You say he will

probably run again for the Senate, look at it from here, his political

career must be over, isn't it? should be over. On Wednesday he

said he won't run again for Prime Minister, which was a little

unexpected. Because now he's polling numbers that are very low.

He's giving up something he doesn't have, therefore, popularity, and a

chance to win. But, don't forget that the Italian electoral law

allows any party to put anybody into, we call them block lists. So

if his own party decides to have him within the party list, there is

nothing the voters can do. would you sum up the Berlusconi

years, then, looking back at it. What has he achieved for Italy,

apart from obviously cheering us all up with some of his antics?

Maybe he cheered you all up, he didn't cheer us up. But how do I

sum up 18 years? It is like a show of magic lasting 18 years. It is a

long time. We are now back into more prosaic Prime Minister dealing

with the economy. But basically, it was, you know, I'm in America,

Americans have a commander in I have ch, in Italy we have an

illusionist -- in a Commander-in- Chief, in Italy we have an

illusionist-in-chief. Where does this leave the centre right

politics, is there a big gap in the post-Berlusconi period? Berlusconi

said he would like to see primaries in the centre right, they do have

primaries now within the centre left. That is a good development,

in a way. I'm worried that this conviction will bring the clock

back to where he was, like people shouting about persecution, by

magistrates and political motivation and all that. I think

the centre right in a way has already discounted Berlusconi, and

they are going forward. I think it is good news. There is a lot of

deJay have you in what we are hearing and seeing in the last few

hours in Italy. Some how Italians are tired. I mentioned this magic

programme with the magician, a programme that lasted 18 years. 18

years a long time. You might like magic shows, but 18 years too long.

Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.

Newsnight review is up next. Is Daniel Craig the best Bond since

Sea Connery. We will debate is it the end of men. We will discuss

women behind and in front of the camera in a Saudi film that breaks

boundaries. That's it for us tonight. The tireless one is back