02/11/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, historical allegations of child sexual abuse, linked to the

North Wales child abuse scandal of the 70s and 80, lead to a victim

calling for a new investigation. You were taken into care, where you

were just sexually abused. Various things would happen, drink would be

involved. It was basically rape. But there wouldn't be just him,

there would be other people involved as well. This man alleges

a leading Conservative from the time was one of his abusers.

In disgrace, Labour's former Europe Minister, Denis MacShane, stands

down from parliament, after MPs say he fiddled his expenses. If you

thought you were outraged-out by the expenses scandal, you might

find a bit left in the tang. The Government announces new

guideline to contain ash dieback, after warnings going back years.

are facing the prospect of it being prevalent in the wider countryside,

at which point it is probably too late to control and doing nobody

about. George Monbiot call it is one of the UK's greatest cry Iies,

do the authorities see it that way. -- crises, do the authorities see

it that way? Good evening, a Newsnight

investigation into the abuse of boys from children's homes in Wales

can reveal that two victims say they suffered sexual abuse at the

hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years.

The claims arise from a child abuse scandal in North Wales, which led

to a lengthy inquiry in the year 2000, known as the Waterhouse

tribunal. One of the alleged victims has now called for a

meeting with the Prime Minister, and for a new investigation. Angus

Stickler from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, who has

been covering what went on at these homes for more than a decade at the

BBC, has this report. North Wales children's homes in the

07s and 80s. The scene of the most depraved child abuse imaginable.

Vulnerable children in care raped by the very people paid to look

after them. One particular night that I always recall is where I was

basically raped, tied down, and abused by nine different men,

sexually. This was Bryn Estyn, a children's home at the centre of

the North Wales child abuse scandal. These were allegations of

widespread physical and sexual abuse. Not just at the hands of the

staff who worked here, but of children lent out to others.

These were allegations of a paedophile-ring involving people

from all walks of life, businessmen, a market trader, a senior public

figure. This was a paedophile-ring that stretched beyond the Welsh

borders. To Chester, the south coast, London and beyond. In the

home, it was the normal standard I have a bues where it was violence

and sexual. Outside it was basically like you were sold. We

were taken in particular to the Crest Hotel in Wrexham. Mainly on

Sunday nights, where they would rent rooms.

In the early 1990s, historic allegations of child abuse started

to surface. In March 1994, the County Council commissioned an

independent inquiry, into allegations of widespread abuse

across North Wales. Professor Jane Tunstill was one of the panel.

cut to the chase, our report was not published, and indeed we were

required to send back our numbered copies to the council for them to

be pulped, in order for the local authority to maintain its insurance

cover. It also meant they could not apologise or being seen as taking

seriously the allegations of the young people.

It was this that prompted the then Tory Government to announce a full

judicial inquiry. The North Wales child abuse tribunal, headed by the

late former High Court judge, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, heard evidence

from more than 650 former residents of children's homes. Horrific

stories of physical and sexual abuse. The inquiry promised to

leave no stone unturned. As for allegations against the rich and

powerful, counsel for the inquiry mentioned the existence of a

shadowy figure of high public standing, but said there was no

substantial evidence to support the allegations. I believe there will

be any further prosecutions, simply because the report has now been

published. The evidence within the tribunal has already been

considered by the Crown Prosecution Service. If something further was

to emerge, then obviously we would reconsider. Since the Jimmy Savile

abuse allegations surfaced, politicians have been raising

questions about other historic abuse cases. Tom Watson, MP,

speaking last week, during Prime Minister's Questions. The evidence

file used to convict paedophile Peter Wrighton, if it still exists,

contapes evidence of a paedophile- ring. In our investigation, Peter

Wrighton was linked with a North Wales children's home, and to a

prominent Tory politician at the time. We had interviews with

alleged victim. Newsnight and the bureau of the investigative

journalism, went back to Steve Michen last week, he stands by what

he told me then. You were taken into care and you were sexually

abused. Various things would happen, drink would be involved. It was

basically rape. But there wouldn't be just him, there would be other

people involved as well. Can you tell me how many times did this

happen, how many times were you abused by this man? Off my head I

wouldn't give an exact number, because obviously I'm going back

many, many years, certainly more than a dozen. How were you

introduced to him? I was taken to him, by a carer, which, I again, I

have said in the tribunal, a cars would pull up outside the home, and

you were taken, and there would be a Porsche, a Jag, and you were

taken. The abuse occurred in the late 1970, he went to the police.

was called a liar, I was pinned up against the wall, I can still name

the police officer to this day that done it. The police denied it, when

they looked back they finally admitted in the inquiry that

statements were made. That is all they would say. They wouldn't say

who was named in it, they actually admit I made statements of sexual

abuse. You are saying you made these statements of sexual abuse

against this senior public figure? Yes I am. In the early 1990s, as

allegations of child abuse in North Wales started to surface, another

victim came forward. We interviewed him for a previous investigation

for BBC Radio Five Live, broadcast in the year 2000, we have been

unable to track him down for this report. But he described then, how

as a teenager, he was preparing to leave care. Getting ready for a job

in the outside world, he wished to remain anonymous. He picked me up

one night, and we went to have drinks. To a pub to meet somebody

on the promise of a job. And then I was asked if I would meet this

person again. I didn't think there was anything to it. So I met him in

a car park in Wrexham. That was where I was told to meet him. Then

we went out for something to eat, and he pulled over in a layby, and

then, hey presto, oral sex took place. He gave me some money, for

some strange reason he was going on about Christmas, and a Christmas

box, I don't know. He was probably just trying to keep me quiet. I

don't know. Were you, at that time, over the age of consent? Was I over

the age? No, I was still in the children's home.

At the time, in the early 1990, he went to North Wales Police. He

showed them faxed photographs of the senior Tory politician.

REPORTER: So in front of two police officers, you picked out the

photograph? Yeah, yeah, they turned around and said they were faxed

photographs and said they were not really reliable, that it wouldn't

be a positive ID. And because they weren't there to see it, it could

have been anyone. I think that's the way they looked at it.

REPORTER: They took no further action? No further action. It may

well be that the case was dropped purely because of a lack of

evidence. In the late 190, both Stephen and our anonymous victim

had another chance to Al-Naimis, they north -- name names at the

North Wales tribunal, but hopes were soon dashed. I don't

understand why on earth we had an inquiry if we had to leave out 30%

of the abuser, and basically I was told to do that. I was told I

couldn't go into detail about these people. I couldn't name them and

they wouldn't question me on them. Why, what reason did they give?

They didn't give me a reason. They just said you were not allowed to

do so. And again, he was not alone. What happened was they sent ex-

police people to all the witnesses to make a statement. That statement

was produced at the tribunal, and you were questioned from that

statement. REPORTER: And your statement said nothing about this

man? When I made a statement to the police, the police crossed it out

and said there was no proof, what was the point, everyone said there

was no point, I mean I never thought that, that's

what...REPORTER: But the inquiry was your chance to tell someone in

power what you believed happened to you? No, no, no, the questions

wereiced from your statement, you were asked -- picked from your

statement, and you were asked questions from that statement.

solicitor represented 30 victims at the inquiry. He believes the

original remit and attitudes at the time were at the heart of the

problem. The tribunal looked into the abuse of children in care in

North Wales and not beyond. There were certainly allegations of that

kind that were alluded to at the inquiry, they weren't allegations

the inquiry could pursue or explore in any way, because they were

outside the terms of reference. That is the terms of reference, do

you think the will was there in the inquiry to investigate some of the

evidence that was coming up? think the inquiry wanted to

investigate where it could, the terms of the reference were an

important restriction. I think it is also fair to say, at that time,

and we are going back to the mid-to late 1990s here, at that time the

idea that senior public figures, politicians, celebrities, could be

involved in child abuse, was seen as a bit far fetched. We now know,

from recent revelation, that it isn't far fetched at all. That is

part of the reason these allegations are looked at again.

One of your clients was naming a senior politician. They weren't

named in the terms of the inquiry. The evidence we have gathered over

the last 20 years remains the same, for now there is not enough to name

names. What has changed is the attitude, the public attitude

towards child abuse. Given those making these allegations renewed --

giving those making these allegations renewed hope for the

future. I would like a meeting with David Cameron. He has made a

sweeping statement that abused people need to be believed. We

haven't been believed. We have been swept under the carpet. It is time

he knew the truth, and it is time a full investigation fakes place.

Until I meet with him -- takes place. Until I meet with him and

get some assurances, I don't believe we will get anywhere.

Now, it was the gravest case of expenses fiddling they had ever

seen. Parliament's watchdog, the Standards and Privileges Committee,

said over a four-year period, the former Labour Europe Minister,

Denis MacShane, plainly intended to deceive. As Mr MacShane chose to

stand down as an MP, the Metropolitan Police, who dropped a

criminal investigation in July, are now being urged to reopen the case.

So here we are back in the poisonous world of MPs' expenses.

Today we have a real hum dinger. No duck houses, but so serious the MP

in question has decided to duck out and resign. Who is this wayward

parliamentarian? Mr Denis MacShane. Thank you Mr Speaker, Denis

MacShane, MP for Rotherham, former Labour minister, and long-term

purveyor of the European dream. So, what did he do? Well, going through

this substantial report, the least dreadful aspect of it has to do

with Mr MacShane's love of computers. Or, to be more precise,

Mr MacShane's love of computers funded by you. Between March 2005

and December 2007, the taxpayer provided Mr MacShane with 14

computers. As well as six provided by the Commons authorities for free,

he also bought a further eight from his allowances. According to the

commissioner, this was "excessive", and could not in his judgment be

justified. It reflected a cavalier approach to the use of public

resources. Indeed, on one occasion it was said that Mr MacShane

allowed an outgoing intern to take away with them a parliamentary-

funded laptop, then bought a new one for his or her successor. Bad

enough, but so far we are only in the foot hills of the MacShane

malphesance items. Let as turn to the items that MacShane claimed for

that went far beyond the rules according to the committee. Perhaps

sensing that unchecked some MPs would use public money to gad about

Europe, the parliamentary authorities put in place strict

rules, only three visits a year, to specified destinations, only two

nights accommodation, all to be approved in the past. But given Mr

MacShane's wide continental horizons, this would have cramped

his style. He settled on a different interpretation. Although

the parliamentary commission said it is hard to be exact, something

like �500,000 of invalid expenses were made to Mr MacShane. The

official report concludes that he appeared to be using parliamentary

funds to entertain his European contacts. To highlight two of the

many claims, in November 2007, for example, Mr MacShane charged for a

trip to Paris to interview candidates for the post of personal

assistant. Also, 2007, he was invited by Jacques Delors, no less,

to join a committee to draw up a shortlist for the European Book of

the Year. There were no funds to cover the cost of travel and

staying in Paris for these meeting, and since he used them to try to

advance the case of British writer, Mr MacShane says he therefore saw

nothing wrong with passing the bill on to the good old British taxpayer.

It's getting worse, isn't it, but we are still not at the worst bit.

That is this, the way Mr MacShane submitted his expenses claims. Let

me quote directly from this report. "The real mischief of Mr MacShane's

actions was the method he adopted in submitting false invoices, by

bypassed the checks and controls the House had instituted in a way

which enabled Mr MacShane to spend public money as he saw fit."

There were a total of 19 misleading invoices. Mr MacShane said they had

been submitted to him by the "European Policy Institute", and

the invoices were for things like research and translation work, as

aed greed. The parliamentary commission on standards found that

the institute did not exist. The general manager who signed the

invoices was either Mr MacShane himself or somebody else under his

authority using a false name. The invoices were created and printed

out by Mr MacShane on his computer. In effect, the report says he was

sending the invoice to himself, and writing his own cheque. The claims

were paid out, unchallenged by the House authorities, and the money

put in a separate bank account, which Mr MacShane controlled.

This all took place under the old regime, the rules have been

tightened up. Mr MacShane says he has repaid all the money, but

accepts his parliamentary career is over, and he regrets what he calls

his "foolishness". He did emphasise, however, that the report has found

that he didn't gain personally from his claims.

Denis MacShane, a frequent visitor to Newsnight over the years, but is

unavailable this year. How can someone put in so many invoices of

this type, getting public money and not be prosecuted? The Metropolitan

Police did look at the matter, it was referred to them by the

parliamentary authorities way back in 2010. But in July of this year,

they decided they would not proceed. It was at that point that the

Parliamentary Commissioner repicked up his investigation, if you like.

However, a barrier to the police continuing with their investigation,

if they so chose, that much of the damning evidence of the nature of

these claims comes from Mr MacShane's own hand, if you like,

in his own letters to the parliamentary commissioner. There

is this big exchange of letters, where the Parliamentary

Commissioner keeps asking questions, Mr MacShane answers some of them,

and they go backwards and forwards. There is the evidence, however, the

parliamentary authorities have confirmed tonight that this is all

subject to parliamentary privilege. It means the police can only use it

as a suggestion for how they might take their investigation forward,

but it can't be used as evidence in court. You can feel the steam

coming out of people's ears as they listen to this, also MPs of all

parties absolutely hate this? is why you are talking to me rather

than an MP from a political party. This is the last thing they wanted.

MPs' expenses they thought they had put behind them. This is the old

regime, it has come back to haunt them again.

There is nothing lovelier, especially at this time of year,

than Britain's old deciduous woodlands, but for how much longer.

After a meet of the emergency sons response unit, COBRA today,

hundreds of volunteers will be out assessing the damage that could be

used by Chalara fraxinea, or dieback. Thousands of trees have

died in Denmark, with Owen Paterson facing stiff questioning from

parliament next week, it appears Britain could have received

warnings about the disease going back to 2009.

We have this report. This small wood in Suffolk was

where the fungal ash disease was first found in the wild in Britain.

It has infected hundreds of trees, blighting this much-valued piece of

forest. The whole of the top of this branch is dying back. It is a

different colour bark from the healthy tissue below. That is

really obvious. Putting them down could spread the fungal spores. The

forest's owners, the Woodland Trust, want the Government to tell them

what to do. We haven't a clear idea of how we should be tackling the

disease. We don't have clear advice from the commission. Hopefully, if

need be, the public will rally around, and the Government will

rally around and we will get adequate resores to deal with a

growing problem. It all began with a mysterious disease in ash trees

in Poland, 20 years ago. It spread across the continent, it was

spotted in 2003 in Denmark. It was identified, named Chalara fraxinea,

and carried on moving. In parts of Denmark, 90% of the ash trees died.

After a visit there in 2009, a group from the British

horticultural trades association, warned the Government's Forestry

Commission, it could reach the UK. They called for a ban on imports.

The commission said, they believed the fungus was already endemic in

Britain, meaning a ban would break EU law. They said their hands were

tied. The next year the disease was confirmed in the netherlands and

Belgium, just across the North Sea. This year, it was found in trees

imported from the Netherlands in a Buckinghamshire nursery. Other

nurseries had infected trees too. And last month, it was informed in

the wild. Meetings in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, COBRA, are

usually for national emergencies or disasters, today was a meeting on

the ash tree crisis. The Government insisted they had act at the --

acted at the right speed. It was first discovered on the 7th of

March in a nursery in Buckinghamshire. Which led to the

programmes tracing forwards and back wards on the young stock, it

has led to 100,000 trees being deployed. We think it has blown in,

in East Anglia in mature tree, that has led to the survey across the

grid. We then took action, last week, by banning all import, and

all movements of young trees, within the UK. Because this is the

planting season. Two-and-a-half thousand areas will be surveyed,

giving a clear picture, it is expected, around the middle of next

week. Then the Government will announce its next steps. Meanwhile

they have said visitors to woodland should wash their bots. I think it

is a good thing, the moratorium is a good thing. I would have like

today have seen it sooner. The disease was detected in February,

the longer you leave these diseases the harder they are to tackle. We

have seen it with the moth issue, if we had dealt with it five years

ago when it was detect, we would have spent then what we have to

spend every year containing it. years ago, a foreign fungus

attacked British tree, within two decades, 25 million elms had fallen.

Many fear now the ash could be next. We requested an interview with the

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, neither the

Secretary of State, his ministers, the chief scientific adviser, nor a

representative from the Forestry Commission were available. We are

joined by the environmental campaigner, George Monbiot, and

from Leeds by Anne McIntosh, a Conservative MP, and chair of the

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Owen Paterson suggesting we wash our dogs, our boots and children

after visiting woodland areas, but is he a bit shaky on the science,

if this is an airborne fungus? think absolutely. The science is

very inexact. A number of questions have to be asked. DEFRA was first

told in 2009 that the fungus existed in this country. Questions

have to be asked, it reached Denmark in 2003, and did

devastating damage, in a very short period of time. I think before we

proceed with anything we need to know exactly what causes this, and

what causes it to spread the fungus quite so quickly as it apparently

appears to be doing. There are 80 million ash tree, some privately

owned, some publicly owned. It could be absolutely devastating.

Does that mean when you get the chance, your committee will not

just want to talk to Mr Paterson, but presumably his predesos sor,

and the Labour predecessor, -- predecessor, and the Labour

predecessor, you would like to hear from all of them? We would like the

opportunity to question the Secretary of State and looking at

the Annual Reports and accounts. We will have the possibility of

looking at that. In my own area I have been briefed by the Forestry

Commission, and the other groups. It is incumbent on all of us. It is

a fragmented industry, that is possibly one of the problems of

knowing. One of the things I don't understand, if it is a native tree,

if it is growing so naturally in our own environment, why we are

dependant on importing young saplings to replenish the natural

ash trees in this country. George Monbiot is nodding along with that.

You asked for the Government to do something, it is doing something,

this survey of 2,500 sites, big effort? It is now going to tell us

how bad the problem is, but not what we should do about the problem.

Basically it is too late. It will destroy the majority of Britain's

ash trees, that seems absolutely clear and probably the best thing

to do is leave those trees in place. If you start trying to cut them all

down, it will make the environmental problem even worse.

The real responsibility for this does not lie with Owen Paterson, it

lies with his two predecessor, with Hillary Benn and Caroline Spelman.

If I were in Anne's position, I would be asking them what the heck

they thought they were doing. The warnings were absolutely clear.

They were clear in 2009, they were clearer still in 2010, when it

became established that this wasn't an old pathogen, known about before

in this country, it was a novel disease organism, and we should

keeping it out, by banning imports then. What Paterson has done now,

is exactly what should have been done two or three years ago. An

import ban, a shut down of this insane trade. It turns out we were

sending ash seeds from here to the Netherland, where they were then

grown up into saplings and sent back into this country, infected

with this disease. Are you then happy with what has been announced

today, this survey. Is that good news, or is it as George Monbiot is

suggesting rather pointless, because it is far too late? It is

not pointless. I think we need to know the extent of the infestation,

the infection of the disease. I think it is absolutely vital that

we know how wide it has spread. But we must be guided by science. I

think that I don't want to enter into a blame culture, but you have

to examine why in 2009, when the industry, the horticultural trade

association told DEFRA, that the disease was in this country, why

the science didn't establish the extent of the disease then. A

number of questions have to be asked. I think one thing that has

been established, and I welcome this, is that we clearly have been

better prepared with animal health disease than we have been with

plant health disease. I think we need to restore that balance.

you worry that even establishing this, and what went wrong in the

past, it is not really going to help us now, because it is too

late? It might be. We don't yet know, but I think that the more

worrying thing is there are other diseases affecting other tree, and

other plants. To a certain extent it is a little bit like the health

service, you are never going to have enough resources to actually

look at this. One thing I do welcome is the fact that European

research is being funded, across the piece, with much fund match

funding from this Government. So we can share that science. It has to

be science shared. What do you think we are facing now? We are

going to see the great majority of Britain's ash trees wiped out.

People are talking about maybe 1-2% surviving, because they might be

resistant. What we are talking about is not just a number of trees,

a very large number ofs, perhaps 30% of the trees in the British

landscape. We're talking about some of the most ancient, culturally

loaded trees that we have. Possibly the oldest tree in Britain is an

ash tree. These are trees which carry a great weight of nature, but

also a great weight of cultural. Some of people have been

continually coppiceed or Pollarded for many hundreds of years. They

have been used to make handles for tools and weapons for all that time.

We are losing a part of ourselves as well as the natural world. The

review show is up next. The special election is on our

cultural radar. What impact do shows like Modern Family and others

have on the election. We will be discussing Tom Wolfe's new novel,

Back to Blood, and a show attacking Obama. Also the radio ambassador to

the UK whose archive is on-line. Join me Sarah Churchwell, Lindsay

Johns and Lionel Shriver in a moment.