02/07/2014 Newsnight

A dossier detailing alleged child sex abuse involving prominent public

figures 30 years ago is missing from Home Office files. The Home

Secretary at the time are Sir Leon Brittan says he passed it on to

officials. Is it time for an historic inquiry into child abuse.

Violence flares after the body of a Palestinian teenager is found today.

Was it the reprisal for the murder of three teenage Israelis. It raises

the tit for tat sectarian murder. On the eve of a charm offensive by Ed

Miliband, is Labour an attractive proposition for business? Does

business trust Labour? Pass. Bodies on the beaches of the Isle of Wight,

could burials at sea be to blame. Good evening. The former Home

Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan has become embroiled in a row over what

action he took and didn't take when given a dossier in the 1980s

containing allegations of child sex abuse. The file was one of a number

prepared foe the late Tory MP Jeffrey Dickens, claiming prominent

figures were involved in paedophilia. Sir Leon Brittan said

he passed it to officials for further examination. The dossier is

now missing. Police are now sure this man was a serial sex offender,

to date there have been 144 complaints against Sir Cyril Smith,

he escaped prosecution in his lifetime. There has long been a

suspicion that it went further, that others could have been members of a

ring involved in child abuse. We know from my investigations into

Cyril Smith that he was abusing boys up and down the country, involved in

a network within London of abuse. And I think we need to name the

other perpetrators that belonged to that network. 30 years ago this man

was a campaigner, a thorn in the side of the establishment. The late

Tory MP Jeffrey Dickens spend most of his career fighting child abuse.

In 1981 he used parliamentary privilege to name the diplomat, Sir

Peter Hayman, now dead, as a paedophile. Who years later we now

know he handed two lengthy dossiers to the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon

Brittan, dossiers thought to contain the name of suspected abusers in

high office. Those papers were delivered here, to what was then the

Home Office, it is the contents of those two bundles which are now at

the centre of this complicated and murky story. Sir Leon Brittan

leaving his London tomorrow today. -- home today. There will be a

statement tomorrow. He said he didn't remember being handed the

dossier in the first place. But he released a statement.

But later this afternoon he clarified his position again. The

Home Office said a review last year of old documents, that went almost

unnoticed at the time found a letter from Lord Brittan that found parts

of the documents were sent to prosecutors, it found that Lord

Brittan had acted properly in the situation. He's looking evasive, the

comments he put out today are contrary to what he said previously.

He changed some of his statement during the course of today in

response to things the Home Office officials were saying. It doesn't

move us any further forward. Perhaps there is a need for him to go before

a Select Committee and answer questions. In many ways today's

statements raise far more questions than answers. We still don't know

exactly what kind of material was in the files, and do they still exist,

and what kinds of actions did the police, just round the corner in

Scotland Yard, take based on that material. In newspaper interviews

Jeffrey Dickens threatened to expose prominent figures if they failed to

act. He told the Daily Express, "I have eight names of big important

figures and I will expose them in parliament, one of these people is a

friend of mine, but you have to be merciless protecting the young". For

reasons that are not clear, Dickens never carried through with the

threat. And the individual, if the list ever existed, were never named.

The Home Office said this evening that despite a search of the records

their copies of the original dossier are now missing. The public will be

astonished that documents from the 1980s, this isn't the 1880s, it is

the 1980s, have not been returned. They will be astonished the because

the detail in those includes accusations against alleged

paedophiles. They will be astonished that they have been destroyed. And

the public will conclude and you can understand them concluding this,

that they have been destroyed in an attempt to protect the names of the

people that are named in the dossier who can blame the public for

reaching that conclusion. More than 120 MPs from all parties are now

calling for a full inquiry into allegations of historic sex abuse.

They say only that can shed some light on events of 30 or 40 years

ago. But with documents lost, and memories fading, many fear it may

already be too late to get at the full truth.

I'm joined now by the former Children's Minister who has written

to the Home Secretary Theresa May in the past asking for an overarching

inquiry into historic cases of sex abarks and the Labour chair of the

all-party group on child protection in the Commons. Before we get on to

the idea of an inquiry, what do you make of the fact in the 1980s, the

Home Office seems to have mislaid this dossier? It compounds the

scepticism people have about why these things weren't taken

seriously. There are all sorts of other things, not involving

celebrities or politicians, the police are given evidence and it

gets shoved under the carpet. It adds to question marks that are

coming every day and week as the story goes on. It leads to a whole

question of trust, why should the public trust authority? I think what

we are looking at here is an issue at the moment about what has

happened to this information, and there should be at least clear

information within the Home Office and within the police as to what

they have done with those records. I worked in social services in the

1980s and there were very clear procedures around what you did with

files and information. And that's what the public has a right to

expect. On a question of an actual parliamentary inquiry what are the

parameters, what are the areas, the problem is we have been incredibly

member nebulus? We are getting new charges of historic abuse, we had

Jimmy Savile and Rofl Harris, more next week on Rochdale children's

homes, the NHS, the BBC, independent schools, music schools. This is a

drip, drip effect. What would be the value of conflating those into an

inquiry? We are having all these confusing places going on, and new

reviews set up all the time that are reporting, another one reports

conflicting evidence, the public is absolutely confused and losing

confidence that children are being protected now. We need to put it

into historical context to know what went wrong and how it went wrong.

You are a specialist in child protection, you are looking into it,

why haven't you signed up for this inquiry? I'm not convinced this is

the right way forward. If there are individual allegations then those

should be investigated by the police, and the fact that we have

had these allegations made, which have been investigated and now we

have got successful prosecutions is making it much more likely that

people will come forward. We know that is happening. My view is that

we already know a lot about what went wrong, we know what we should

be doing now, and I think there are questions about how the Government

is managing child sexual abuse now, and how we are looking after and

making sure that those are properly investigated today. What you are

looking for is a review of what is happening now, rather than historic

inquiry? The all-party group which Tim is also on, has done an inquiry

into child sexual abuse, we have come up with recommendation,

particularly around whistle blowing and better train, which would make

things better for children now. Isn't there a real problem, as we

see in all kinds of cases with whistle blowing? There is, and

that's why it is really important that the Government looks again at

its guidance and making sure that whistleblowers when they come

forward know they will be taken seriously. There is a form of

whistle blowing that can be called parliamentary privilege, if you have

information with he Sufics, why not use parliamentary privilege? It may

come to that. I won't ask that clearly? We won't go into detail. Do

you have information? Certain people have come to us with all sorts of

information. We need to make sure it is coroborated. But I'm much more

interested in putting all this into the context of where we have come

from. The great irony is this Government has done an awful lot in

child protection, overhaul the child protection system. I launched the

child sex exploitation plan to deal with the gangs doing this now.

Children are safer now, but all that good work is being undermined by the

doubt and question marks coming from the drip, drip feed of the historic

cases. You are saying people coming to you are private or public

figures? Private individuals with all sorts of allegations. What do

you think is behind the fact there isn't an investigation, are you

alleging a cover-up? We don't know, that is the point. When you have

reports going mission, when you have police not acting on victims, very

clearly having come forward. Was there some conspiracy, was it

complacency? Was there a network going on? We don't know. Until we

lay all this bear, every stone should be turned over, we won't know

to give confidence back to the public and we are doing it right

now. Are you saying actually there is a possibility the police are not

acting correctly? They haven't in the past. Why should the public have

trust in the police. What we are seeing now is allegations of child

abuse current and historical are taken seriously. The police are the

right people to investigate not parliament. Fears of a new cycle of

violence in the Middle East grew today with clashes in Jerusalem

between Palestinians and Israeli police, and a surge in violence on

the Israel-Gaza border. The clashes followed the discovery of a body of

a 17-year-old Palestinian boy who some claim was killed in revenge for

the death of three Israeli teenagers, whose bodies were found

on Monday, three weeks after their disappearance on the West Bank.

First of all, how serious were the clashes today? You know, you might

argue, compared to what was going on in Syria, or Iraq today, that this

was something on all together a lower level. But these clashes have

raised fears for a number of reasons here. In the first place, this area

in east Jerusalem has not seen street fights like this for years.

This is part of the West Bank that was annexed by the Israelis and is

meant to be place where they consider there to be greater order

than the West Bank proper. Also there was an intensity to the

violence which also shocked some people. There was one incident where

man was thrown to the ground and was being terribly beaten by a crowd of

Palestinian youths. The reality police ran in to rescue the man and

to bring him to his feet. This man turned out to be a Palestinian

local, but he was accused of being a collaborator, it is all just part of

a sense that there is here of great fury burning away beneath the

surface of both communities. As you say beneath the surface, what is the

potential for it to escalate, no matter what political leaders are

saying? The interesting thing that has happened to is Prime Minister

Netenyahu has condemned the discovery of the body a despicable

murder. The Palestinians know that Israelis who are found guilty of

murder are often treated differently to Palestinians in the same

situation. Mr Abbas, their President, has therefore called

today for those guilty of this murder to face the strongest

punishment, as he put it. But I think you get the sense from both

sides of a deeper in vowsness about the public mood. On social media, on

both sides of this divide, Israeli and Palestinian there is a lot of

concern. We heard a group of Israeli youths tonight on the way here

chanting anti-Arab slogans. With the peace process going nowhere,

abandoned by both sides, with no direction. Heavily armed settlers

and people in the West Bank responding to one another could gain

a momentum of their own, particularly in Ramadan, and lead to

an upward spiral in this violence. The Labour leadership is going

wooing this week. The object of their aFKSs -- affections is

business in Britain, with whom it has had a tricky relationship, more

off than on. Tomorrow Ed Miliband will announce a whole slew of

reforms including tackling the short-termism holding British

business back. This comes hot on the heels with Shadow char, Ed Balls,

promising a fourth way to replace the third way for business. How

attractive is this offering to business.

Imagine, a world where Ed Miliband is in charge of the Government. Ed

Balls in charge of the economy. What do the people who make do and sell

really hope, what does business think Labour's for? One senior

figure told me the sense of alienation between Labour and

business is profound. They worry the efforts made by Blair and Brown to

build rapport have simply been abandoned. But another figure

suggested the truth is Ed Miliband just doesn't like big business.

There is a clear sense that in business, when you are dealing with

people in politics behind closed doors, they will say one thing to

you, and they will tend to be really supportive of what you are trying to

achieve. Equally when they go out and speak to the public, there is an

expectation that the public want to hear something different and the

politicians will tend to say what they believe the public wants to

hear. Does business trust Labour? Pass! The Labour leader paraded with

one of Britain's most popular businessmen.

It took sweat, tears and an awful lot of prawn cocktail to stitch

together Labour's new business backing. One young Treasury wonk

would grow up to say how few rules they introduced, "light touch", we

know how that turned out. With business well behind in the

popularity stake, Ed Balls talks in a manner inconceivable to his

forebears. The next Labour Government will freeze gas and

electricity prices. We need a reckoning with our banks. Not for

retribution, but for reform. Are you on the side of the wealth creators

or the asset strippers, the producers or the predators. There

are nerves in the City. There is a -- There is a risk they revert back

to anti-business sentiment, the type we have seen in the past. If they do

that, that will give business some level of discomfort. Both sides of

the political divide have been taking pot shots at business, there

needs to be balance in the rhetoric. Industry always has complaints about

the political machine though, many big players prefer Labour's position

on Europe. And small businesses, like the sound of promises, like

those on business rates. And taking on vested interests, backs, or the

big six, not bakery, of course, has political appeal. What is helpful,

but just as awkward as this photo opportunity, Ed Balls is more

welcome in some boardrooms than his boss. One of the country's biggest

investors told me, Balls is good, Ed not really known. Business likes

planning, not being sure what Labour will do next is a real concern.

They need reassuring about what Labour's intentions are, whether

Labour has a positive vision about banking and the role banks can play

in the economy and society, and they need reassurance. There is more than

competition over gags in a speech between these two. But they both

know re-establishing economic credibility has to be done. No-one

would expect Labour and the corporate world to agree on

everything. But there is a sense of vital trust that is missing, and one

source described the real danger as the inability to have a rational

debate. And being too close to business can burn, so Labour must

balance what it believes, what will work for the economy if it wins, and

what it says to get there. Labour Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls

is here. You keep insisting you are pro-business, and yet clearly you

have yet to convince the City? The City? The business world in general?

I think the City needs to change. And we know that our banks node

knead to change, there has been tougher regulation. I think banks

are really important in the economy, they lend to people, they give

people their mortgages, but they know they have got things wrong in

the last decade and it needs to change. We will come on to banks,

let's look at business leaders, the tax policies predatory, Digby Jones,

the view about Labour is if it creates wealth kick it, the Centrica

boss. We have all sorts of different people saying that the policies you

espouse are not policies that are business-friendly? Tomorrow we have

a conference at the science museum, we have hundreds of people coming,

many people from business on the platform. We are talking about the

Jaguar review of industrial policy, which is about innovation and tax,

to Lord Adonis's review to devolve power down to business. Our tax plan

to keep corporation tax rates low as we tackle tax avoidance, and John

Armi it's review which says let's have a long-term commission to get

the structure we need. These are pro-business and pro-wealth creation

policies, and we will discuss them with business and people across the

economy. It will be a good Kay. Let's look at corporation tax, it is

very possible, you already announced on Monday, it is possible you will

raise corporation tax isn't it? I have said we have supported the cuts

in corporation tax from 33p down to 21p. I want to leap the lowest level

of corporation tax in the G7. George Osborne wants another cut in

corporation tax, we wouldn't do that, we would use the money to cut

business rates for 1. 5 million small and medium-sized businesses.

It is a different choice to George Osborne, it is a business and wealth

creation choice, it has to go along with tackling tax avoidance so

companies pay their fair share of tax. If you want to be the least,

the next up is Canada, 26. 3p on corporation tax. So actually you

have got from 21-26 going. You are not ruling out raising corporation

tax if you feel you have to? We have supported cuts down to 21p. We

thought the next cut to 20p was the wrong thing to. Do I also said let's

have a long-term incentive for equity investment and look at

capital gains tax for long-termism. You are not ruling out a raise in

corporation tax if you feel it is the right thing to do. From 21 up to

26p? I won't write a budget today, I want the least level of corporation

tax in the G7, we have supported the cuts down to 21p. I'm not going back

on. That we think 20p is not the priority when we can help small and

medium-sized enterprises. It is not the same of George Osborne but about

fairer competition and small businesses don't feel they are

getting a good deal. Business would like to know this, it could go up,

yes or no? I'm not planning any rise in corporation tax, I want to keep

them at low and commemorative level, I -- good level. We will cut tax for

small and medium-sized companies. Raising it to 26 is not the argument

I'm making. You are not making an argument for not doing it. The

unsoonerity for business leaders, it is not just them, look at Peter

Mandelson? Hang on, in your film you just said we were not pro-business,

I'm saying to you we are pro-business and we want to keep the

corporation tax rate at the lowest in the G7, that is a pro-business

thing to say? It doesn't come across that you are pro-business. Peter

Mandelson said even if Labour doesn't want to harm business, it

isn't sufficiently clear, and it needs to be sorted out and this

year. Are these words ring anything your ears? We have a business

conference tomorrow, we are discussing with business what we can

do to make our economy work in a stronger and fairer way for the

future. The reality is, and business knows this too, the European

elections tell us people's living standards are falling month on

month. David Cameron and George Osborne say the plan is working, it

is not for most people. Do you bury your head in the sand, do you give

into protectionism or make the case for open economics, a pro-business

policy and change and fairness. That is the argument we will make. That

will strike a chord with business, compared to a Conservative Party

which is running scared of the sceptics. If this is the run up to

the election and your last chance to put a case forward. Do you think

Peter Mandelson is right, even if you are pro-business it doesn't

sound TLIEK? That is aed auto-- like that, that is a big ally? Peter

Mandelson is coming to the conference tomorrow. We have the

Chair of Standard Chartered, people from business Lewis, people from

Labour, business people, and from Jaguar, all talking about the

long-term policies we need to make sure we get the investment and the

rising living standards we need for our country. They are not getting

them from David Cameron and George Osborne who are blighting business

prospects by threatening to leave the European Union. That is the most

anti-business thing can you do. Interesting talking about that, the

head of Unite says actually you should be offering an in-out

referendum on Europe at the same time, because if you don't there is

a problem, is he wrong? He doesn't make the policy of the Labour Party.

I disagree with him. That is not the policy at all. There is no question

that an in coming Labour Government would ever offer an in-out

referendum on Europe. You are at odds with Unite? We made a

commitment if there is a proposal of transfer of powers to Brussels we

will have a referendum in those circumstance, we are not proposing a

referendum now. We think to spend two or three years blighting

investment and underlining our economy, on the prospect of a

referendum, which David Cameron says he's going to have after he gets an

unknown package of reforms, it would be bad for jobs and investment. If

Len McClusky is supporting that I don't support him. Talking to

business leaders, this is part of the problem, talking about predatory

capitalism as opposed to producer capitalism. Should you use this type

of language, it stank of old Labour. We had a story last week about Wonga

the loan company, sending false lawyers letters, threatening people,

and then having to admit it is a terrible thing and paying huge

compensation. I would call that pretty predatory behaviour. Pretty

despicable. Is that phrase you came up with? It was a speech by Ed

Miliband at our conference. He said people who try to cartelise, I would

call that pretty predatory. Let's look at a policy you are putting

forward which is to cap the high treat banks, that smacks of

intervention? At the moment the banks are hugely concentrated. There

is a huge concentration in small business and personal account

lending, that is not my review, it was a review that reported three

years a we said we would ask the competition authority to review the

market, when we come in to see how to get more competition into the

high street lending. But you will cap the market share? We asked them

to look at whether there is a place for setting... It leads to status

policies. It happens when you have prop competition. We are asking the

independent authorities, a particular percentage if a bank goes

higher than that, it would trigger a market investigation to see if it is

causing a problem and whether action should be taken. Wouldn't call that

old Labour or anti-business, I think that a pro-market, pro-competition

policy is good for consumers and good for small business, and good

for large businesses too. Did you talk to your old boss Gordon

Brown about this? About this policy idea and capping the market share of

high street banks? I think Gordon Brown was the person who got the

competition authorities to look at competition the beginning of the

last decade, but the action didn't follow. Did you hear from the film

that business leaders rate you but not Ed Miliband, how does it make

you feel? I think Ed Miliband has led the debate that there is a cost

of living crisis. If we want to maintain Britain as an open,

internationalist, wealth-creating economy, we have to show it works in

fair way for all and not just some. For the whole country, every region

but also the families who at the moment don't feel they get a fair

deal. He's right about that. He's saying in his speech tomorrow that

is about working with business to create jobs and to do so fairly. In

the Telegraph there are words supposedly spoken by John Cruddas,

he's saying that Ed Miliband is gamed out every day every week, and

what is your response to that and the fact that he said that? I have

no idea what that means, gamed out? If you want to know who at the

moment who is being gamed out, is a British Prime Minister, David

Cameron, being utterly outmanoeuvred by European partners as he trys to

take help euro-sceptic, he wanted to take us down an anti-wealth creation

and European road. Many business people at our conference tomorrow

will be keen to talk to Labour. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri

Al-Maliki, has offered an amnesty to militants willing to return to their

census and abandon ISIS, threatening to tear the country apart. The

rebels hold a vast amount of territory, fighter jets thought to

be Iranian landed in Baghdad as the Iraqi military struggles to fight

back. What about the idea of an amnesty that President Nouri

Al-Maliki announced, what is the response to that? He's clearly

trying to drive a wedge into this Sunni alliance in vast swathe of

territory they have captured in a month, it is not just ISIS, they

have had support from Sunni tribal elders and their followers, and also

ex-ba'athist officers. What Nouri Al-Maliki is trying to do is peel

off the latter two to weaken ISIS. We know there have been clashes and

confrontations between these two sides in recent days. We know that

some were unhappy with ISIS's declaration of a Muslim Kalaphate.

We know they have been telling local Iraqis to put down their weapons,

that ISIS are the only people allowed to bear arms. We know they

are not happy about that. But my colleagues up in the semiautonomous

Kurdish region in the north, where some of these representatives are,

has been speaking to a spokesperson for them. At the moment they are

still trying to piece together a common goal which they say is the

overthrow of the Iraqi Government of Nouri Al-Maliki.

We have heard from William Hague and John Kerry that they see a political

solution to the crisi. At the moment we have got political stalemate,

Nouri Al-Maliki is trying to form a Government, yesterday they convened

and it broke up in less than two hours and we are no further.

Meanwhile the fighting is going on, and there is a growing realisation

that you may be able to talk to the Sunni tribes and the ba'athist, but

you can't talk toment ISIS, and -- talk toies circumstance but when you

come to them it has to be a military solution.

What about the warplanes that came to Baghdad? We saw them flying over

here three of them. The experts say they are Russian aircraft that may

have originally been Iraqi before the first Gulf War but ended up in

Iran, they are coming back. That raises the question, who is flying

them, are they piloted by Iranians or not. It raises the prospect of

two lots of aircraft flying over Iraq, American and Iranians, both on

the same side defending the same Government against ISIS. Something

that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. Clearly the Iraqi

military is struggling and on the ground that struggling is

manifesting itself in the proliferation of Shi'ite militia

groups. They have been forming here in Baghdad. I have been spending

time talking to them over the past few days.

Ramadan has started, it is a time of prayer, a time of fasting. But

behind the quiet facade, a mobilisation is taking place. On the

streets, the sense of calm is deceptive. Over the past few days we

have been invited to meetings at houses on residential back streets.

There is some kind of gathering of the clans here going on. Inside

local tribal chiefs have gathered for a summit with a Shia militia

group. They are one of several sending fighters up to the

frontlines to bolster the Iraqi security forces battling ISIS. This

commander says they are thirsty to fight, and said until recently they

were in Syria defending a shrine. But they returned to Iraq in

response to a call to arms by the Ayatolla, the country's most senior

Cher Rick. TRANSLATION: We are a professional and pious group. ISIS

are terrorists, Wahabists from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Some

people in certain areas in Baghdad have said they are very worried

about the reassurance of militia on the street. What do you say to those

who fear another sectarian war? TRANSLATION: The unanies and Shia

are brothers, we are the same both and share the same responsibility.

We asked the USA and Britain, all the great powers to help Iraq fight

terrorism. These people are extremists trying to wipe out

civilisation. On the eve of Ramadan the fighters gather for a final

midday meal. Some of the militia men are clerics, this commander in the

white turban is an Iman. Despite the talk of brotherhood, there is no

mistaking the sectarian overtones of the conflict.

There is a whole proliferation of the Shi'ite militias in Baghdad,

this lot allied with the Government and working together with the Iraqi

security forces, others are completely independent oar

completely funded by the Iranians. ISIS control is to the north and

west of here, but there are very realistic fears there could be

infiltrators here in Baghdad. The militias are deployed at checkpoints

throughout the city. In another quiet district we meet the spokesman

for Hezbollah, they say they are not related to the Lebanese group of the

same name, but they are thought to have close ties to Iran.

TRANSLATION: Everyone wants to know if we are supported or not by Iran.

Well Arabic countries, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and America, they are

supporting terrorism in Iraq with weapons and money. Er Obama has

asked for money to support the Syrian opposition. We are asking all

countries to support us politically and militarily. Iran is part of

that. Iran has proven it doesn't abandon its allies. Look at Syria.

He says his group doesn't receive direct funding or weapons from Iran.

But they are not hiding their affiliation. On the hall portraits

of the leaders. TRANSLATION: No different from having a poster of

Nelson Mandela or Che Gurvara, he tells me. In other cities militia

groups are deployed to project mosque STLIENs. It was the bombing

of a holy site that ignited a sectarian Civil War, mortars arrived

there last night, another large scale attack could have catastrophic

consequences. . As the sun loses some of its scourging intensity, the

tribal chiefs gather in the relative school of the evening. They talk

about a coming together of all Iraqis, Sunni, Shia and Kurd. But

the Sheikhs are here to pledge support for a militia. The Iman

turned fighter talks about victory in battle, of enemies killed and

captured. Iraq is being sucked into a wider regional and sectarian war.

They sing that they are vengeful people and they demand revenge.

Burials at sea are part of the sea faring tradition and folklore, they

have become much less common but open to everyone. In the UK there

are about ten a year, most taking place off the Isle of Wight. But the

coroner there have raised concerns that bodies and body parts, often

washed up on the island, might be from the burial ceremonies.

Investigations into the identities of the deceased are costing

thousands of pounds. And there is thoughts of DNA records for those

buried at sea. Every now and then a beach-goer on

the Isle of Wight gets a little more than they bargained for. Over the

years numerous bodies and body parts have washed up on the shores of the

island. Puzzling many, including the coroner here. This is the on-line

editor at the Isle of Wight County Press, he has reported on many of

the discoveries. We have examples from the last ten years, but

stemming back further than that. Going back decades where coroners

have to deal with it. This case from 2005 is the biggest of this kind. It

was found by a beach comber and discovers a body entirely naked

except for its socks. Leaving police and investigators mystified as to

where the body had come from, and the circumstances that had led to it

being discovered in the beach. In this case, just like many others,

the coroner speculated that the body had come from a burial at sea. But

could that really happen? Just south of the needles is where

almost all of the UK burials take place. Newsnight has been given

exclusive access to one such burial. This is John Lister and he has

conducted 60 terms here. When the deceased comes into our cautious we

normally try to get out to sea at the first available opportunity.

There is an area 2. 5 miles south of the Needles that is dreamed as being

the most suitable part on the south coast for a burial at sea. It is

unaffected by tides, fishing, tredging and trawling. As we reached

the area, we often played music there. Often it is the case we will

play Elgar's Nimrod. We are overlooked by the monument to tennis

son -- Tennison, we will read his Crossing the Bar. But "But such a

tide as moving seems asleep, too full for sound and foam, when that

which drew from out the boundless keep, turns again home." Then there

is the committal itself. Which is over in the blink of an eye. Then

the mourners might like to put some flowers on the surface of the water.

The vessel then, or the both will do a 360 did he greet circuit around

the point of committal and the flowers. And then we will propose a

toast. John is passionate about burials at sea and insists that the

processes in place means it is impossible for bodies to break free

once they are committed. Within the coffin is a mesh cage, that is then

attached to concrete, the concrete weights. There are go-inch holes in

the Mesh to allow a certain amount of marine life in. That is why it is

feasible that any large body part would escape from a burial at se If

it is done properly. Yes. But the assurances haven't convinced the

coroner here who has linked some of the bodies washed up to burials at

sea. Despite the lack of evidence in several cases. In this case the

corpse was so decomposed, some thought it was the body of Lord

Lucan. The evidence is weak, you could be looking for a sea burial or

a murder where a body has been disposed of at sea. Tossed

overboard. And is just left to the tides. The problem is it is very

difficult to identify a heavily decomposed body. If you don't know

who it was how do you know where they came from, and how do you know

if they were butteried at sea -- buried at sea. I have asked the

coroner for an interview, they have refused to talk to me. I have

requested files on relevant cases but once again the answer was no. It

takes it very difficult to know what is really going on here. It is

because of the uncertainty around what exactly is being found on the

coast of the Isle of Wight, that the Home Office is considering bringing

in mand drew DNA tests for anyone being buried at sea.

The hope is that if introduced it will end the controversy and

speculation. I welcome it, it can only be good. If some funeral

directors do cut corners and if there is any truth in what you say

then you know DNA testing will make them pull their socks up. It now

looks likely that a decision will be made in the autumn. And if DNA tests

are given the go-ahead, perhaps we will finally get an answer to what

is turning up on the island's shores.

Now the front pages: ??FORCEDWHIT That's just about all

tonight, when it comes to apologies, we don't expect a great deal from

politicians, the minute mum minute yum amount of minutes.

But in Japan, this man has become an internet hit for taking excuses to a

whole new level as he tried to explain away his use of public funds

in seconds not hours, Westminster take note!

# Have mercy # Have mercy baby

# Have mercy # Have mercy

The best of the sunshine for Thursday certainly the further south

and east you go. A band of cloud and the odd spot or two of rain sits

across northern England and