07/07/2014 Newsnight

Noise around the abuse at Westminster and the role call of

celebrity accusations has forced there to be an independent inquiry

and review. With us is the former child protection professional who

raised the alarm that politicians were involved in child sex abuse,

and who has given his first television interview in 20 years to

the BBC today. The Cabinet Secretary from the 1980s

is here to talk amongst other things about a memo seen by Newsnight who

suggest it really is the Civil Service in charge of the country.

This Nigerian politician embeled millions, did he do it using British

aid money and did parliament know about it. It is aid invested in

companies alleged to be money laundering fronts for the biggest

crooks in Nigeria. If you are not going to prosecute that what are you

going to prosecute. Is the Speaker of the House of Commons, John

Bosnian Serbing co-right when -- John Bercow says mocking short

people is the same as any other discrimination right?

This is an extraordinary moment in the life of the parliament, and in

the actions of this Government, the Home Secretary has bowed to a

prevailing mood in the country in the wake of cases such as Jimmy

Savile and Rofl Harris, and the dogged determination of a backbench

Tory MP to announce, against expectation, an independent inquiry

in the handling of historic child abarks as well as how public

institutions deal with the issues of child protection. The Prime Minister

has promised they will leave no stone unturned. Was there a serious

clean-up needed in parliament. Were some of the most powerful people in

the country engaged in child abuse as has been suggested? A BBC

documentary broadcast a decade later included an interview with a

Conservative whip decribing reasons why the MPs might ask the whips'

office for help. Anyone who have in trouble would come to the office and

say I'm in a jam and can you help. It might be debt, it might be

scandal involving small boys or any kind of scandal. The BLOECHLT has

previously ruled -- the Government has previously ruled out holding an

inquiry into historic allegations of child abarks today the Home

Secretary announced two. Our priority must be finding the people

behind these disgust be crimes, and wherever the need to prosecute we

will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. And where there has

been failure to protect children from abuse we will expose it and we

will learn from it. The first inquiry concerns the dossier written

by this man, the now dead MP, Geoffrey Dickens, which he handed to

the Home Office and then Home Secretary Lord Brittan. It detailed

the activities of a Westminster paedophile-ring, which has been lost

or destroyed alongside other relevant documents. I felt it was a

country where children could play happily. Mr Dickens campaigned on

paedophilia and regularly used parliamentary privilege to make

accusations. Newsnight has spoken to one person named by Dickens and

wrongly smeared in the 1980s, he said it ruined his life. Put it

before parliament that we castrate the buggers. So what do we know

about the man behind the dossier. Geoffrey Dickens was a serious man,

but until I actually mentioned the word "paedophile" to him, he had

never heard of it. And when I told him what was alleged to be going on

he took it up with great gusto and started creating these dossiers of

which there has been so much trouble and speculation. Why has all this

bubbled up now? Well the spiralling revelations about child abuse by the

likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris reached fever pitch with

allegations of what Leon Brittan did with the dossier. Names of alleged

abusers have been swirling. People need to be careful if we want to

protect the victims and let them see justice. We must follow a process,

which I appreciate is annoying, if you have something that is exciting

and interesting and indeed very important and you want to get it out

there and make sure something is done about it. But sometimes, just

being a little bit calm about these things can get a better result in

the long run than rushing off and saying things in public early on.

Among the inquiries into historical paedophilia already, Jimmy Savile's

abuse at the BBC, following the revelations from the NHS last month,

the Metropolitan Police's post-Savile Operation Yewtree has

brought more accusations. And the examination of historical

allegations at Fernbridge, and there is a look at care homes and criminal

inquiry into alleged paedophile abuse in a residential school in

Rochdale in the 1980s. Allegations that the abuse of children was

suppressed by people in power. It can feel like another day another

abuse scandal, today Theresa May announced a Hillsborough-style

independent inquiry, investigating how public bodies from the police to

schools handled child sex abuse allegations. Why has the Home

Secretary changed her mind and added two new inquiries into the already

burgeoning numbers of investigations into child sex abuse in Britain.

What can the new ones achieve. It is where we need to be, so we can move

on to it and get answers to what went wrong, we can establish who was

part of the cover-up and identify some of the perpetrators that are

still walking our streets. Do you want a man to represent or a party

robot. Cyril Smith's alleged abuse was revealed by Mr Danczuk, but has

the Government been pushed into taking action. We feel if there is

not an inquisition into something the politicians aren't doing their

job properly. There is a real danger we get carried away here. I think

the politicians back there are getting too carried away. Back then

it took several years to clean the buildings of Westminster, cleaning

up what went on there is still on going.

We have our guest in the studio, the former child protection manager, and

the first one to raise the question of high-profile politicians being

involved in child abuse. What is your reaction to the news there will

be an inquiry and review today? It is a very positive step forward. I

wouldn't want people to think that is the end of the story. It is just

the beginning of a process that needs to start now. What about the

nature of this inquiry, that people are going to lead it? I think it is

absolutely crucial that survivors have the biggest say in who should

be in an inquiry, survivors will only come forward if it is people

they can trust and people who haven't let them down in the past.

When I say people I mean institutions, that survivors have

tried to talk to in the past but either haven't been believed or

their stories have been seen as not credible because of the size of the

galeses that they are making and the seriousness of them. In relation to

the NSPCC have you got concerns? From a number of survivors I have

spoken to and from a number of witnesses the concerns that they

have about the NSPCC is it is very much the charity of the

establishment and has for many, many years had people like Rolf Harris

and Jimmy Savile associated with the fundraising side of it. What are the

claims that you are actually making in relation to historic child abuse

centered around Westminster? Obviously I'm not going to say on

live television any details that might interfere with any police

investigations, but for the last 30 years and longer than that, there

have been a number of allegations made by survivors that people at the

very top of powerful institutions in this country, which include

politicians, judges, senior military figures, and even people who have

links with the Royal Family, have been involved with the abuse of

children. What was actually happening, can you give us some idea

of the seriousness of the allegations? At the most serious

level we are talking about brutal rape of quite young boys. Did you

take your concerns to politicians say 20 years ago? After an

investigation I was involved in was closed down before it had even got

off the ground. A senior police officer from the Metropolitan Police

and two very experienced investigative journalists and myself

had a meeting with a very prominent figure in the opposition party, the

Labour Party at that time and we essentially gave the details that we

want to give now but nothing came of it. You seem to be suggesting that

as far as Westminster is concerned paedophilia was used to create a

kind of indebtedness, it was used as a weapon? That's the impression you

would have from the statement Tim Fortesque. I'm saying that

paedophiles infiltrate every institution, but the more powerful

the institution it is, the more powerful the abusers are. And

unfortunately parliament, politicians haven't been immune from

the I will filtration -- infiltration of paedophiles. You

can't name any names, and a number of people that you are alleging,

that your survivors are alleging the perpetrators are dead. Are you

alleging there are still people in positions of power who were involved

20-odd years ago? Very much so. But what I must emphasise is this is

what survivors are saying, and the problem up until now is that it has

never been tested. There hasn't been the opportunity for survivors to be

listened to. And what are allegations may or may not be true,

but the allegations are there, and the allegations are against very

specific named individuals. The initial impression that I would have

is that there is a great deal of truth in them and they need to be

investigated in great detail. Please stay with us, thank you very much.

So questions both at the heart of the investigations are huge whether

some senior politicians in the 1980s may turn out to be paedophiles and

whether public institutions in which we trust may have allowed children

to be abused. But is this a proportionate response or are we in

danger of being swept along in a moral panic. We have our guests in

the studio. First of all, do you think this investigation and indeed

the review has come at the right time? It seems to me that we are so

addicted to inquiries and investigations that it is acquiring

a ritualistic, almost pointless character. We are always told this

investigation or inquiry will put things right and bring closure, but

you will find for many, a long, long time now, we have this continuous

obsess why you desire to rummate with the past. It has almost been a

psychological displacement strategy that we are losing sight of the fact

that there are issues we can deal with the here and now. Some people

can't get on with the here and now as we know with the Harrison and

Savile case until these things are dealt with probably? These

ritualistic performances do not bring closure but incite more

denunciations, they lead to more people becoming the target of

investigations. A complete proliferation of investigations

going on. Obviously it would be awful if anyone who was innocent

were accuse of anything of nefarious and terrible as child abuse, but if

you were a parent of one of these children, would you not wish for a

thorough investigation, for a public investigation to take place? It

seems to me that the idea of investigating this historic, these

historic wrongs and I'm sure a lot were done, retrospectively invites

as much confusion as solutions. In a different climate if you had the odd

individuals being investigated that could work. But surely it is

actually preferable to have these things investigated and then

discounted than not investigated at all? Exactly, to have a culture of

secrecy. We have to remember that we weren't going to have this

investigation even last week, do you think there is a danger here that

what the Government is doing is responding to a rising hysteria? I

don't think it is a rising hysteria, I think it is a rising anger. For

once I think moral indignation and moral outrage are exactly the mood

of the people and the mood that we should espouse at the moment. But

that can lead to mistakes? Not always. And could lead to people

being beaten up that were innocent? I think it could be if one innocent

people were beaten up, but we want justice? People are not demanding,

they come from a small section of society. I don't believe that. If

you talk to normal human beings they don't get up in the morning and say

we need yet another inquiry and judicial inquest, that is not what

people are worried about. Is there are a danger of witch-hunts, the man

burned in Bristol wrongly accused. You have a witch-hunt and a mob? My

church, the Catholic Church only recently was investigated in this

way, and they had to turn themselves inside out and people said, and

Catholics said is this a witch-hunt? No. I think it is not. The way it

has been found out and dealt with in the Catholic Church was specific. We

don't have names or anything, I assume, approaching that kind of

scale at Westminster? But we are beginning to see a culture of

secrecy, and cover-up at Westminster, as there was within the

Catholic Church, and I think the same impulses of "we're in power, we

can abuse the most vulnerable among you", that is there. Let me ask

Peter that, without naming names is what Christine is saying right, that

there is a culture of those in power thinking they can do anything with

impunity, was that the atmosphere described by some of the survivors?

That is my experience and my view, yes. I must say I find it

disappointing that after all these years that the views of Mr Fered

direction are still being put across in a programme like this, when all

we are asking for is to look at the evidence, to listen to survivors and

to discount rumours, false allegations and just concentrate on

very clear, solid allegations. And once and for all allow the

opportunity for survivors to talk about their abuse in a very calm

manner to very trusted people. Do you have a concerns about creating a

kind of atmosphere where children think particularly of men as sexual

predators? I think we already have that, if you look at the way that

generational relations are managed in our society, adults, and not just

men, but also women have become physically and distanced from

children. We have children warned about the danger of strangers to the

point of which the spontanity and informality of society no longer

exists. I worry about what it causes children. That is a difficult thing

to counter? It is true and it is a very price for us to pay. But when

you look at the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile images and you think

stranger danger might have been a good lesson for those children

learned. I would rather my children went on the street had a bit of

freedom and had independence. And pawed by Rolf Harris. We can make

them aware of the risks. Thank you very much. The complex and fraud

relationships between Government ministers and civil servants have

provided endless fodder for satire, but Newsnight has discovered fury at

the heart of Government over what amounts to the job specification for

permanent secretaries, a job brief which suggests which many have long

suspected that their role is not primarily to serve the Government of

the day in an impartial way, but rather as it states, to balance the

needs of the politicians with the long-term aims of their particular

department. Here is our political editor.

You just say everything the Civil Service programmes you to say, are

you a man or mouth? Very amutesing. It must be hard for a political

adviser to understand this, I'm merely a civil servant, I do what

I'm instructed by my master. This was fiction in the 1980s, but is it

fact now. Does life imitate art, are today's Sir Humphreys dancing to the

tune. The minister in charge of the Humphrey its, Francis Maude has

circulated to cabinet colleagues, a document, seen by Newsnight, which

he says breaches constitutional propriety, a Civil Service coup.

What has sparked the row is a job description for permanent

secretaries, or the most powerful officials in the land N it they talk

about the needs of balancing the immediate demands of ministers with

the long-term aims of the department. For insiders that is as

close as civil servants have ever got to decribing themselves as

important if not more than elected politicians. If that is the case,

that is quite a challenge to our democracy. It is a handful of

sentences that alarm politician, a Permanent Secretary, the document

says, must have the X Factor, being able to tolerate high levels of

ambiguity and uncertainty, and at seems irrational political demands.

Then the snappily titled strategic interpretation, civil servants have

a pivot point, managing expectations versus leading their department. A

pivot between serving and leading, but politicis believe civil servants

should always serve. There is much sensible stuff about supporting

ministers, enbeginedering trust and so on, but in the most incendiary

passage it says permanent secretaries should know how to

balance ministers immediate needs with the long-term aims of their

department. I think this is an extraordinary document. I mean we

are used to being amuse bid the idea of Sir Humphrey pursuing objectives

that have nothing to do and can be opposed by the Government of the

day. But this is beyond a joke. It is real. We can't have a permanent

Government deciding it has its own -- a permanent bureaucracy deciding

it has its own priorities against an elected Government for obvious

reasons. This does go to some of the problems we are seeing in a Civil

Service which is sometimes resistant to change, we can see why. Lord

Butler disagrees, over a 37-year Civil Service career, he was private

secretary or Cabinet Secretary to five prime ministers. Ministers have

a political agenda that civil servants can't get into. Although

you are working closely together you have to keep some distance. Is there

a single bit of the document you disagree with and wouldn't have put

down in black and white? No, I think some of it could have been more

straight forwardly expressed. No I think it does reflect the borders

that permanent secretaries can't cross. But it is that attitude that

has enraged cabinet ministers and in another letter, seen by this

programme, the minister in charge of Civil Service reform, Francis Maude,

writes to his colleagues and sharing the document asks for their help in

writing the fresh job description. He says civil servants don't exist

to serve the long-term interests of their department, as the document

suggests, but instead they need to serve the Government of the day.

Ever since Sir Humphrey was in short trousers there were tensions between

mandarins and their masters, this is worse now as the coalition unleashes

an aggressive programme of Whitehall reform. It is not possible minister.

It is. It isn't. It is. It isn't. It is. It isn't. It is, it is, it is,

it is. Tonight some think civil servants have been caught

overstating their power. A permanent Government, but will Sir Humphrey

always be so steady? I'm joined now by the two people you

saw in that film, Lord Butler, and Nick Herbert, the former Government

minister leading a cross-party project looking at the reform of the

Civil Service. This is really the natural order of things, ministers

come and go, and are of mixed ability, you need some continuity?

Ministers might come and go and be of mixed ability. Some kind of

permanent Civil Service, serving the Government of the day, clearly has a

role. But the issue here is whether they should have their own agenda

and whether it is legitimate for them to have a different view from

that of ministers. It is one thing I think for the Civil Service to warn,

counsel and advise, and privately disagree. But they can't actually

say, as this document suggests that the leaders of the Civil Service

can, that it is legitimate for them to have their own agenda that is

separate from the elected Government of the day. You heard Lord Butler

saying there was nothing in the original memo he would disagree with

but he would have put it more plainly? I was astonished by that.

The words speak for themselves, the Civil Service can decide when to

serve the Government of the day, that should be beyond without. DOURT

doubt. And you have to deal with irrational politicians' demands.

Have you ever had to deal with that? Nick may be surprised to know I

absolutely agree with him. The job of a Permanent Secretary is to

loyally try to deliver the policies of the Government of the day. But of

course the Permanent Secretary also has another responsibility. He has

to be able to lead a department that can serve a different minister, or

serve a different Government. So you can't think that politicians and

civil servants are exactly the same. But when the minister decides on the

policy it is whole hearted lie the duty of the -- whole heartedly the

duty of the civil servants to deliver that policy. The original

memo, essentially the job description we were talking about it

is said is without constitutional propriety, that is a bit of a slap

down? I don't think that is right. It is the permanent Civil Service,

that has served the country very well. But the Civil Service doesn't

have a policy of its own. Let me give you an example, a Department of

Pensions may want to do something to reduce the cost of old age pensions

in the long run. If the present minister doesn't want to do that,

that is the duty of the Civil Service to do what the minister

wants. Imposing long-term priorities, that is another of the

things? I think if you have a memo that selects for future permanent

secretaries on the basis that they are likely to be able to take a

different view from the view of ministers, is to invite them to

breach the Civil Service code itself. Article 14 of which says

that civil servants should serve with complete impartiality. The

Government of the day. When did the Civil Service stop being able to do

that, and who do they answer to to have an agenda of their own. You

can't have a permanent bureaucracy unanswerable to no-one. The

legitimacy can only come from elected politician, and it is not

just wrong it is potentially dangerous, if you card getting a

cadre of people who think they have a right and role to pursue policies

that are not democratically set. The danger is in the words as well

"long-term aims", you are not really allowed to have long-term aims? I

entirely agree with Nick, that the people who rule. That is fantastic,

I love the way you are able to say you entirely agree but disagree with

him! I agree but things need to be done in the long-term. We need to

produce departments that can serve equally loyally Governments of a

different party. It looks like this job speck was written by a civil

servant because it can mean anything to whoever is reading it? It gets it

absolutely right that civil servants must whole heartedly support the

elected Government. But they also do have a long-term policy of being

able, a long-term duty of being able to lead a department that can

support another minister or Government. You are not in favour of

moving to a more American-style system, where actually the Civil

Service is of a particular political hue along with the politicians in

power? No, I'm not. But essentially with Civil Service reform it might

end up moving towards this? There might be some who suggest that. At

the moment I think the overwhelming view in this country is we should

have an impartial Civil Service, that is required under the law. That

requires them to be constantly impartial. It does not allow what

this memo suggests, which is that they are some how able to balance

their own views, who is to be the arbiter of those views. To whom are

they to be accountable with those of the elected Government. It is in

plain English. That is not what the memo says, it is for future

permanent secretaries drawn up by the Civil Service themselves. Have

you had an irrational demand by a minister posed to you that you have

had to bat off? Not that I have had to bat off. Ministers sometimes have

to make decisions for political reasons that a civil servant may not

think are very sensible. It is still their duty to carry them out. Do you

put your fingers behind your back and cross them? What do you do, do

you say minister this is not tenable or do you go away and say to other

civil servantses that you have to move on it because it is not

tenable? Suppose the minister says we want to reduce immigration by

100,000 over the next two years T may be the duty of the Environment

Secretary to I is a, minister I don't think -- to say, minister I

don't think we can do that it is not practicable. If the minister says do

it? We will do our best. Can I move back a bit to talk about the top of

the programme and talk about Theresa May's announcement of both an

independent review and investigation. You were around very

much in the 1980s and a acceptor civil servant in the 1980s, did you

have any idea of a Home Office cover-up of paedophile rings? I was

principal secretary when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the

relevant time, I never heard anything about it. Is it conceivable

as Lord Tebbit says that there was a cover-up? All I know is what I read

in the papers. It says there is 114 files, it is difficult to imagine

there could be a cover-up with all that without people knowing about

it. At the time were you aware of a paedophile-ring or rumours of child

abuse within the corridors of power? No. Not at all? No. International

aid is one of the Government's key commitment, but now the Serious

Fraud Office is accused of turning a blind eye to alleged corruption

involving millions of pounds for aid for Africa. An and Newsnight

investigation has found that a department has referred itself to

investigation. Tens of millions were veg invested in companies linked to

some of Africa's most corrupt politicians. The former aid

secretary, Andrew Mitchell is accuses of making misleading

statements on the matter. One of Africa's most corrupt

politicians are serving a 13-year prison sentence. There is evidence

that millions of pounds in British Government aid may have been used to

lawneder money he looted. The aid department turned a blind eye. The

public money, intended for development aid, being invested in

companies that are alleged to be money laundering fronts for one of

the biggest crooks in Nigeria. If you don't prosecute that what will

you. The department under fire, founded in the 1940s, was previously

a small branch of Britain's aid effort, investing in the private

sector and known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Times have

changed. It is now plain CDC and booming on the back of private

equity funds. With assets of ?3 billion in public money, Andrew

Mitchell says it is the future of aid policy. He says the shift of the

market is addressing what he calls a deficiency in the Civil Service's

DNA. Critics say it is creating a climate where corruption can

flourish. The investment in this case, ?23 million, went from CDC to

the American private equity fund Emerging capital Partners, ECB, they

put it into a fund which invests in a range of African companies, some

allegedly linked to James Ebore, the rut politician. The claim is that by

mixing his money with development funds from Britain was able to clean

up to lawneder millions he looted from the Nigerian state.

We heard from an anglo-African businessman of money laundering

going into companies by the corrupt politician. The agency responsible

for CDC insisted he was wrong. It has now emerged, behind the scenes,

that that DYFID weren't so sure. They publicly continued to deny.

This view is now backed up by the parliamentary ombudsman. In a report

on corruption, he says that the Metropolitan Police actually told

DIFID's anticorruption unit there was evidence going back years,

linking the bent Nigerian politician to three of his alleged front men.

Yet they still maintain the investments were

Yet they still maintain the about. They should have allowed a

proper and thorough investigation of the allegation, not just simply

refer the allegations to the fund manager and accept the fund

manager's denials at face value. The people you were making allegations

against, they chose to take their word for it? Not only did they

choose to take their word for it, but they took their word for it when

there was independently available evidence to the contrary. The former

development secretary, Andrew Mitchell assured Caroline Lucas that

DFID had no evidence of wrongdoing. He makes a big point that he's

writing in extreme depth and he underlines things so he has gone

through the letter and hand underlined it. And finally his point

is he hopes very much this is the end of the affair and essentially

you will stop bothering me about it. To give those kinds of assurances

means he wasn't taking the issue seriously or he wasn't in possession

of all the facts. Either of those two conclusions is not comforting

when talking about the Secretary of State in charge of a good deal of

tax-payers' money. Since the year 2000, Emerging Capital partners... .

We now know Britain's aid was invested blind. The emerging fund

merge from ECP didn't have to say what checks it had made before

putting money into companies allegedly linked to James Ebore. It

seems astonishing that tax-payers' money is being used in a way that

has no oversight. The man who raised the alarm says he's shocked

supervision was so loose. It appears that at quite an early stage into

the investigations, DFID and CDC decided to ignore the serious red

flags about the way those investments were being made. Either

to protect their reputation or to protect their finances.

At the start of this year, five years after these concerns were

first raised about British aid money and the private equity fund ECP, the

Serious Fraud Office was finally called in. This month the SFO made

its contribution to this alphabet soup of a saga by giving its

response. There are, they concede, grounds for concern, there may be

evidence of malpractice. What are they going to do about it? They will

pass the case on it the Americans. Now they will ask the US authorities

to investigate. We seem to be in some kind of Kafka-esque story,

where nobody will take responsibility and the buck is

constantly passed. In an e-mail to the NGO Corner House, they say ECP

is US-registered and it does not appear that CDC have lost out

financially by engaging with ECP. That is unbelievable, it is like me

arguing that, or the police saying they couldn't prosecute me if I

tried to murder you because I failed to do so. And you survived and were

thriving afterwards. In Nigeria, the cost of corruption is paid by the

poor. The people who ought to be benefitting from Britain's aid

programme. The critics we have spoken to are ardent supporters of

overseas aid, but despair at what they see is the department to

account for its mistakes or correct them.

CDC, the aid department's private sector arm says in a statement it

remains unclear whether the allegations are true or not. They

are proud of their systems but no vetting system is perfect. ECP said

in their statement that there is still no evidence to support

allegations of improper funding, DFID told us they have implemented

new procedures and are happy to look at any new information. Andrew

Mitchell said he had nothing to add. Should David Cameron have made a

joke that referred to John Bercow as one of the seven dwarves, or is

height unacceptable as racism. John Bercow said he was never bothered

about being short, but in an interview this weekend he questioned

why it was acceptable to question someone about their height when

jokes about race or sexuality was wrong. Leave the chamber, get out we

will manage without you. You are adding nothing, you are subtracting

a lot, it is rude, stupid and pompus and it needs to stop. You are

yelling across the chamber, be quiet. Quiet. Calm yourself, take up

yoga. John Bercow is the referee of the Commons, and not afraid to

threaten a red card from time to time. But after being on the

receiving end of some of unkind remarks about his statisticture, he

says it is wrong for people to play the man not the ball. Where as

nobody these days would regard it acceptable to criticise someone on

grounds of race, or creed or disability or sexual orientation,

some how it seems acceptable to comment on someone's height or lack

of it. Mr Bercow was an athlete in his youth, an outstanding tennis

player, a perspective Greg Rusezski. He kinds the jibes schoolboyish.

When I saw the comments I thought typical Bercow, trying to get

publicity and make himself a victim. It is total rubbish. What a dreadful

speaker he is. You have to bear in mind that the smallness of a

politician or public figure can be interesting. If you have President

Sarkozy of France. He was a tiny little fellow. And he had special

high heels, he was some how a more interesting figure because of his

very smallness. Speaker Bercow is a short chap, and to see him

surrounded by the vast chair makes him a more theatrical personality

lend him political power. Let's leave personalities out of

this for a moment, and feature interesting facts about height. It

seems men of five foot four or less can live for up to two years longer

than taller contemporaries. But taller people may be more

intelligent, thanks to mum and dad. Apparently clever people tend to

seek tall partners, and they may earn more. Perhaps because some

bosses link height to status. Height traditionally has been seen as a

masculine trait, to be a tall man is to be seen traditionally as a more

masculine man. I think perhaps by drawing attention to someone's short

stature, in a map, particularly, that would be seen as an insult.

There is no comfort in a bus or train, his head catches in the

luggage rack. It is not all the upside, as Ted Evans can tell you,

England's tallest man at seven-and-a-half foot. Great height

can lead to cruel or thoughtless remarks. After extensive research at

the next set of desks, we found Hugh Pim, six foot seven of him. Most

people if they spot me say do you want a game at centre half big man,

or what is the weather like up there. It is the height, and I do

feel, and other tall people feel the same, that it is a bit of a liberty

isn't it walking up and making a comment about somebody being tall

when they wouldn't necessarily, in fact rarely if ever would make

comments about people's appearance in other areas. But being tall it

seems to be fair game. I'm not sure it is fair game. Order, order.

Order. Mr Bercow's view that mocking people about their stature is

comparable to racism or homophobia is not backed by the Equality and

Human Rights Commission. Long story short, height is not a protected

characteristic under the law. That is the beginning and the end of the

matter. Joining me now to discuss heightism are two men at five foot

four are both a clear two inches shorter than the speaker. We have

the founder of the website Support for the Short. And our studio guest.

Is the website about trying to stop humour about the question of height?

It is making the issue of heightism known. It is not something

recognised. I was listening very carefully to-to-what they were

saying before I came on. We want to educate people, and show people,

especially short people that heightism exists. That people who

are short are victims of discrimination. I think it is high

time that short people started unifying and acting as a group,

rather than just a bunch of individuals. So a bit of pressure

group fresh, and you as a comedian use your stature for comedy? That is

because people think it is funny in many ways. I don't know whether it

is just a new "ism". We're not an oppressed bunch. We have never been

stopped from getting on a bus or prevented voting. The only thing not

allowed on is a rollercoaster, that is fine because of the height

measurements. An "ism", you are talking about genetics, you are

genetically five foot four, and black, brown and whatever, why is it

different from racism. I think there is a debate to be had. Do we then

stop making jokes about people with big noses, sticky out ears. Do we go

all the way down the line. I don't know that we do, don't we start

living in a duller world. Would it be if we didn't talk about people's

attributes, be it height or ears or whatever? We're trying to get this

away from the individualistic side of T we are looking at it as a

collective trait. When you call somebody a derockry name or

disparaging name based on their height, it should be viewed on the

way other groups see disparaging words affecting them. Is it

discussions, jokes about height actually undermine your confidence?

Of course it never helps your confidence to be a member of a group

that can be easily and wantonly disparaged at a moment's notice. It

is always difficult to combat these things, if you happen to be one of

the people that want to combat these things, you will find there is

tremendous resistance against you. Can humour be a weapon for you? And

that five foot four comedian is not helping matters any. You are not

helping matters any? I don't think there is a problem to be helped. I

think it is, I don't find it, that height is a very different thing to

discriminate against. We are not oppressed. I find the line odd. You

never feel you are being patronised because of your height? I had a

friend at school the same height as me, and in later years went shopping

in a well-known supermarket and fell into a freezer chest, I couldn't

help but laugh at that. It would be sad if we didn't. Is it different

for men who are short stature or women? I don't know that it is. If

it is used as a weapon against you, then that is a fair point. But I

think in my experience it rarely is. It is not, I don't get abused

because of it. Thank you very much. That's all we have time for. Good

night.