0:00:10 > 0:00:13heart of his Downing Street Good evening. We will be returning
0:00:13 > 0:00:17to the issue of the press and politics later. But first, a saga
0:00:18 > 0:00:22which seems to have been running almost as long. 17 years after 29
0:00:22 > 0:00:27people died in a military helicopter when it crashed in the
0:00:27 > 0:00:30MacIntyre, the two pilots have been cleared of negligence at last. An
0:00:31 > 0:00:37inquiry concluded the earlier verdict of negligence should be set
0:00:37 > 0:00:41aside. Liam Fox has apologised to the pilots' families, but why has
0:00:41 > 0:00:46it taken so long? In a moment I will be speaking to one of the
0:00:46 > 0:00:50inquiry team, are there Hahnemann. But first, here's Tim Reid. It was
0:00:50 > 0:00:56a 70 minute helicopter flight which ended in disaster. It has taken
0:00:56 > 0:01:04many years to re-establish the truth, amid claims of systemic
0:01:04 > 0:01:12failings and the scapegoating of a young crew. This afternoon, it was
0:01:12 > 0:01:15all smiles, as justice for the two family's was finally done. This
0:01:15 > 0:01:18gathering of relatives, MPs, peers and the media was the culmination
0:01:19 > 0:01:23of a long fought campaign to overturn the findings of gross
0:01:23 > 0:01:28negligence which not even the officials in charge of the first
0:01:28 > 0:01:31investigation ever reached. Liam Fox is the last in a long line of
0:01:31 > 0:01:37defence secretaries to consider the case, but he is the first to change
0:01:37 > 0:01:42course. I have written to the widows of the two pilots, and to
0:01:42 > 0:01:45the family of them, to express the Ministry of Defence's apology for
0:01:45 > 0:01:50the distress which was caused to them by the finding of negligence.
0:01:50 > 0:01:53I also wish to express that apology publicly today. With that apology,
0:01:54 > 0:01:57he went further than many campaigners had expected, but there
0:01:57 > 0:02:03was no joy for those who claimed technical and safety issues could
0:02:03 > 0:02:06have been responsible. Those who allege a long-running conspiracy to
0:02:06 > 0:02:09cover up technical shortcomings in the aircraft will find no support
0:02:10 > 0:02:14here. The Chinook has had an excellent safety record since the
0:02:14 > 0:02:19disaster. It has been a mainstay for our operations in successive
0:02:19 > 0:02:23theatres of war, and it has the full confidence of those who fly it.
0:02:23 > 0:02:27The flight lieutenants were amongst 29 people who were killed in June
0:02:27 > 0:02:321994, when their Chinook crashed into this hillside on the Mull of
0:02:32 > 0:02:36Kintyre. Also on board were 25 senior intelligence experts. The
0:02:36 > 0:02:40RAF board of inquiry found a probable cause was an inappropriate
0:02:40 > 0:02:45rate of climb, but it never apportioned blame. Two RAF air
0:02:45 > 0:02:51marshals disagreed, accusing the pilots of negligence to a gross
0:02:51 > 0:02:56degree. Give the pilots discharge their duty of care? I'm afraid that
0:02:56 > 0:03:00in my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that they did not.
0:03:00 > 0:03:05a nine month independent inquiry, retired judge Lord Philip has
0:03:05 > 0:03:10concluded that decision was wrong, based on faulty legal advice at the
0:03:10 > 0:03:14time about the burden of proof needed to reach that finding. This
0:03:14 > 0:03:18is the report, it is less than 100 pages long, and it has taken 16
0:03:18 > 0:03:23years, but finally it clears the two pilots of blame for gross
0:03:23 > 0:03:27negligence. In it, Lord Philip accuses the MoD of intransigence
0:03:27 > 0:03:31for failing to rectify this much sooner. It is absolutely first
0:03:31 > 0:03:35class. It is extraordinarily good, even though I have only read about
0:03:35 > 0:03:39a third of it. Absolutely delighted and taken aback. I was not
0:03:39 > 0:03:42expecting we would get that much today, to be honest. I just
0:03:42 > 0:03:49understood we would get an idea of what the report said and that would
0:03:49 > 0:03:52be it. To get the fact that Liam Fox is supporting the
0:03:52 > 0:03:58recommendations and that they're making an apology is really much
0:03:58 > 0:04:00appreciated. The findings have been welcomed by the families of some of
0:04:00 > 0:04:06the other servicemen who died in the crash, though there is dismay
0:04:06 > 0:04:11at the length of time it has taken. I no longer get angry about
0:04:11 > 0:04:14anything. I'm very, very sad, it is the sadness about the unnecessary
0:04:14 > 0:04:18suffering for the families, and for those two families in particular,
0:04:18 > 0:04:23and the fact they have lost other loved ones in the families who did
0:04:23 > 0:04:27not get to see their loved ones' names cleared. It is the end of the
0:04:27 > 0:04:33road for some of the politicians who had fought to get the MoD to
0:04:33 > 0:04:39reconsider. This has been a grievance which we have heard over
0:04:39 > 0:04:43many years. Today, that grievance has been put wide. The air marshals
0:04:43 > 0:04:47themselves have resolutely stuck to their verdict. I understand their
0:04:47 > 0:04:51explanations during questioning in front of the inquiry did not overly
0:04:51 > 0:04:57impressed the team of Lord Philip it. But there are those who still
0:04:57 > 0:05:01believe the pilots were to blame. I'm afraid I will upset a lot of
0:05:01 > 0:05:05people here but I have no doubt in my mind that this was down to pilot
0:05:05 > 0:05:14error. We have not heard anything today about the plane being unsafe,
0:05:14 > 0:05:20it was a brilliant piece of kit. We seem to have lost that report,
0:05:20 > 0:05:25but we do have Tim Reid himself, who joins me from Westminster. Just
0:05:25 > 0:05:30as we had that technical problem, it is quite clear there are still
0:05:30 > 0:05:36people who take the line that the Ministry of Defence has taken for
0:05:36 > 0:05:3916 years, until today, and they will not change their mind? Yes,
0:05:39 > 0:05:45not very many who come out in public, like that member of the
0:05:45 > 0:05:49House of Lords did. But I was speaking to someone, a senior
0:05:49 > 0:05:51Labour politician last night, who said he believed that this report
0:05:51 > 0:05:55would say the pilots were not guilty of gross negligence, but
0:05:55 > 0:06:01still believed they were culpable, in other words, that they were
0:06:01 > 0:06:05flying too low, too fast, in thick fog. We know from the report that
0:06:05 > 0:06:09it is pretty detailed in the explanation of why they do not
0:06:09 > 0:06:16believe the pilots were guilty of gross negligence. And the RAF's own
0:06:16 > 0:06:20rules, there had to be no doubt whatsoever. And clearly, because
0:06:20 > 0:06:28there were other factors involved, we do not know what happened in
0:06:28 > 0:06:33this case. Y do you think that there has been such resistance to
0:06:33 > 0:06:39changing this verdict? Is it, as Lord it's a seemed to be implying,
0:06:39 > 0:06:43because the RAF wants to defend a piece of kit, as he put it? It is
0:06:43 > 0:06:45entirely possible that it is about the piece of kit, but have no it is
0:06:45 > 0:06:50more about the processes which were going on within the Ministry of
0:06:50 > 0:06:54Defence at the time. Back in April we talked about the report on the
0:06:54 > 0:06:58air worthiness of the Chinook, and it is mentioned in this report, but
0:06:58 > 0:07:01it is not mentioned in detail about what happened after that. There are
0:07:01 > 0:07:05experts who believe there was cost- cutting going on within the
0:07:05 > 0:07:11ministry, that there were people to blame for the fact that the
0:07:11 > 0:07:15airworthiness issues had not been resolved, and it is those people
0:07:15 > 0:07:19who it is being said the Ministry of Defence was trying to protect.
0:07:19 > 0:07:26Earlier this evening I spoke to one of the three Scottish Privy
0:07:26 > 0:07:31Councillors who sat through the nine month Philip inquiry. I asked
0:07:31 > 0:07:36Malcolm Bruce if he thought it was important that the results of the
0:07:36 > 0:07:40review were unanimous. I believe it is. None of us had any preconceived
0:07:40 > 0:07:45notions about this issue. None of us had looked into it at all. We
0:07:45 > 0:07:50approached it with a completely open mind. When we first heard the
0:07:50 > 0:07:55opinions of the air marshals, I think we understood that they were
0:07:55 > 0:07:58in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the helicopter had effectively
0:07:58 > 0:08:03flown deliberately into the mountain and that that was gross
0:08:03 > 0:08:06negligence. But what we gradually recognise was that that completely
0:08:06 > 0:08:11failed to meet the standard of proof, namely that there had to be
0:08:11 > 0:08:16no doubt whatsoever, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that you had to
0:08:16 > 0:08:20be certain that the crash was caused by that mechanism. And the
0:08:20 > 0:08:25truth is that there was doubt. The chairman of the original board of
0:08:25 > 0:08:29inquiry had doubt. Other pilots had doubt. The Air Traffic investigator
0:08:29 > 0:08:33said he could not be certain of the operational state of the aircraft.
0:08:33 > 0:08:37In all of those circumstances, it became clear to us that there was
0:08:37 > 0:08:42doubt, and that whilst some people were absolutely sure, as long as
0:08:42 > 0:08:49there was doubt, it was not proper to come to the conclusion that the
0:08:49 > 0:08:53air marshals had done. As you have just said, the original board of
0:08:53 > 0:09:03inquiry did not find that the pilots were negligent. There have
0:09:03 > 0:09:08
0:09:08 > 0:09:14been any number of inquiries since. Why do you think there seems to
0:09:14 > 0:09:18have been almost institutional intransigence over this issue?
0:09:18 > 0:09:22Certainly it is quite extraordinary, because the conclusions we have
0:09:22 > 0:09:28come to were pointed out in the House of Lords inquiry and indeed
0:09:28 > 0:09:33were used as a basis for our own evidence. But I think what appears
0:09:33 > 0:09:36to have happened is that Sir John Daly took legal advice, and that
0:09:36 > 0:09:43was the first time that had happened, and the advice he was
0:09:43 > 0:09:48given was misleading and unclear, namely what I think any layman
0:09:48 > 0:09:52would understand - absolutely no doubt whatsoever means total
0:09:52 > 0:09:58certainty in everybody's mind. And yet the advice given was that
0:09:58 > 0:10:01actually it was possible for some people to come to a different
0:10:01 > 0:10:05conclusion and meat that test of proof. And quite astonishingly, it
0:10:05 > 0:10:09was said that actually the standard of proof could mean whatever the
0:10:09 > 0:10:12RAF wanted it to mean. So clearly and think they got themselves into
0:10:12 > 0:10:17a frame of mind that they were going to do what they began to do
0:10:17 > 0:10:20without real reference to what they were required to do, which was to
0:10:20 > 0:10:24be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever. It is absolutely clear
0:10:24 > 0:10:29there is doubt. Nobody can know what happened. There was no black
0:10:29 > 0:10:32box. There were no absolute witnesses. We do not speculate, we
0:10:32 > 0:10:36do not know. But we certainly do know that there was not enough
0:10:36 > 0:10:41evidence to be able to conclude that the pilots were negligent in a
0:10:41 > 0:10:45gross degree. What seems particularly bizarre is not just
0:10:45 > 0:10:50the unwillingness of the MoD for so many years to reverse the decision,
0:10:51 > 0:10:54but the fact that if there were such a crash now, the RAF would not
0:10:54 > 0:11:00conduct an investigation in a way which could find pilots, deceased
0:11:00 > 0:11:10pilots, guilty of gross negligence, yet they were this ending this
0:11:10 > 0:11:30
0:11:30 > 0:11:34decision? -- defending his You are right to say that,
0:11:34 > 0:11:39subsequently, the rules were changed so that could not happen.
0:11:39 > 0:11:44This case was instrumental in doing it. You might have thought that the
0:11:44 > 0:11:49logical thing to do was to go back and say, we should not have done it,
0:11:49 > 0:11:55therefore we should not have done it. When you look at what the
0:11:55 > 0:12:01burden of proof was, and what the offer so who drew up a prove, he
0:12:01 > 0:12:08said it was intention to be a very high standard. It had to take on
0:12:08 > 0:12:16board that if they were dead, they had no opportunity to defend
0:12:16 > 0:12:20themselves. The logical thing to do, was to revisit the decision and say,
0:12:20 > 0:12:28we would not have made that decision to date. Let us set it
0:12:29 > 0:12:34aside. They may have been negligent. But, it is not possible to say with
0:12:34 > 0:12:41absolute certainty that it was right they should be set aside.
0:12:42 > 0:12:51Apart from this issue of negligence, you raise one issue: The fact that
0:12:51 > 0:12:58so many very important people were were in one helicopter. What is the
0:12:58 > 0:13:04problem with that? That is a security issue. Let us not set
0:13:04 > 0:13:10aside the fact that 29 people died, and their families have had to
0:13:11 > 0:13:17grief. Anybody's death is a tragedy. What we recognised was, this was
0:13:17 > 0:13:23not just that tragedy. It set back the peace process in Northern
0:13:23 > 0:13:30Ireland for several years, because the top people were in that one
0:13:30 > 0:13:37aircraft. In those circumstances, we should not put at risk such a
0:13:37 > 0:13:44key group of people. Beat Secretary of State, Liam Fox, said he would
0:13:44 > 0:13:50review that to ensure that in these circumstances, never again will so
0:13:50 > 0:13:53many key people be put in a one vehicle.
0:13:53 > 0:13:55The revelations of the past few days have highlighted the close and
0:13:55 > 0:13:57sometimes complicated relationship between the press and the
0:13:57 > 0:14:07politicians at Westminster. But should the microscope be switched
0:14:07 > 0:14:16
0:14:16 > 0:14:21In a highly-charged Chamber, Gordon Brown accused News International of
0:14:21 > 0:14:25criminality on an industrial scale. But he was quick to lay out how his
0:14:25 > 0:14:35relationship with Rupert Murdoch did not affect his decisions as
0:14:35 > 0:14:36
0:14:36 > 0:14:42Prime Minister. There was nothing given. I doubt, if anyone in this
0:14:42 > 0:14:45house will be surprised to hear, that the relationship between News
0:14:45 > 0:14:51International and the Labour administrations by a lead was
0:14:51 > 0:14:54neither cosy nor comfortable. But he raised questions over the
0:14:54 > 0:15:00relationship between the Conservatives and News
0:15:00 > 0:15:05International. I have compiled, for my own benefit, a no to all the
0:15:05 > 0:15:10policy matters affecting the media that arose in my time as Prime
0:15:10 > 0:15:17Minister. This also demonstrates in detail the coincidence in how News
0:15:17 > 0:15:22International, and the then consult and opposition, came to share the
0:15:22 > 0:15:25same media policy. 's the phone hacking scandal has
0:15:25 > 0:15:30forced a tension on the complex relationships between the
0:15:30 > 0:15:37politicians and press. This relationship is very close, it has
0:15:37 > 0:15:41always been very close. On this occasion, the most important thing
0:15:42 > 0:15:47is the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that seems to have
0:15:47 > 0:15:52prevailed over the past 15 years, or maybe even longer. What is very
0:15:52 > 0:16:02interesting about the parliamentary action has been a sense that it log
0:16:02 > 0:16:06
0:16:06 > 0:16:09jam has broken, and that people are finding their voice is.
0:16:09 > 0:16:11With me in the studio is David Miller, who is professor of
0:16:11 > 0:16:14sociology at Strathclyde University. He specialises in writing about
0:16:14 > 0:16:18spin and lobbying and he is also co-founder the political website
0:16:18 > 0:16:20spinwatch.org. And joining David is Colin McAllister who, until May
0:16:20 > 0:16:23this year, was the head of communications and special adviser
0:16:23 > 0:16:25to the Scottish Government. And in our Westminster studio is the
0:16:25 > 0:16:28political commentator Catherine MacLeod, who was also a former
0:16:28 > 0:16:38special adviser in a past life to the then Chancellor Alistair
0:16:38 > 0:16:42
0:16:42 > 0:16:48Darling. This bid has been withdrawn. Can
0:16:48 > 0:16:54you see it coming back? It is conceivable they could resurrected.
0:16:54 > 0:16:59People now would not want that to happen, but they might in a year.
0:16:59 > 0:17:07But the timing would be everything. You can imagine an inquiry would go
0:17:07 > 0:17:16on for ages, then criminal prosecutions. That is true, there
0:17:16 > 0:17:26are a long series of possible prosecutions, also up here as well,
0:17:26 > 0:17:32
0:17:32 > 0:17:36not just in News International. Catherine, I wonder whether it you
0:17:36 > 0:17:43think that politicians at Westminster might have thought that
0:17:43 > 0:17:47there is a possibility they could just say no. That who could say no?
0:17:47 > 0:17:56If his bid comes back, they could say no, we do not want you to do
0:17:56 > 0:18:01this. Are we talking about the bid? Yes. The politicians could say they
0:18:01 > 0:18:11don't want it, but they will have no legislative power to stop the
0:18:11 > 0:18:12
0:18:12 > 0:18:20bid. I think that the prosecutions could go on and on. They could also
0:18:20 > 0:18:30go on in Australia and America. America are very tough on
0:18:30 > 0:18:36shenanigans like we have seen over the last couple of weeks. Lots of
0:18:36 > 0:18:42politicians... We will have to see what happens. What do you think,
0:18:42 > 0:18:49Colin? Do you see a situation where this just goes away over time? Or
0:18:49 > 0:18:54can you see the House of Commons fixing it? To some extent, it
0:18:54 > 0:19:01depends on whether this scandal changes the media culture in this
0:19:01 > 0:19:05country. If the situation arose in a few years, and we heard had a
0:19:05 > 0:19:09number of years where this culture had changed, it would be less of an
0:19:09 > 0:19:19issue. The issue now, is that they do not look like the right people
0:19:19 > 0:19:19
0:19:19 > 0:19:23to be running a media organisation. All sorts of scrutiny between
0:19:23 > 0:19:27relationships between the newspapers and politicians in
0:19:27 > 0:19:33London, and the police. Do you think questions need to be asked up
0:19:33 > 0:19:39here? The have caused. The relationships between the press and
0:19:39 > 0:19:42political elite in Scotland have always been close. People say that
0:19:42 > 0:19:48Scotland is a political village, but it is a village where everyone
0:19:48 > 0:19:54knows each other within the elite. It is this breakdown of trust that
0:19:54 > 0:20:01has happened as a result of MPs' expenses, and now that News of the
0:20:01 > 0:20:05World, where institutions are seen to be allegedly corrupt. There is a
0:20:05 > 0:20:09total breakdown of trust between the government, the people of the
0:20:09 > 0:20:13country and those institutions which are supposed to run the
0:20:13 > 0:20:19country. That makes it very difficult for those institutions to
0:20:19 > 0:20:23continue unless they is serious reform. It also means reform of
0:20:23 > 0:20:27government. We have seen that with the expenses and the lobbying
0:20:27 > 0:20:37scandal. There is a need for proper reform and transparency in
0:20:37 > 0:20:38
0:20:38 > 0:20:42government. Catherine, there is this issue of trust between
0:20:42 > 0:20:48politicians and the public. When you were a spin-doctor for Alistair
0:20:48 > 0:20:58Darling, Labour were falling over themselves to get into rude put
0:20:58 > 0:21:03Murdoch was a good books. -- Rupert Murdoch. I was with Alistair
0:21:03 > 0:21:08Darling for three years, and there was no day when he said how will I
0:21:08 > 0:21:15get them to Rupert Murdoch's good books? You didn't have to, because
0:21:15 > 0:21:19Tony Blair was doing it for him! Well, Tony Blair was not there when
0:21:19 > 0:21:23I was there. It is quite right to say political leaders in all
0:21:23 > 0:21:27parties have wanted good relationships with the press. I do
0:21:27 > 0:21:37not think that it is News International that delivered those
0:21:37 > 0:21:40results. They all wanted to neuter any hostility there was.
0:21:40 > 0:21:47Politicians want to be in with newspapers that are writing about
0:21:47 > 0:21:57them, and people understand that. It is this business about the
0:21:57 > 0:21:57
0:21:57 > 0:22:03private dinners that go on at Downing Street, the turning up to,
0:22:03 > 0:22:11for example Gordon Brown turning to Rebekah Brooks's wedding. I think
0:22:11 > 0:22:17that is right. I have never understood it myself. I cannot
0:22:17 > 0:22:22understand why it those people then that socialise with each other. I
0:22:22 > 0:22:32do not do that myself as a journalist, and Alistair Darling
0:22:32 > 0:22:35
0:22:35 > 0:22:43did not do it. It is very strange behaviour. Colin, traditionally,
0:22:43 > 0:22:51you have lost your Emerson now, have you? Alex Salmond was caught
0:22:51 > 0:22:58in James Murdoch in January. would expect that of the First
0:22:58 > 0:23:03Minister. It is also true that the SNP's relationship with the media
0:23:03 > 0:23:09has been very different to other parties. It has not been so much a
0:23:09 > 0:23:18symbiotic relationship as a police stop kicking us every week. That
0:23:18 > 0:23:24has changed things. -- please stop. The S&P put massive effort into
0:23:24 > 0:23:31social media. You also have the backing of the Murdoch newspapers
0:23:31 > 0:23:37as well? That is the problem. Suddenly, it has gone from a
0:23:37 > 0:23:46problem because of the close relationship of politics and
0:23:46 > 0:23:51newspapers, to this. It comes back to the question of trust. People
0:23:51 > 0:23:57are willing to it accepted that the First Minister would meet up with
0:23:57 > 0:24:05James Murdoch. That is an important part of his role. May be the Labour
0:24:05 > 0:24:11politicians, like Tony Blair having Murdoch up the back stairs in
0:24:11 > 0:24:19Downing Street. Maybe he was! The point is that people's trust in
0:24:19 > 0:24:28politicians is the issue. David, you are looking right. This is the
0:24:28 > 0:24:33problem. There is a problem of closeness to the press, and there
0:24:33 > 0:24:37is a problem but we do not know what happened in these meetings.
0:24:37 > 0:24:46Even if Alex Salmond did say to chip Emes Murdoch money to support
0:24:46 > 0:24:52me, -- say to James Murdoch, what is wrong with that? There is
0:24:52 > 0:24:57nothing corrupt about asking for support. The no, there is not, but
0:24:57 > 0:25:02we do not know if that is what he asked for. That is because we do
0:25:02 > 0:25:12not get told by government about who is meeting with the ministers
0:25:12 > 0:25:17
0:25:17 > 0:25:21and white. Once you get beyond this, people may have committed acts, to
0:25:21 > 0:25:31people saying we don't like the closeness of the media to
0:25:31 > 0:25:35politicians. It becomes a grey area. If Alex Salmond goes to James
0:25:35 > 0:25:41Murdoch and says, listen mate, how about backing my party in an
0:25:41 > 0:25:45election? He would be mad not to, wouldn't he? Of course, and the
0:25:45 > 0:25:49problem for democracy, the voters will want to know who the
0:25:49 > 0:25:56politicians are speaking to, and which big corporations are speaking
0:25:56 > 0:26:03to the government. That is why we need disclosure of lobbying, for
0:26:03 > 0:26:09example, which the government in London has promised. We also need a
0:26:09 > 0:26:15proper regulation of the press, which we do not have. The Press
0:26:15 > 0:26:25Complaints Commission is a joke. It is not just a question of some
0:26:25 > 0:26:30crimes now, we had the case of Tommy Sheridan saying he had his
0:26:30 > 0:26:40car but, at which is an entirely different question beyond phone
0:26:40 > 0:26:51