:00:07. > :00:12.The News of the World employed private investigators to spy on
:00:12. > :00:15.some of the best-known people in the land. It continued its
:00:15. > :00:19.surveillance activities, right up to the point where it was shut down
:00:19. > :00:23.last summer. This former policeman tells
:00:23. > :00:27.Newsnight he numbered his targets by the dozen, the second in line to
:00:27. > :00:30.the throne for one. Prince William came out with Kate, followed by the
:00:30. > :00:33.royal protection vehicle, I followed the royal protection
:00:34. > :00:37.vehicle knowing full well they were in front. The head of features at
:00:37. > :00:40.the News of the World before it was closed and the publicist, Max
:00:40. > :00:44.Clifford, are here with us. The head of the UK Border Agency comes
:00:44. > :00:50.out from the shadows and quits, saying the Home Secretary has
:00:50. > :00:52.dropped him in it. What happened to the idea that ministers carried the
:00:53. > :00:57.can? The United Nations nuclear
:00:57. > :01:02.invigilator says Iran has been working on developing atomic
:01:02. > :01:05.weapons. This new report is being called a game changer by some, in
:01:06. > :01:14.the long-running battle of wits between Iran and the inspectors, I
:01:14. > :01:18.will have details. The technology industry's absurd
:01:18. > :01:28.new battleground, where fortunes are made, not by developing
:01:28. > :01:29.
:01:29. > :01:34.The targets include the Royal Family, the Attorney General, film
:01:34. > :01:38.stars, footballers and politicians. The News of the World did not go
:01:38. > :01:42.gentle into that good night, right up to the moment when the Murdoch
:01:42. > :01:46.organisation pulled the plug on the paper, it was asking a right of
:01:46. > :01:50.investigator to spy for it. In an exclusive interview, that man, a
:01:50. > :01:53.former policeman, has told Newsnight he was given over 100
:01:53. > :01:57.tarts bit paper. We have the story.
:01:57. > :02:02.- targets by the paper. We have the story.
:02:02. > :02:07.Winter 2007, private investigator, Derek Webb is on the trail of an
:02:07. > :02:13.escort. She's being driven around central London in a taxi, visiting
:02:13. > :02:17.clients. He watches as her cab pulls up outside one of the city's
:02:17. > :02:21.most exclusive hotels. She was dressed immaculately, I think she
:02:21. > :02:25.was wearing a fur coat as well, she walked through the hotel, past
:02:25. > :02:30.reception into the lift. I followed her straight into the lift. I was
:02:30. > :02:34.carrying my bag, I didn't know what I needed, I got into the lift with
:02:34. > :02:38.her, she pressed the third floor, I pressed the fourth floor, she got
:02:38. > :02:42.out of the third floor, when she got out, just before the lift
:02:42. > :02:47.closed I put my foot around and saw what room she was going in, she
:02:47. > :02:52.knocked on a door and gained access to that room. You saw her going
:02:52. > :02:59.into that room? I saw her going into the room. Another success for
:02:59. > :03:03.former police officer, Derek Webb, who passed his intelligence on to
:03:03. > :03:07.News of the World, that were working on a sex scandal story. We
:03:07. > :03:11.have gained this dossier of evidence that shows astonishing
:03:12. > :03:17.insight into the workings of News of the World, it shows every job
:03:17. > :03:20.that Derek Webb did from 200-2008. There are more than 100 names here,
:03:20. > :03:24.actors, celebrities, politicians and the royals.
:03:24. > :03:28.The list contains many of the most high-profile people in Britain,
:03:28. > :03:34.including members of the Royal Family. Derek Webb needed all of
:03:34. > :03:37.his 15 years of experience as a surveillance officer to evade the
:03:37. > :03:41.attention of the Royal Protection Squad. They didn't rumble me, they
:03:41. > :03:47.had no idea. That proves my expertise in relation to it, that
:03:47. > :03:54.they were not aware that they were being followed. This happened on
:03:54. > :04:00.quite a few occasions. And I was able to realise then which royal
:04:00. > :04:07.protection officers were with which royal party. In March 2009, news
:04:07. > :04:11.nuets asked Deripaska - News of the World asked Derek Webb to conduct
:04:11. > :04:15.surveillance on the home of a girl who was, they thought, receiving
:04:15. > :04:20.visits from Prince Harry. His former girlfriend was under
:04:20. > :04:29.surveillance until 2007, Derek Webb said a News of the World made the
:04:29. > :04:33.request. He would ask me to go to Heathrow Airport and follow Chelsea
:04:33. > :04:36.Davey Prince Harry's girlfriend, and follow her where she was going,
:04:36. > :04:43.on a number of occasions she would be picked up. They would go to
:04:43. > :04:46.Clarence House or she would go to an address out in Oxfordshire. Then
:04:47. > :04:52.I would be monitoring them to see whether there was anything further
:04:52. > :04:56.developing from there. Many royal surveillance jobs were
:04:56. > :05:00.referred by Clive Goodman, News of the World's royal correspondent,
:05:00. > :05:05.convicted of phone hacking in 2007. Derek Webb said he was never told
:05:05. > :05:10.the source of any leads. I have never hacked a phone myself. I
:05:10. > :05:14.didn't know anything in relation to hacking. I realised that hacking
:05:14. > :05:19.was now a big business in relation to what was going back, but I never
:05:19. > :05:24.knew about it at the time. I had no knowledge of it. I was never told
:05:24. > :05:27.by one journalist, not one of them told me they had obtained it by
:05:27. > :05:30.phone hacking. Derek Webb says he was also dispatched to
:05:30. > :05:34.Gloucestershire to trail Prince William. Prince William came out
:05:34. > :05:37.with Kate, followed by the royal protection vehicle, I followed the
:05:37. > :05:43.royal protection vehicle, knowing full well they were in front, they
:05:43. > :05:47.ended up at Duchy Farm, the royal protection peeled off i followed
:05:47. > :05:51.them around, knowing full well they would go back there, and watched
:05:51. > :05:55.them go for lunch, et cetera. Pairt from the royal, there are
:05:55. > :06:00.plenty of sports - apart from the Royals, there are plenty of sports
:06:00. > :06:03.stars on the lists. This is Derek Webb's surveillance video of Gary
:06:03. > :06:07.Lineker. The News of the World was investigating his private life,
:06:07. > :06:11.although this surveillance didn't produce anything of interest for
:06:11. > :06:15.the paper. Gary Lineker's job went over many weeks. Numerous other
:06:15. > :06:23.newspapers were looking at Gary Lineker. And Gary Lineker is one of
:06:23. > :06:27.these people that I think is more surveillance conscious. He looks
:06:27. > :06:33.and I think he's aware of cars following him. Because I think he's
:06:33. > :06:36.been done over a number of years and people have looked at him.
:06:36. > :06:41.jobs, though, were more controversial than others. Derek
:06:41. > :06:45.Webb says he was asked to carry out surveillance on the former
:06:45. > :06:54.Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in January 2005. I followed him
:06:54. > :07:00.around, mainly he was picked up by a chauffeur, and driven to his
:07:00. > :07:05.office near Buckingham Palace, or other locations. I would monitor
:07:05. > :07:08.his here, there and everywhere, to an extent, until the budget ran out,
:07:08. > :07:13.or they decided they wouldn't pursue the job any further. Did it
:07:13. > :07:20.ever surprise you that they wanted to effectively put Lord Goldsmith
:07:20. > :07:28.under surveillance? No. Nothing surprised me in relation to the
:07:28. > :07:33.amount of politicians and I was doing it as a business. I was
:07:33. > :07:37.solely doing it as a business to earn a living. Even former Home
:07:37. > :07:40.Secretary, Charles Clarke was a tart. At the time of the election
:07:40. > :07:44.2005, News of the World was putting huge resources into surveillance
:07:44. > :07:48.work on him. Derek Webb watched Mr Clarke for more than 20 days. He
:07:48. > :07:53.often used this cafe just below his election campaign office in central
:07:54. > :07:58.London as a base. On one occasion the police surrounded me, after I
:07:58. > :08:02.had been there three days, and interrogated me, what I was doing.
:08:02. > :08:08.Did Charles Clarke ever clock the fact you were watching him? I don't
:08:08. > :08:14.think he did. Not at all. The police were aware, the police, when
:08:14. > :08:20.they interrogated me, I showed them my private investigator's license,
:08:20. > :08:24.because I had one, and I said I was doing a domestic matter following a
:08:24. > :08:28.husband and wife, which they accepted and that was it. I didn't
:08:28. > :08:36.tell them I was watching Charles Clarke. The list of tarbts of
:08:36. > :08:42.surveillance is huge, Boris Johnson, Angelina Jolie, Simon Cowell koul,
:08:42. > :08:46.Paul McCartney, Ed Milliband, Heather Mills, the list goes on and
:08:46. > :08:50.on. Sometimes the families of targets were also watched. The News
:08:50. > :08:53.of the World wanted Derek Webb to follow the parents of Harry Potter
:08:53. > :09:00.star, Daniel Radcliffe, for unno inreasons. He trailed on foot the
:09:00. > :09:06.new - unknown reasons. He trailed on foot the new partner of energy
:09:06. > :09:11.secretary, Chris Huhne, as she walked around the capital. 95% of
:09:11. > :09:15.the jobs I was never rumbled at all. Even following for weeks on end.
:09:15. > :09:19.For Derek Webb, the commissions from News of the World kept rolling
:09:20. > :09:27.in. Because I kept getting results for them, they employed my services
:09:27. > :09:31.more and more. I was getting work from them and they were very
:09:31. > :09:35.satisfied with the work. Derek Webb says after eight years with News of
:09:35. > :09:39.the World, he was cut loose when the paper folded, with no
:09:39. > :09:42.compensation. He's taking an employment case against them.
:09:42. > :09:46.people were getting loyalty payments, and I was loyal to News
:09:46. > :09:52.of the World. I was loyal to News of the World and they failed to
:09:52. > :09:57.recognise this, and disregarding me as though a non-entity. But now
:09:57. > :10:00.he's decided to go public in such a spectacular way, with his exclusive
:10:00. > :10:03.Newsnight interview, it is the bigger ethical questions about the
:10:03. > :10:06.scale of the surveillance that will prove tough for the paper's
:10:06. > :10:10.publisher, which gives evidence to parliament on Thursday.
:10:10. > :10:14.With us now is Jules Stenson, head of features at the News of the
:10:14. > :10:20.World, before it closed its doors earlier this year, and the pub sis,
:10:20. > :10:24.Max Clifford. This is outrageous isn't it - publicist, Max Clifford.
:10:24. > :10:28.This is outrageous isn't it? we're getting it one side, Derek
:10:28. > :10:31.Webb, I have never spoken to him,'s a man with a grudge, with the
:10:31. > :10:35.company for not getting compensation. You are getting a
:10:35. > :10:39.slanted story, you are not hearing any context to these investigations.
:10:39. > :10:44.But these, clearly, according to his account, were fishing
:10:45. > :10:48.expeditions? I didn't hear him use that word. He didn't use that word,
:10:48. > :10:51.he was told to follow people and see what he could find, that is a
:10:51. > :10:54.fishing expedition? You haven't heard from the people commissioning
:10:54. > :10:58.them, clearly they are under police investigation, when I worked at the
:10:58. > :11:02.News of the World, we put the great and the good under ferocious
:11:02. > :11:05.scrutiny. We also put ourselves under ferocious scrutiny. One of
:11:05. > :11:10.the examples in that piece was Prince William. I can think of
:11:10. > :11:15.three big royal exclusives that the News of the World broke with huge
:11:15. > :11:21.public interest, two on Prince Harry, Derek melgsed tailing Prince
:11:21. > :11:24.William in Gloucestershire - mentioned tailing Prince William in
:11:24. > :11:27.Gloucestershire, there was investigations done on Prince Harry
:11:27. > :11:31.when he was smoking cannabis, that was a huge scandal at the time, and
:11:31. > :11:33.the Prince apologised for his behaviour. There was the example of
:11:33. > :11:38.Harry's racist language, there was the investigation into the Duchess
:11:38. > :11:42.of York. So, look, you need to see the context in which the
:11:42. > :11:45.information, the tips that the News of the World were trying to verify.
:11:45. > :11:51.Clifford, there is a public interest defence in this, isn't
:11:51. > :11:56.there. Nothing illegal is being done? I think it is really do the
:11:56. > :12:00.ends justify the means, of course, you know, what's in the public
:12:00. > :12:03.interest, generally speaking, comes down to us in the interest of the
:12:03. > :12:07.circulation of the newspaper. You can't justify it, generally
:12:07. > :12:12.speaking, on the ground of it being a real public interest. If this is
:12:12. > :12:16.going on because of someone who is threatening national security, the
:12:16. > :12:22.head of a paedophile ring, somebody like, that that is the only way to
:12:22. > :12:27.justify the activities, to my mind. Someone is presenting a public
:12:27. > :12:31.image in one way, a happy married man with children, and having
:12:31. > :12:34.affairs, isn't it justified to expose them? If that person is
:12:35. > :12:38.lecturing us about family values, the way certain politicians were,
:12:38. > :12:41.fair game, if it is someone who tries to keep their private life
:12:41. > :12:44.private, then I don't necessarily think we have the right to know all
:12:44. > :12:49.the ins and outs of their private life. Every situation has to be
:12:49. > :12:52.looked at in its own merits. say, this is all news to you, you
:12:52. > :12:57.never employed a private detective, you were not unaware that this sort
:12:57. > :13:03.of thing happened on the paper though? All media employ private
:13:03. > :13:08.detectives, that includes the BBC, Mark Thomson is on record in March
:13:08. > :13:12.saying the BBC has and currently employs private investigators. He
:13:12. > :13:16.justified it in public interest investigations. Investigative
:13:16. > :13:20.journalism is messy. The way that you, the first goal of a big
:13:20. > :13:25.investigation is actually to find the people that you are chasing,
:13:25. > :13:28.the crooks, theville lanes, they are not on the electoral -ville
:13:29. > :13:32.lanes, they are not on the electoral role. Sometimes you need
:13:32. > :13:42.to use a private investigator to find them using credit checks.
:13:42. > :13:43.
:13:43. > :13:49.use the words "crooks" and "ville lins", the list of people there was
:13:49. > :13:52.not any of those? I go back to the original point that we don't know,
:13:52. > :13:56.we haven't heard from the people who commissioned Derek Webb, we
:13:56. > :14:00.have just the slanted view of Derek Webb who has a clear grievance
:14:00. > :14:03.against the paper. I think the only answer is the people who
:14:03. > :14:08.commissioned them should be asked to explain and justify what you
:14:08. > :14:11.were looking for and trying to get and see does the argument stand up
:14:11. > :14:21.for scrutiny. As nothing illegal was done by your own admission,
:14:21. > :14:24.
:14:24. > :14:30.what's the problem? Well I think that the problem is, when you look
:14:30. > :14:34.at what happened to the Dowlers and that, you have to have a free press
:14:34. > :14:38.in a democracy, but you have to find a medium. Phone hacking is
:14:38. > :14:42.illegal, simply following someone around isn't? It depends on what
:14:42. > :14:46.your intention is. It depends on what you are intending to do.
:14:46. > :14:50.seem to be questioning the fact this is your lead story, Jeremy.
:14:50. > :14:54.you are following children, as was suggested on the programme last
:14:54. > :14:59.night, that the children of Charlotte Harris the lawyer, how
:14:59. > :15:03.can you possibly justify that. do you justify it I don't think you
:15:03. > :15:06.k Max is referring to Mark Lewis, the lawyer whose children and ex-
:15:06. > :15:11.wife was targeted. Charlotte says the same thing, her children were
:15:11. > :15:16.two and four. Jo that is deplorable, I'm not here to justify that.
:15:16. > :15:21.was your paper? As I say, I wasn't involved in it and I didn't know
:15:21. > :15:26.anything about it. Things changed at the paper, did they? After.
:15:26. > :15:30.was apartheid of eight years, this man was employed. - this was a
:15:30. > :15:35.period of eight years, this man was employed? He was employed on the
:15:35. > :15:40.news desk, I worked on features. You are surprised by it?
:15:40. > :15:43.extremely surprised by Derek Webb's actions. The journalism we did was
:15:43. > :15:46.ferociously scrutinised at all times. I can give you examples of
:15:46. > :15:51.surveillance we did on features, we went into the parliament in
:15:51. > :16:00.Brussels and filmed the MPs, as they signed their expenses sheets.
:16:01. > :16:04.We used an MEP fitted up an MEP to film them while they were in the
:16:04. > :16:07.room signing the forms because we knew they would lie if we didn't.
:16:07. > :16:10.There is another side to it, if you are going to print stories you
:16:10. > :16:14.would do everything within your power to make them accurate?
:16:14. > :16:17.have to prove them as well. those circumstances you need to
:16:17. > :16:21.employ private detectives? Yes, it depends on the circumstances. That
:16:21. > :16:25.is what I said, I think there are times when it can be justified, but
:16:26. > :16:31.the list of people I have seen, I would find it incredibly difficult
:16:31. > :16:35.to justify. What were they looking at Simon Cowell, one of my clients,
:16:35. > :16:41.for. Other than stories that at this time vait the readers, where
:16:41. > :16:46.is the national - titivate the readers, you have to say how does
:16:46. > :16:51.it justify the actions. Every situation on its own merits. Peter
:16:51. > :16:56.Crouch, the footballer, plays for England, we had a tip he was up to
:16:56. > :16:59.no good in Madrid, seeing prostitutes. Has this already been
:16:59. > :17:04.published? It has already been published and not disputed by
:17:04. > :17:08.Crouch, we did follow him, to get the proof, we knew if we didn't he
:17:08. > :17:12.would be straight on the line to the lawyers. We subsequently
:17:12. > :17:17.exposed him for using a traffic prostitute.
:17:17. > :17:18.The head of the UK borders agency said tonight he had been
:17:19. > :17:23.constructively dismissed by comments from the Home Secretary,
:17:23. > :17:26.which blamed him for the shambles at Britain's borders this summer.
:17:26. > :17:30.Clearly furious he said she disregarded his right to reply, for
:17:30. > :17:34.the sake of political convience. Yet the Prime Minister, who also
:17:34. > :17:38.blamed him, says the Home Secretary has his complete confidence. Time
:17:38. > :17:47.was when the idea of ministerial accountability, meant that when
:17:47. > :17:51.something went wrong, the politician carried the can. The
:17:51. > :17:56.fight between ministers and officials over just who authorised
:17:56. > :18:01.a relaxation of border controls is getting angler by the hour. Tonight
:18:01. > :18:04.an unpress - angrier by the hour. Tonight an unprecedented slapdown
:18:04. > :18:10.for the Home Secretary by the man who has been handed the can but has
:18:10. > :18:13.declined to carry it. Brodie Clark, on the left, was, until last week,
:18:13. > :18:18.head of the UK Border Force, suspended, says the Home Secretary,
:18:18. > :18:22.for overstepping her intructions. This is what she told the Home
:18:22. > :18:26.Affairs Select Committee just this morning. I was not aware that the
:18:26. > :18:30.extension of the relaxation of checks had taken place. I was not
:18:30. > :18:35.aware, as I set out in my initial statement, a number of relaxations
:18:35. > :18:41.were put in place by officials. Brodie Clark, as I understand it,
:18:41. > :18:43.has admitted to the chief executive of UK BA, that he did go beyond
:18:44. > :18:47.ministerial responsibility, I was not aware this had been done.
:18:47. > :18:51.Prime Minister, too, told a Commons committee today that the man he
:18:51. > :18:55.said was responsible for this unacceptable activity, had been
:18:55. > :18:59.suspended. It is very clear to me that the Home Secretary did
:18:59. > :19:03.undertake a pilot scheme, and a pilot scheme, in some ways that was
:19:03. > :19:08.successful, in terms of the number of arrests up by 10%. It is also
:19:08. > :19:12.clear that there was activity going on, by the UK BA, that is not
:19:12. > :19:15.acceptable, that was uncovered by the inspector, it has been stopped,
:19:15. > :19:20.the person responsible has been suspended, clearly this is not
:19:20. > :19:25.acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long. Tonight the
:19:25. > :19:29.head of UK Border Force has quit, and what's more, he says he intend
:19:29. > :19:39.to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal.
:19:39. > :19:56.
:19:56. > :20:00.Mr Clarke goes on to completely contradict what the Home Secretary
:20:00. > :20:10.and the Prime Minister have said about the relaxation of controls,
:20:10. > :20:33.
:20:33. > :20:37.that it was without ministerial Immigration has always been a
:20:37. > :20:41.contentious political issue. Charles Clarke had to resign as
:20:41. > :20:45.Home Secretary after it was revealed that 1,000 foreign
:20:45. > :20:48.prisoners weren't even considered for deportation. He says, though,
:20:48. > :20:51.it is ministers who have to take responsibility. I have always
:20:51. > :20:55.thought it was cowardly, really, just to say we will pick the
:20:55. > :20:58.scapegoat of an official and deal with it like that. Maybe I made a
:20:58. > :21:02.mistake, some of my colleagues said I should have sacked somebody and
:21:02. > :21:06.saved my own skin on that basis. Well, I don't think that's a good
:21:06. > :21:15.way to conduct politics. Some suggest that Theresa May has given
:21:15. > :21:17.an inconsistent account of her role She claimed that this was purely an
:21:17. > :21:21.operational decision. Which have why it wasn't reported to
:21:21. > :21:26.parliament. The way in which agencies are set up, the ministers
:21:26. > :21:29.are supposed to leave operational decisions to the management of the
:21:29. > :21:32.agencies. Ministers are supposed to just set the strategic direction,
:21:32. > :21:36.and allocate the resources to the agencies, and leave the agencies to
:21:36. > :21:40.get on with the job. So she seems to be wanting to have her cake and
:21:40. > :21:42.eat it, to claim it is an operational decision which she made,
:21:42. > :21:47.which she probably shouldn't have made, that was the reason why she
:21:47. > :21:51.didn't report it to parliament. Before any claim for unfair
:21:51. > :21:54.dismissal could be heard, Brodie Clark will be giving evidence
:21:55. > :21:58.before parliament. The more he is able to defend himself there, the
:21:58. > :22:01.more it will make things difficult for the Home Secretary.
:22:01. > :22:06.We did ask the Home Office for an interview, but they didn't want to
:22:06. > :22:12.answer our questions, we are joined by Jonathan Baume, head of the
:22:12. > :22:15.union for top civil servants, the First Division Association by Keith
:22:15. > :22:19.Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. How is he feeling
:22:19. > :22:24.tonight? He's very bruised, battered, this is a gruelling
:22:24. > :22:27.experience for someone to be in the public glaer, he's very robust. He
:22:27. > :22:31.has issued a gaiplt this evening after advice from lawyers, he will
:22:32. > :22:35.be - a statement this evening, after advice from lawyers, and will
:22:35. > :22:39.issue a statement next week. He is angry about the fact that issues
:22:39. > :22:45.were raised, he was willing to answer those internally, instead
:22:45. > :22:48.was suspended, and the Home Secretary spent two days basically
:22:48. > :22:52.damming him without ever giving a civil servant the opportunity to
:22:52. > :22:56.present their case, and in the full knowledge as a civil servant he
:22:56. > :23:00.wasn't able to speak out publicly to defend himself. She didn't speak
:23:00. > :23:04.to him before saying he was carrying the can and it was his
:23:04. > :23:08.responsibility? I don't go into detail on the process over the last
:23:08. > :23:11.few days. He would be willing to give evidence before Mr Vaz's
:23:11. > :23:15.committee next week. We are clear that whatever the fine print at the
:23:15. > :23:20.end of last week, every civil servant has the right to proper
:23:20. > :23:26.process, it is not the role of mains ter to publicly attack a
:23:26. > :23:30.civil - a minister to publicly attack a civil servant. He accuses
:23:30. > :23:34.the Theresa May of misrepresenting what happened. His own boss says
:23:34. > :23:37.Brodie Clark admitted to me on the 2nd of November, that on a number
:23:37. > :23:44.of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further
:23:44. > :23:47.than ministerial instruction?M don't want to go into the fine
:23:47. > :23:52.print. That is what the hoiblgt says he did? He's happen - Home
:23:52. > :23:55.Secretary says he did?'S Happy to answer all these questions before
:23:55. > :24:00.the Home Affairs Select Committee next week. Here is his own boss
:24:00. > :24:04.agreeing with the Home Secretary? Next week we will get the full
:24:04. > :24:09.facts, not partial pictures. Home Secretary testified to you
:24:09. > :24:17.today, were you surprised when she, as it were, dobed in her officials?
:24:17. > :24:19.I wasn't surprised. The point of ministers giving evidence to the
:24:19. > :24:23.Home Affairs Select Committee is clear and transparent evidence. She
:24:23. > :24:28.was very clear, she was responsible for the pilot, which she says was a
:24:28. > :24:31.success, in her words, Mr Clarke took that pilot forward, in an
:24:31. > :24:34.unauthorised way. She didn't know about it, she had not informed
:24:34. > :24:38.cabinet, she had not informed parliament, and she saw that there
:24:38. > :24:43.was no reason to do so. And you believed her? That's the evidence
:24:43. > :24:46.that we had, of course. If the Home Secretary comes before a select
:24:47. > :24:50.committee, and gives us a circumstance and set of facts we
:24:50. > :24:54.have to accept it. What has happened since then, as you know,
:24:54. > :24:57.is Mr Clarke has issued his statement, which is a direct
:24:57. > :25:00.contradiction to what the Home Office, Home Secretary said to the
:25:00. > :25:04.select committee. And that is why I'm very grateful to him for
:25:04. > :25:08.agreeing to come in to give evidence to us, and if necessary,
:25:08. > :25:13.if we need to clarify any of these points with her, we will ask her to
:25:13. > :25:16.clarify them, she was very clear. You will call Brodie Clark to
:25:16. > :25:20.testify before you? He has already agreed to come. During the middle
:25:20. > :25:23.of the evidence session, I told the Home Secretary that the select
:25:23. > :25:28.committee had decided to have Clark in, and he had agreed to come, he
:25:28. > :25:31.will come before us on Tuesday, and we will put to him all these facts
:25:31. > :25:35.and indeed, I will be writing to the Home Secretary tomorrow, with a
:25:35. > :25:38.number of additional questions, which we wish to put to her. I
:25:38. > :25:43.think, Jeremy, I know this is puzzling, it is puzzling for me as
:25:43. > :25:48.well, that all this happens in the last six days, but we do need to
:25:48. > :25:56.get to the bottom of the facts first, before we rush to judgment.
:25:56. > :25:59.Can we just clarify Mr Clarke's position, has he resigned? He has
:25:59. > :26:04.left the Home Office. We sent a letter of notice tonight to that
:26:04. > :26:12.effect. He is now claiming unfair dismissal. In legal terms he has
:26:12. > :26:18.not resigned, in popular patrol lance, he has. He's paid by the
:26:18. > :26:22.taxpayer? No, he's not technical resigned, but generally he has.
:26:22. > :26:27.is being paid? After tonight he's not being paid. Who is he working
:26:27. > :26:32.for? Nobody. He has not resigned? In a legal sense he hasn't resigned
:26:32. > :26:35.because he's claiming constructive dismissal. In popular language he
:26:35. > :26:43.has resigned. He will then take the Home Secretary, or the Home Office,
:26:44. > :26:48.or whoever, to an industrial tribunal? We - Yes, we's working
:26:48. > :26:52.with the FDA lawyers and pursuing that through the courts. For a
:26:52. > :26:55.political damage report I'm joined Byfleet treat's Andrew Porter of
:26:55. > :27:00.the Telegraph, and Steve Richards from the Independent. How serious
:27:00. > :27:05.is this, do you think? I think it has taken a very serious turn this
:27:05. > :27:08.evening, for May. There is no doubt about that. This is now dragging on
:27:09. > :27:12.for three or four days, I think next week, who would have thought
:27:12. > :27:15.it, but James Murdoch before a select committee is probably going
:27:15. > :27:18.to be upstaged when Brodie Clark appears. People will be homing in
:27:18. > :27:25.on what he's going to saying, someone is wrong here, and someone
:27:25. > :27:32.is probably going to have to pay a fairly big price. How serious do
:27:32. > :27:36.you think it is? As Keith Vaz said, when May May came to the committee
:27:36. > :27:41.- May came to the committee, she was very clear about her version of
:27:41. > :27:45.events, they were directly contradicted by a senior civil
:27:45. > :27:49.servant. I don't believe she's cupable absolutely, I don't believe
:27:49. > :27:52.any longer it is fair to say all ministers are culpable for anything
:27:53. > :27:56.that goes wrong. I have huge respect for Jonathan, who
:27:56. > :28:02.represents senior civil servants. But when he says that it's not for
:28:02. > :28:07.a minister to lay a finger on a senior civil servant. Why not? If
:28:07. > :28:11.that person has committed operational errors. Has she handled
:28:11. > :28:17.it as well as she could have handled it? She was pretty straight
:28:17. > :28:22.and direct. If she's felling the truth, at this telling the truth,
:28:22. > :28:27.we will have to wait and see. telling the truth, we will have to
:28:27. > :28:33.wait and see? I don't think she has handled it well, over the weekend
:28:33. > :28:36.we heard nothing. You could have aggressive briefing from Theresa
:28:37. > :28:41.May's people, all the language, in the end it was desperately trying
:28:41. > :28:44.to put it away from her. With the papers, the Mail and our paper
:28:45. > :28:49.splashing on t it is a cheap shot, blaming your official. Steve is
:28:49. > :28:54.right to a point, you can't be accountable for every official, but
:28:54. > :29:03.if your first refuge is to blame your official, it looks chief.
:29:03. > :29:08.is only chief if she's the one at error. - Cheap. It is only cheap if
:29:08. > :29:11.she's the one at error. Operationally the pilot scheme was
:29:11. > :29:14.extended without her knowing. If that is the case, I don't blame her
:29:14. > :29:18.for saying she won't resign and others have to answer for this.
:29:18. > :29:22.There is a wider issue here about the automatic assumption. Cabinet
:29:22. > :29:27.ministers last on average six minutes in various jobs. Civil
:29:27. > :29:30.servants have got much longer security of tenure, and are quite
:29:31. > :29:35.powerful. It is good that he's coming next week to the select
:29:35. > :29:39.committee and to be accountable and put his case. There should be much
:29:39. > :29:43.more of it. I fear, that there can be complacency in the Civil Service
:29:43. > :29:45.because of this assumption, that we always blame the ministers. I think
:29:45. > :29:48.it is just the curse of the Home Office, isn't it. This is a
:29:48. > :29:53.department that is even responsible for things like falling satellites
:29:53. > :29:57.and things. Anything could happen? Everyone thought when Reid said it
:29:57. > :30:00.wasn't fit for purpose, and they took justice away from it, all the
:30:00. > :30:04.things like Charles Clarke with prisoners going missing, they
:30:04. > :30:09.thought that would take the sting out of it, it has to some extent.
:30:09. > :30:12.May for 18 months has been fairly risk-free, now you are right, it is
:30:13. > :30:17.coming back. She is in a strong position. She, personally, is
:30:17. > :30:21.important to Cameron? She is, this is why I think ultimately she will
:30:21. > :30:25.survive. Cameron, for two reasons, I think he rates her. He does see
:30:25. > :30:29.her, up until now a safe pair of hands. She's one of the few women
:30:29. > :30:34.in the cabinet. We know the issues David Cameron has about women in
:30:34. > :30:41.his Government. I think he cannot afford to lose another cabinet
:30:41. > :30:44.minister so soon after Liam Fox. himself has endorsed her position.
:30:44. > :30:48.He blamed Brodie Clark, saying the person responsible has been
:30:48. > :30:53.suspended? Over the past few days David Cameron has a lot of question
:30:53. > :30:56.marks, he didn't know. One of the problems with Theresa May, when you
:30:56. > :31:01.speak to cabinet ministers and ministers, she keeps things too
:31:01. > :31:07.close, if she allowed a few more people, even in her own department
:31:08. > :31:12.what was going orpbgs she could have survived it better. She will
:31:12. > :31:14.survive. What will emerge from this is the messy lines of
:31:14. > :31:20.accountability between ministers, civil servants, agencies, those who
:31:20. > :31:23.deliver. I bit the blur is over what strategic - I bet the blur is
:31:23. > :31:26.over what strategic guidance means from ministers and operational
:31:26. > :31:33.responsibility from people like Brodie Clark. Somewhere in there
:31:33. > :31:37.the messy contra directions lie. The sooner - contradictions lie.
:31:37. > :31:40.The sooner we get over it the better for Britain. This question
:31:40. > :31:44.of the messy lines of accountability that Steve Richards
:31:44. > :31:49.refers to there, in this new arrangement where you have agencies,
:31:49. > :31:52.old fashioned civil servants, old fashioned ministers, is it
:31:52. > :31:57.complicated? It is, I remember going back almost 20 years to the
:31:57. > :32:02.Mark Lewis affair, which you will remember, Jeremy. Many of the same
:32:02. > :32:05.issues were there being discussed. Steve, I'm not arguing that civil
:32:05. > :32:08.servants are not accountable, nor am I arguing that the Home
:32:08. > :32:13.Secretary hasn't got the right to suspend somebody. But having done
:32:13. > :32:16.that, there has to be a proper process, what is unacceptable is
:32:16. > :32:19.for the Home Secretary to act as judge and jury, and make lots of
:32:19. > :32:27.public statements before a civil servant has had a chance to put
:32:27. > :32:30.their side of the story, and to have their reputation completely
:32:30. > :32:34.trashed. The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to learn how to
:32:34. > :32:38.develop nuclear weapons. They have denied it for years and will
:32:38. > :32:40.continue to deny until they are blue in the face. But the judgment
:32:40. > :32:47.of the International Atomic Agency, formally made public tomorrow,
:32:47. > :32:52.moves the international confrontation to a new level.
:32:52. > :32:56.Tonight, the international Atomic Energy Authority circulated its
:32:56. > :33:00.latest report in Vienna, within minutes quotes were leaking out,
:33:00. > :33:05.within hours the entire thing was on the Internet. According to the
:33:05. > :33:07.report, the agency has serious concerns regarding possibly
:33:07. > :33:12.military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.
:33:12. > :33:22.It says that some of Iran's research projects may indeed have
:33:22. > :33:25.
:33:25. > :33:28.civil applications, but the IAEA's information shows.. It suggests
:33:28. > :33:38.before 2003, when some intelligence reports suggests the programme was
:33:38. > :33:39.
:33:39. > :33:42.stopped, there was evidence of a Much of tonight's report is the
:33:42. > :33:48.revelation of detailed work that the agency has known about for
:33:48. > :33:54.years, but kept to itself. Iran's ambassador to the IAEA tonight
:33:54. > :33:58.called the report unbalanced and unprofessional and politically
:33:58. > :34:07.motivated. Son-in-law of the sights it mentions have - sites it
:34:07. > :34:10.mentions have already been looked at. And there are foreign nuclear
:34:10. > :34:14.scientists helping Iran build a nuclear weapon. Russia's response
:34:14. > :34:19.to the leak was it contained little knew. Many in the east believed
:34:19. > :34:23.Israel Mason strike, while that country's recent statements believe
:34:23. > :34:27.all options are under considerations. We strongly believe
:34:27. > :34:31.that sanctions are effective, or could be effective, if they are
:34:31. > :34:35.little and paralysing enough that diplomacy could work, if enough
:34:35. > :34:41.unity could be synchronised between the major players. No option should
:34:41. > :34:45.be removed from the table. And we keep saying it, for at least four
:34:45. > :34:50.years. With the latest IAEA report, comes
:34:50. > :34:53.a new demand for access and co- operation.
:34:53. > :35:01.Something the UN says has been absent from Iran's side, on
:35:01. > :35:06.suspected weapon design matters, for the past three years.
:35:07. > :35:10.What is this nuclear programme amounting to? Well, the UN says
:35:10. > :35:16.that what it has announced tonight is qualitatively different. We have
:35:16. > :35:20.got used over the years to the rows about the facilities. Some of of
:35:20. > :35:25.the names are familiar to people. The Iranians saying it is a civil
:35:25. > :35:27.programme and get off our backs. Now what the UN body is doing is
:35:27. > :35:35.being quite specific about a nuclear weapons design programme
:35:35. > :35:40.which, it says was going on in Iran. This causes attention to go to
:35:40. > :35:45.sites we are not so used to. Including this one, we can see it
:35:45. > :35:51.in the satellite imagery. Here there is a large armments factory,
:35:51. > :35:56.there is a testing area, attention has gone to this area down south
:35:56. > :36:00.for the resting area. This was built up some time ago. If we zoom
:36:01. > :36:07.in. We can see what attracted their interest.
:36:07. > :36:10.These circular objects, surrounded by bunkers, are placed where the
:36:10. > :36:14.inspectors believe the high explosive components of nuclear
:36:14. > :36:18.warhead designs may have been tested. They are alleging in the
:36:18. > :36:23.report that all sorts of activities have been going on, connected with
:36:23. > :36:27.nuclear weapons design, the testing of special circuitry, and
:36:27. > :36:31.detonators of reventry vehicles for ballistic missiles, all of which
:36:31. > :36:35.designed to put a package of that material that they have been
:36:35. > :36:41.talking about up-to-date, into a weaponised form. A key aspect of
:36:41. > :36:47.what they are saying is that a lot of what they allege was going on
:36:47. > :36:50.prior to the late 2003 decision to dismantle a large centrally
:36:50. > :36:56.directed nuclear weapons programme. What does it say about what's
:36:56. > :37:00.current? They say some aspects of the nuclear warhead's design may
:37:00. > :37:04.continue. They update us on other aspects of the programme. For
:37:04. > :37:08.example, the tunnel facility near the religious city, which was
:37:08. > :37:12.announced a couple of years ago with great fanfare by western
:37:12. > :37:17.leaders. They say where as that was empty when they looked at it, there
:37:17. > :37:19.are centre refugees awaiting powering up. Going back to this
:37:19. > :37:25.satellite image, this is the facility, which, over the years,
:37:25. > :37:31.they have inspected most, and talked about most. They have
:37:31. > :37:39.expressed concerns about them in the past. We know there there are
:37:39. > :37:45.buried turbine halls with the cascades of centre refugees, in
:37:45. > :37:49.this area, two - centre refugees in this area they have been buried to
:37:49. > :37:52.safeguard them from air attack. They have been whirring away for
:37:52. > :37:57.years. The main thing about the report is five tonnes of uranium
:37:57. > :38:01.has been enriched through this process, not to weapons grade. But
:38:01. > :38:04.the experts reckon if the process of enrichment was repeated to
:38:04. > :38:09.brifpbg it to that grade, that would - bring it to that grade,
:38:09. > :38:14.that would amount to two to three bombs worth. Does it increase the
:38:14. > :38:20.danger of an Israeli attack? does, it gives a political signal
:38:20. > :38:24.that this UN body creates that nuclear weapon design work has
:38:24. > :38:28.going on in Iran. There have been so many differing signals from the
:38:28. > :38:33.Israelis, it is not clear what their intentions are. The danger
:38:33. > :38:37.now is that tensions will rise, due to misconception or
:38:37. > :38:41.miscommunication. Fancy a slice of toast? Be careful,
:38:41. > :38:51.if you heat the bread to a particular temperature, for between
:38:51. > :38:51.
:38:51. > :38:56.three and 90 second, you may be impingeing on US patent 0860836,
:38:56. > :39:03.ort bread refreshing method. That is how absurdly the American patent
:39:03. > :39:06.company is being used, as companies big and small sue and counter sue
:39:07. > :39:15.over international property rights. Some companies do nothing but own
:39:16. > :39:20.patents, the man who invented the Internet doesn't like it at all.
:39:20. > :39:26.London's Design Museum, home to lots of innovative products turning
:39:26. > :39:29.into money spinners for their inventors, that is, unless they
:39:29. > :39:33.make sure they are protected from imitateors.
:39:33. > :39:37.Had a brilliant idea? Well you better get a patent so nobody else
:39:37. > :39:41.can copy it before you have had a chance to make some money. Now
:39:41. > :39:47.inventors of ideas, big and small, are beginning to worry that the
:39:47. > :39:57.whole patent system is falling into disrepute. Their concern is it is
:39:57. > :39:58.
:39:59. > :40:05.now hindering innovation than hoping it. How much? This is one
:40:05. > :40:13.clever idea, a smart phone ap that teaches you Chinese. It is the a
:40:13. > :40:19.product of David Heart's industry, a sideline in generating apps. It
:40:20. > :40:26.is creating a bit of interest, but that could be dwarfed by a legal
:40:26. > :40:33.bin. The problems began when a bulky but baffling document arrived
:40:33. > :40:40.in the London office. A letter from a company saying we are infringing
:40:40. > :40:47.one of their patents. It shows a telephone talking to a fax reason,
:40:47. > :40:52.and it is dated December 7th 199. Any idea how this applies to you?
:40:52. > :40:57.It is very, very hard to see. here is another bit a memory within
:40:57. > :41:02.each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results with the
:41:02. > :41:05.two-way location to the two commodities in the same location.
:41:05. > :41:09.Each commodity capable of carrying results to each of the units of the
:41:09. > :41:13.commodity to a central location, is that clear? I have absolutely no
:41:13. > :41:19.idea what it means. It says you have done it here, storing results
:41:19. > :41:26.of the two-way interaction to the central location? I'm none the
:41:26. > :41:29.wiser, unfortunately. They are demapbgd licensing fees, and David
:41:29. > :41:33.Hart is talking to lawyer before deciding how to respond, and
:41:33. > :41:37.considering what means for his business. It is another risk to
:41:37. > :41:41.consider. When you do anything of the R & D nature, the risk is it
:41:41. > :41:45.won't work and nobody will want to buy it, it is another risk. This is
:41:45. > :41:51.something we have to consider that we hadn't talked about.
:41:51. > :42:00.Similar documents have been sent to all sorts of software develop e
:42:00. > :42:04.including the makers of angry birds and the Sims. What this is? It is a
:42:04. > :42:08.company based in Texas with a simple website, there is a quote
:42:08. > :42:13.from Edison about his inventions coming not by accident but work.
:42:13. > :42:17.All of this work seems to be about demanding fees from companies it
:42:17. > :42:23.accuses of using its technologies. It is what some of its critics
:42:23. > :42:28.would call a patent troll. I have e-mailed the chief executive,
:42:28. > :42:33.Chris Smalling, a couple of times, - Mark Small, to discuss these
:42:33. > :42:37.issues, he has respectfully declined, saying the company is
:42:37. > :42:42.applying resources to licensing discussions. Here is man with a big
:42:42. > :42:48.idea, Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the - Vint Cerf is one
:42:48. > :42:53.of the founding fathers of the certificate net. He believes these
:42:53. > :42:57.patents will show the system is going wrong. Patents were intended
:42:57. > :43:02.to give a person to protect his interests and give him the right
:43:02. > :43:08.that his idea has been infringed on other. What has happened is in
:43:08. > :43:13.parts of the patent community is we see people acquiring the right to
:43:13. > :43:17.patent, but without using them except for suing for infringement.
:43:17. > :43:20.It seems the inventor you met has been confronted with that practice.
:43:20. > :43:26.There is a business to be made, people will find a way to make a
:43:27. > :43:31.dis. That is what has happened with patents. Is the system helping for
:43:31. > :43:36.hindering innovation if used in that way? Particularly in the sense
:43:36. > :43:41.of software patterns I see it as hinders in a very dramatic way.
:43:41. > :43:45.is not just the small players who are affected, suddenly the
:43:45. > :43:51.technology industry has become a battleground, where patents are
:43:51. > :44:01.important, weapons and efrb seals to be suing everybody else. Apple
:44:01. > :44:03.
:44:03. > :44:12.is suing Samsung, Samsung is suing apple. Htc is suing ap all, and all
:44:12. > :44:16.sorts of other programmes. Google has been raising to acquire
:44:16. > :44:20.its own patents, what is your reaction to that? It has been
:44:20. > :44:23.forced on us by the realities of the patent market place, I regret
:44:23. > :44:28.so much money has to be spent on that, that should have been spent
:44:28. > :44:31.on inventing new ideas. It is all good business for the intellectual
:44:31. > :44:36.property lawyers. But don't try to tell them that the patent system is
:44:36. > :44:43.now a barrier to innovation. If you compare the phone in your pocket
:44:43. > :44:48.with the mobile phone had you five years ago, the progress that has
:44:48. > :44:52.been made in those years self- evident. And it cannot support a
:44:53. > :44:55.suggestion that the patent system is stifleing innovation. But if
:44:55. > :45:02.British software developers came to you with this underthreat from the
:45:03. > :45:07.UK, it would be pretty extensive, I presume for them to deal with that?
:45:07. > :45:14.Major mat tent litigation is expensive. We have systems over
:45:14. > :45:21.here, we have a patent county court set up to handle small cases by
:45:21. > :45:28.small to medium sized enterprises. It has a damage limit of �500,000.
:45:28. > :45:31.Mass mum �500,000, a lot for a small company? We need a patent
:45:31. > :45:34.system, I appreciate that sometimes it can hurt, but to say that you
:45:34. > :45:44.are small is not a defence to a valid claim that you have infringed
:45:44. > :45:48.the patent. Technology is indeed a passing -
:45:48. > :45:53.advancing so rapidly that even recent inventions are now museum
:45:53. > :46:01.pieces. But its ever more money and energy is spent on fighting the
:46:01. > :46:06.patent wars, who will come up with the next big thing.
:46:06. > :46:09.Tomorrow morning's front pages, the Mail leads with the Border Force's
:46:09. > :46:19.spat with the Home Secretary, same story on the front page of the
:46:19. > :46:19.
:46:19. > :47:06.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 47 seconds
:47:06. > :47:12.Good evening. A cloudy, damp and misty nitrogen tonight. Temperature
:47:13. > :47:17.- misty night again tonight. You can see a few glimmers of sunshine,
:47:17. > :47:22.much of northern England will hold on to the cloud. Maybe the moderate
:47:22. > :47:26.bursts across the Pennines, misty here. Across to the Midlands, East
:47:26. > :47:33.Anglia and the south. There is a chance after the dismal start
:47:33. > :47:37.things might cheer up leaving some breaks in the cloud. In the south
:47:37. > :47:40.west you will hold on to generally cloudy conditions. Heavier pulses
:47:40. > :47:46.of rain on and off true the day. Once it eases during the afternoon
:47:46. > :47:50.at times urbg might see a bit of bright - you might see a bit of
:47:50. > :47:54.brightness. Much of the day predominantly grey and damp. Damp
:47:55. > :47:58.in eastern Scotland, the far north, even with a bit more cloud, should
:47:58. > :48:01.stay reasonably bright. Into Thursday, the difference, well, it
:48:01. > :48:05.is not hugely discernable, if anything, the rain across some
:48:05. > :48:09.parts of Scotland, western England and Wales could be that little bit
:48:09. > :48:11.heavier at times, and a bit more persistent, either side of it there
:48:11. > :48:16.will be sunshine around. Western parts of Northern Ireland,