0:00:00 > 0:00:05The Sun is accused of sanctions thousands of pounds of illegal
0:00:05 > 0:00:10payments to police and public servants. The Met reveals a network
0:00:10 > 0:00:14of corrupt officials, paid by News International. We speak to Neville
0:00:14 > 0:00:17Thurlbeck, the former chief reporter at News of the World.
0:00:17 > 0:00:24Timing for News International couldn't be better. Today Charlotte
0:00:24 > 0:00:28Church launched a scathing attack, as she received �600,000 in damages
0:00:28 > 0:00:33over claims her phone was hacked. What I have learned has sickened
0:00:33 > 0:00:38and disgusted me. Nothing was deemed off limits by those who
0:00:38 > 0:00:41pursued me and my family to make money for news corporation.
0:00:41 > 0:00:47speak to John Prescott, a former Chief Constable, and the Mirror's
0:00:47 > 0:00:51former crime reporter in the studio. Fresh allegations against A4e, the
0:00:51 > 0:00:54company that receivess thousands from the Government in contracts.
0:00:54 > 0:00:58More discomfort, with the NHS reforms, this time from inside
0:00:58 > 0:01:03Government as well. Nick Clegg approves an open letter, asking for
0:01:03 > 0:01:06more changes. And was Putin the tart of a foiled
0:01:06 > 0:01:12assassination attack, or is Soviet history being repeated ahead of the
0:01:12 > 0:01:17elections. TRANSLATION: All of these famous
0:01:17 > 0:01:27processes against the Trotskyists, will be built on allegations of
0:01:27 > 0:01:32
0:01:32 > 0:01:36Good evening. The Sun newspaper stands accused tonight of sanctions
0:01:36 > 0:01:40payments of tens of thousands of pounds to corrupt officials within
0:01:40 > 0:01:45the police and other public bodies. In one of the most explosion
0:01:45 > 0:01:48allegations, that the Leveson Inquiry has yet heard, Deputy
0:01:48 > 0:01:51Assistant Commissioner, Sue Akers, said the paper had a culture of
0:01:51 > 0:01:56illegal payments authorised at the most senior level, and suggested
0:01:56 > 0:01:59some public officials had been put on retainer. She vowed to expose
0:01:59 > 0:02:06those who had received cash and see them brought to justice.
0:02:06 > 0:02:11The inquiry heard the former News International editors, Rebekah Wade,
0:02:11 > 0:02:15and Andy Coulson, were warned that there was widespread hacking as
0:02:15 > 0:02:25early as 2006. We speak to former News of the World reporter, Neville
0:02:25 > 0:02:25
0:02:25 > 0:02:30This is how the relationship between the police and the press
0:02:30 > 0:02:33should work. One needs stories to fill the paper, the other needs
0:02:33 > 0:02:37publicity to help solve crimes, everyone is a winner. But you will
0:02:37 > 0:02:42note, from this old news real, no money changes hands. It was,
0:02:42 > 0:02:46apparently, a completely different matter at News International. Today
0:02:46 > 0:02:51the second part of the Leveson Inquiry began, with damming
0:02:51 > 0:02:54allegations of wholesale corruption. The relationship between the police
0:02:54 > 0:03:01and the media, and News International in particular, was,
0:03:01 > 0:03:06at best, inappropriately close, and if not, actual lie corrupt, -- if
0:03:06 > 0:03:11not actually corrupt, very close to it. Today the investigation into
0:03:11 > 0:03:17phone hacking and police corruption, Sue Akers in, uniform, gave an
0:03:17 > 0:03:24update on what has happened so far, police taking significant sums of
0:03:24 > 0:03:28money from the Sun. One was paid in excess of �80,000, and one arrested
0:03:28 > 0:03:32journalist receiving �150,000 in cash to pay his sources, some of
0:03:32 > 0:03:37whom were public officials. payments had been made not only to
0:03:37 > 0:03:41police officers, but a wide range of public officials. So there are
0:03:41 > 0:03:47catagories as well as police, military, health, Government,
0:03:47 > 0:03:53prison and others. It suggests that payments were being made to public
0:03:53 > 0:03:57officials who were in all areas of public life. I have said that the
0:03:57 > 0:04:07current assessment is it reveals a network of corrupted officials.
0:04:07 > 0:04:13
0:04:13 > 0:04:19That is a relative who allegedly helped hide a payment. The police
0:04:19 > 0:04:23abecause the payments were in cash, only a few of the reacceptents have
0:04:23 > 0:04:28been so far been -- recipients have been identified. There was a
0:04:28 > 0:04:31culture at the Sun of illegal payments, and systems were created
0:04:31 > 0:04:35to facilitate those payment, while hiding the identity of the
0:04:35 > 0:04:38officials receiving the money. the former News International
0:04:38 > 0:04:46editor, and former News International chief executive,
0:04:46 > 0:04:50Duwayne Brooks, gave evidence to a Commons investigation - Rebecca
0:04:51 > 0:04:57Brooks gave evidence, she did confirm that the police were paid,
0:04:57 > 0:05:02in 200. We have paid the police in the past. Will you do it in the
0:05:02 > 0:05:06future? You are operating within the law, it is the same for
0:05:06 > 0:05:10subterfuge, and video bags. It is illegal for police officers to
0:05:10 > 0:05:13receive payments. I said within the law. Much later she issued a
0:05:13 > 0:05:18statement saying she had no knowledge of any payments at News
0:05:18 > 0:05:23International to the police. There are many examples of how this close
0:05:23 > 0:05:25relationship works. When Neil and Christine Hamilton went to a police
0:05:25 > 0:05:31station to answer questions about a completely false allegation of rape,
0:05:31 > 0:05:35they saw how the tip-offs worked. They had been promised no press and
0:05:35 > 0:05:39no publicity, and yet, this is what they got. Within ten minutes of our
0:05:39 > 0:05:44arrival, journalists started to dribble into the street outside. By
0:05:44 > 0:05:49the time we came out, after two or three hours of questioning, there
0:05:49 > 0:05:54were about 150 or so journalists round, not just Fleet Street
0:05:54 > 0:05:56journalists, but radio, TV, sound booms, cameras, the lot. It was a
0:05:56 > 0:06:00bit like the Oscars ceremony in reverse.
0:06:00 > 0:06:04You might have thought that once the police began their
0:06:04 > 0:06:06investigation into illegal activities at the News of the World,
0:06:06 > 0:06:12this contact between News International and the police would
0:06:12 > 0:06:16have stopped. Actually, far from it. Today, the inquiry was shown an
0:06:16 > 0:06:20extraordinary e-mail that suggests that, not only was the chief
0:06:20 > 0:06:24executive of News International, Rebecca Brooks, being briefed on
0:06:24 > 0:06:29the investigation, that the police were carrying out, she was also
0:06:29 > 0:06:39consulted on how far she thought that investigation should go.
0:06:39 > 0:06:53
0:06:53 > 0:06:56The e-mail is from the chief lawyer At the end News International were
0:06:56 > 0:07:02insisting that nobody else was involved. But the e-mail goes on to
0:07:02 > 0:07:07say that the police have a list of up to 110 victims and payment
0:07:07 > 0:07:12records of News International to Mulcaire of over �1 million. This
0:07:12 > 0:07:17was a huge operation, not just one rogue reporter. The e-mail says it
0:07:17 > 0:07:27demonstrates a pattern of victims replaced by the next one, who
0:07:27 > 0:07:32
0:07:32 > 0:07:35becomes flavour of the week or Today the former Deputy Prime
0:07:35 > 0:07:40Minister, giving his own evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, was clear
0:07:40 > 0:07:46what he thought had happened. are highly-paid, highly-intelligent
0:07:46 > 0:07:51people, I think there is more a conspiracy of silence to hide the
0:07:51 > 0:07:54facts, I'm stronger of that view in the last few months. Today another
0:07:54 > 0:07:58celebrity settled with News International, Charlotte Church
0:07:58 > 0:08:02accepting �600,000 in compensation. Did the police investigation into
0:08:02 > 0:08:08phone hacking fail, because police were too close to News
0:08:08 > 0:08:15International? There are plenty more witnesses and hearings to come.
0:08:15 > 0:08:23Joining us now is Neville Thurlbeck, the former news editor and chief
0:08:23 > 0:08:29reporter at News of the World. He's now -- he was arrested for his
0:08:29 > 0:08:33involvement in phone hacking and bailed until next month, for legal
0:08:33 > 0:08:37reasons we can't ask him questions relating to that case, for the
0:08:37 > 0:08:41record he denies phone hacking. Neville Thurlbeck, Sue Akers lists
0:08:41 > 0:08:45the payments to police and public officials, do you recognise that
0:08:45 > 0:08:51culture in your newsroom? Not in the News of the World. In my time
0:08:51 > 0:08:56there when I was news editor, 2001- 2003, I was in charge of looking at
0:08:56 > 0:09:01what payments were being made, and to whom. At no time was I even
0:09:01 > 0:09:07requested by a reporter to pay a police officer, it simply didn't
0:09:07 > 0:09:11cross our radar. The editor at the time, during my period on the news
0:09:12 > 0:09:21desk was Rebekah Brookes, and latterly, Andy Coulson, and again,
0:09:22 > 0:09:24
0:09:24 > 0:09:28those two individuals they never requested we pay anyone. You insist
0:09:28 > 0:09:32it only happened it at the Sun and never at the News of the World?
0:09:32 > 0:09:35don't say it happened at the Sun either, I don't say that at all. We
0:09:35 > 0:09:39have to see where the evidence takes us on that. You are saying
0:09:39 > 0:09:43you think she's wrong? That the criminality exists on the Sun.
0:09:43 > 0:09:50There was a very strayed forward remark from Akers, there was a cull
0:09:50 > 0:09:52-- straight forward remark from Sue Akers, there was a culture of
0:09:52 > 0:09:56paying officials, thousands of pounds are you saying that didn't
0:09:56 > 0:10:02happen at the Sun? I don't think anybody knows outside the police
0:10:02 > 0:10:08force. She also said that people who were connected to these public
0:10:08 > 0:10:11officials were being paid. Now that is often the case. Sometimes
0:10:11 > 0:10:15journalists get information, secondhand, not necessarily from
0:10:15 > 0:10:21the film star, or the police officer, but from a friend of the
0:10:21 > 0:10:24film star or the friend of the police officer. Did that happen at
0:10:24 > 0:10:27News of the World? These people wouldn't always reveal their
0:10:27 > 0:10:30sources or how they got the information. You knew money was
0:10:30 > 0:10:33changing hands and going to sources? It would be up to us to
0:10:33 > 0:10:36check the information. You couldn't check out the voracity of every
0:10:36 > 0:10:39single contact that came into the office. It wouldn't have been a
0:10:39 > 0:10:43surprise to you to know that money was being paid to sources for the
0:10:43 > 0:10:47kind of scoops that News of the World was clearly getting at the
0:10:47 > 0:10:51time? Newspapers right across Fleet Street, historically, have always
0:10:51 > 0:10:55paid money for good stories. This has been going on for 150 years, I
0:10:55 > 0:10:59don't think there is anything new in that. Presumably you paid money
0:10:59 > 0:11:05to those friends, to friends of friends, to officials? We paid
0:11:05 > 0:11:11money to a variety of sources. But what I'm telling you now. Including
0:11:11 > 0:11:15police officers, including? Not at all. I'm making myself very clear
0:11:15 > 0:11:18on this, forgive me for repeating it one more time. We never paid
0:11:18 > 0:11:20police officers money for stories. Could you have paid friends of
0:11:20 > 0:11:24police officers, could you have paid police officers through other
0:11:24 > 0:11:29means? I have got no way of telling if that happened. I think it would
0:11:29 > 0:11:32be a physical impossibility, to check out the family tree of every
0:11:32 > 0:11:37single person that came knocking at our door. It is interesting that,
0:11:37 > 0:11:43for example, one journalist submitted one expense of �150,000
0:11:43 > 0:11:49over the years, to pay out sources. That's entirely credible. And one
0:11:49 > 0:11:53person received �80,000? Let's put this into perspective. A journalist
0:11:53 > 0:12:01who pays 150,000 to his contacts, over 20 years, isn't a significant
0:12:01 > 0:12:07amount of money. When he might be paying, for example �15,000, or
0:12:07 > 0:12:10�20,000. We don't know if it was twenty years, it could have been
0:12:10 > 0:12:13two years? Some of the people had been on the newspapers for 40 years.
0:12:13 > 0:12:15These were crime stories, who was being paid, who would have the
0:12:15 > 0:12:19information, if it wasn't the police and the public bodies, who
0:12:19 > 0:12:24do you think the money was going to? There is a variety of sources.
0:12:24 > 0:12:28When I was crime reporter, a lot of my sources came from people who
0:12:28 > 0:12:32were connected to the investigations, they might even be
0:12:32 > 0:12:37criminals themselves. They might be police informants. Did you pay
0:12:37 > 0:12:40criminals and police informants? didn't pay criminals. Who did you
0:12:41 > 0:12:44pay? You would pay people who would have knowledge of what is going on.
0:12:44 > 0:12:48Who were those people? They would be people who knew police officers,
0:12:48 > 0:12:51people who were perhaps friends of police officers. You know people,
0:12:51 > 0:12:56the information is given...It highly possible that some of that
0:12:56 > 0:13:01money went back to the police or public officials? We have no way of
0:13:01 > 0:13:05telling that. What I'm telling you is, that information can often, is
0:13:05 > 0:13:08often frequently given to newspapers second and third hand.
0:13:08 > 0:13:12Now the originator of that information might inadvertantly be
0:13:12 > 0:13:16a police officer, but the person who comes to you is perhaps two or
0:13:16 > 0:13:21three people down that chain. It is the same with showbiz and short.
0:13:21 > 0:13:26What type of some would you imagine changing hands for that kind of
0:13:26 > 0:13:30scoop? What sort of scoop. A major front page scoop on News of the
0:13:30 > 0:13:36World, a cover story? A front page splash of the News of the World, is
0:13:36 > 0:13:42that what you are asking me to give you a figure on? It would be in the
0:13:42 > 0:13:46order of between �5,000 to �25,000, depending on the priority the
0:13:46 > 0:13:50editor gave the story at the time. For a crime story? Not necessarily
0:13:50 > 0:13:54that much for a crime story. These days they tend to command smaller
0:13:54 > 0:13:58currency, I would say, probably talking in the order of hundreds
0:13:58 > 0:14:03rather than thousands. You could be paying that kind of money to one
0:14:03 > 0:14:07source? That is not unusual, that is Fleet Street-wide, it is not
0:14:08 > 0:14:12unique to News International titles. Sue Akers is saying that there was
0:14:12 > 0:14:16a culture of illegal payments, she stresses there was illegal payment,
0:14:16 > 0:14:21why would she say illegal if it wasn't payment that had been
0:14:21 > 0:14:26outlawed, for example, going to the wrong people? This act, the 1906
0:14:26 > 0:14:30anti-Corruption Act was frameed, prevention of Corruption Act, was
0:14:30 > 0:14:37framed to discourage police officers from turning a blind eye
0:14:37 > 0:14:43toe armed robberies. Under the terms of that act we are now
0:14:43 > 0:14:48prosecuting, potentially, journalists for taking possession
0:14:48 > 0:14:50of what Sue Akers called today salacious gossip. These people,
0:14:51 > 0:14:55these journalists could be potentially facing three years in
0:14:55 > 0:15:00jail, and the loss of their careers, their livelihoods and reputation
0:15:00 > 0:15:04for the sake of this 1906 act. She's talking about illegal
0:15:05 > 0:15:12payments and people being put on retainers? I have no knowledge of
0:15:12 > 0:15:15this. But it is possible, that happened. That people were put on
0:15:15 > 0:15:19retainers, presumably those are the people that give you not just one
0:15:19 > 0:15:24story, but story after story? not here to defend any criminality,
0:15:24 > 0:15:28all I'm saying is this. Were you aware of those retained?
0:15:28 > 0:15:32Nottingham Forest aware of any criminality, I'm not -- I'm not
0:15:32 > 0:15:37aware of any criminality, I'm not here to defend it. I'm saying there
0:15:37 > 0:15:43should be a perspective put on this, and it shouldn't be looking through
0:15:43 > 0:15:49the prisism of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is too heavy a
0:15:49 > 0:15:53sledgehammer to crack the nut. Let's hear about the e-mail from
0:15:53 > 0:15:56Tom Crone to Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, that there was
0:15:56 > 0:16:00widespread hacking, and Rebekah Brooks was consulted by the police
0:16:00 > 0:16:04on how far the investigation should go. What are we to make of that?
0:16:04 > 0:16:07have said, before I came on the show tonight, I'm not going to
0:16:07 > 0:16:11discuss anything to do with Operation Weeting tonight. We're
0:16:11 > 0:16:16encrouching on that by talking about that particular memo, I'm
0:16:16 > 0:16:19afraid, Emily. You think this suggests a major cover-up,
0:16:19 > 0:16:26somewhere at the top of News International? I didn't say that.
0:16:26 > 0:16:29Do you think that it does? I didn't say that, I'm not going into any
0:16:29 > 0:16:32matters concerning Operation Weeting. Do you think you reached a
0:16:32 > 0:16:35point in your career, you have been very clear with with where you
0:16:35 > 0:16:40stand and what you think happened at the newspaper, when you were
0:16:40 > 0:16:44there, did you reach a point in your career when you felt things
0:16:44 > 0:16:51had gone too far, they were the wrong side of the moral equation?
0:16:51 > 0:16:59All I will say is this, if there was a say the of criminality
0:16:59 > 0:17:06reached, on our newspaper, it was confined to a very tiny number of
0:17:06 > 0:17:08desperate people, but by and large, almost 99.9% of my colleagues were
0:17:08 > 0:17:13first class decent, honourable journalists.
0:17:13 > 0:17:18Thank you very much. Joining me now, the former deputy
0:17:18 > 0:17:22PM, John, now Lord Prescott, the former Chief Constable of Thames
0:17:22 > 0:17:25Valley Police, Peter Neyroud, author of an official review of
0:17:25 > 0:17:32police ethics, and Jeff Edwards, the former chief crime
0:17:32 > 0:17:36correspondent for the Daily Mirror, President of the Crime Reporters'
0:17:36 > 0:17:40Association. What do you make of what you have
0:17:40 > 0:17:43just heard? From someone who has been campaigning for five years
0:17:43 > 0:17:47suggesting they were doing all these things, as Akers point the
0:17:47 > 0:17:52out in the inquiry today, it is not just -- pointed out in the inquiry
0:17:52 > 0:17:56today, it is not just that it happened, but it was that it was
0:17:56 > 0:17:59maintained a lie, they said it was one rogue reporter and only the
0:17:59 > 0:18:03News of the World, and now it is the Sun, all maintained they did
0:18:03 > 0:18:07full investigations and there was no evidence to prove it. Now it is
0:18:07 > 0:18:10their own people that give e-mail that is clearly shows bribery of
0:18:10 > 0:18:18the police was under way. Let's see what comes out of the investigation
0:18:18 > 0:18:23and the crime. Getting together in a kind of conspiracy of silence, to
0:18:23 > 0:18:27and perpetuate the lie. The papers used to say when I attacked them
0:18:27 > 0:18:30and others, they quoted what Mr Yates says, and there was no
0:18:30 > 0:18:34evidence. And when the police said, they said quote what the
0:18:34 > 0:18:41investigations of the press have done. Both xierd to maintain the
0:18:41 > 0:18:46lie. That is what -- conspired to maintain the lie. Sue Akers talked
0:18:46 > 0:18:51about Whitehall and other public officials? That has extended it
0:18:51 > 0:18:55further than we thought. We have heard a systemic system to bribe
0:18:55 > 0:18:58anywhere on a long-term basis to get the stories. It tends to
0:18:58 > 0:19:03concentrate on celebrities or people like myself that are known.
0:19:03 > 0:19:06What were they doing on the thousands of other cases, it is the
0:19:06 > 0:19:09ordinary people, the police in this case lost the trust and confidence
0:19:09 > 0:19:15of people, because they were allowing this to go on. It was a
0:19:15 > 0:19:18total contempt of trust. Peter Neyroud, you could say this is
0:19:18 > 0:19:23actually the most frightening element of this whole inquiry, a
0:19:23 > 0:19:26tight knit circle of influence and corruption between public
0:19:26 > 0:19:29institutions? There is two or three things that have emerged. The level
0:19:29 > 0:19:34of corruption of police officers through the organisation, which
0:19:34 > 0:19:37started off as stkwrus a few, now seems to be -- just a few, now
0:19:37 > 0:19:41seems to be quite considerable. It needs to be dealt with. It is easy
0:19:41 > 0:19:45to think about corruption that has been there, go back into the 1970s
0:19:45 > 0:19:49there were periods of corruption, this appears to be another one of
0:19:49 > 0:19:53those T appears to be the organisation just didn't appreciate
0:19:53 > 0:20:00how damaging the relationship could be and has become.
0:20:00 > 0:20:04Sue Akers says she will route out all those who received bungs,
0:20:04 > 0:20:09bribes -- root out all those who received bungs, bribes whatever,
0:20:09 > 0:20:13what would you do if you were head of the Met, would you go and seek
0:20:13 > 0:20:16these people? Yes, exactly as is being done. You have to, we now
0:20:16 > 0:20:20understand, not just the activities of individuals, but the damage that
0:20:20 > 0:20:23Lord Prescott has pointed out, it is doing to the police's reputation,
0:20:23 > 0:20:27and the trust the public has about how the information the police have
0:20:27 > 0:20:32got is being used. Do you think differently about the police now,
0:20:32 > 0:20:40do you think about become ago police commissioner? It wasn't
0:20:40 > 0:20:43because of -- Becoming a police commissioner? It wasn't because
0:20:43 > 0:20:46what the community had some influence over the police, in a
0:20:46 > 0:20:55democracy, it is the other way round. That question is raised with
0:20:55 > 0:20:59the arguments of regional police commissioners. The police have been
0:20:59 > 0:21:03in the spotlight, Neville Thurlbeck is making it clear that it is a
0:21:03 > 0:21:08normal part of life in Fleet Street, and that kind of payment just goes
0:21:08 > 0:21:15on? I can absolutely refute that. Certainly when I was at the Mirror,
0:21:15 > 0:21:18there was not a culture like that at all. Interestingly, between
0:21:18 > 0:21:211980-1985, I was employed at the News of the World as crime
0:21:21 > 0:21:23correspondent, I was removed from my post because of my complete
0:21:24 > 0:21:27reluctance and refusal to pay police officers. You think you lost
0:21:27 > 0:21:31your job because of that? I was told so. I didn't leave the company,
0:21:31 > 0:21:34but I was removed from that post and somebody else was put into it
0:21:34 > 0:21:40who was more prepared to take that kind of action. Shortly after that
0:21:40 > 0:21:46I got another job somewhere else, because you know...Describe What
0:21:46 > 0:21:51you knew from that newsroom then? think there was, it was very hard
0:21:51 > 0:21:56to think back about specifics then, but there was always, I thought, at
0:21:56 > 0:22:03the News of the World, a deeply rooted culture of underhandness, of
0:22:03 > 0:22:07corrupt practice. I think that I had come in from London evening
0:22:07 > 0:22:15newspapers where there was no history or tradition of that sort
0:22:15 > 0:22:20of behaviour, and I built my reputation on doing the job
0:22:20 > 0:22:23transparently and honestly, being an honest broker. To an extent I
0:22:23 > 0:22:28knew what I was entering, but I was hoping that I would actually be
0:22:28 > 0:22:32able to change things. That wasn't the case at all. Did you know this
0:22:32 > 0:22:37existed, did everyone quietly accept that it existed? Not to this
0:22:37 > 0:22:40scale. Certainly, when in Thames valley and earlier on I was a press
0:22:40 > 0:22:43officer in Hampshire earlier on in my career, I certainly was awar of
0:22:43 > 0:22:45individual police officers, for example, who were passing
0:22:45 > 0:22:49information -- aware of individual police officers passing
0:22:50 > 0:22:55manufactures off logs. They wouldn't be disciplined? We tried
0:22:55 > 0:22:58to seek them out and prosecute, in Thames valley. We certainly sought
0:22:58 > 0:23:05them out. I think Lord Leveson has made it clear it is no longer
0:23:05 > 0:23:10business as usual. There is a total and utter failure
0:23:10 > 0:23:14of the press complaints industry, there was the body not able to do
0:23:14 > 0:23:16anything about it and admit the press was lying to them. What was
0:23:16 > 0:23:19interesting about Neville Thurlbeck, is he made it sound like friends
0:23:19 > 0:23:23and friends of police, might have received payments, but they never
0:23:23 > 0:23:29received them directly, did you know that went on, was that a
0:23:29 > 0:23:33recognised pattern? Some of that, and certainly the looking for the
0:23:33 > 0:23:37cousin, the niece, the wife, et cetera, I have had some
0:23:37 > 0:23:39investigations in Thames valley that led to that. I think the
0:23:39 > 0:23:47biggest problem that the Metropolitan Police have certainly
0:23:47 > 0:23:51faced is a very small number of former police officers, who have
0:23:51 > 0:23:55been quick to exploit being a conduit between acting police
0:23:55 > 0:23:58officers, acting as a cut-out, they are the people who get paid. They
0:23:58 > 0:24:05probably pass money on to the serving police officers. Is it ever
0:24:05 > 0:24:08OK to leak to the press? No. It isn't. I think it is. I think it is
0:24:09 > 0:24:12sometimes. You would be amazed at the sort of level I have had
0:24:12 > 0:24:16information leaked from, up to Chief Constable level, on occasions.
0:24:16 > 0:24:23Sometimes it has been, sometimes it has been well thought through, it
0:24:23 > 0:24:27there has been a specific purpose behind it. One man's leak is
0:24:27 > 0:24:33somebody else's pro-active piece of information. When the person acting
0:24:33 > 0:24:37for the Met said it is right to have lunch with the News of the
0:24:37 > 0:24:41World, under investigation, what other Police Authority does that?
0:24:41 > 0:24:45Thank you very much gentlemen. There is more pressure tonight on
0:24:45 > 0:24:51the welfare-to-work company, A4e, who have hundreds of millions worth
0:24:51 > 0:24:56of Government contracts, and are at the centre of a police fraud
0:24:56 > 0:25:00inquiry. There was always for the - - calls for the contracts to be
0:25:00 > 0:25:06extended. Emma Harrison, the chair of the company, has quit her job.
0:25:06 > 0:25:12We heard further allegations from A4e from a former client.
0:25:12 > 0:25:15It was all pally once, the employment consultancy A4e, was
0:25:15 > 0:25:19making millions from Government contracts, the Government, like the
0:25:19 > 0:25:24last, happy to use a private sector specialist to get the unemployed
0:25:24 > 0:25:29back into work. It was pally too between A4e's boss and David
0:25:29 > 0:25:33Cameron, he made her his back to work Tsar. Now the relationship is
0:25:33 > 0:25:38mired in accusations of fraud and cover-up.
0:25:38 > 0:25:41Last week four former staff at A4e were arrested for fraud. Emma
0:25:41 > 0:25:46Harrison stepped down as David Cameron's adviser, and then as the
0:25:46 > 0:25:50boss of A4e itself. But questions remain. What did the Government
0:25:50 > 0:25:55know about A4e and its boss, and when? When you are appointing
0:25:55 > 0:26:00advisers for a half a billion pound programme, you normally make
0:26:00 > 0:26:08background checks. We want to know did the Prime Minister ask the back
0:26:08 > 0:26:11office were there any problems appointing Harrison. Did the office
0:26:11 > 0:26:15say there was a fraud investigation under way in Emma Harrison's
0:26:15 > 0:26:19company, at the moment we haven't any answers. This woman, unemployed
0:26:19 > 0:26:24from Leicester, has raised questions about A4e's practices,
0:26:24 > 0:26:29she was offered a job on in sales on �7,000 a year plus commission.
0:26:29 > 0:26:32When she asked for the terms and conditions in writing, things got
0:26:32 > 0:26:35complicated. A4e called me on Monday to say I had the job. I
0:26:35 > 0:26:38asked if I could have that in writing, if I could have the
0:26:38 > 0:26:43details of the job, the pay, the hours, the terms and conditions of
0:26:43 > 0:26:47the job, just in writing, just so I knew exactly what it was I was
0:26:47 > 0:26:52agreeing to. What did they say? They said that would make me seem
0:26:52 > 0:26:58awkward to the employier, and that is not how -- employer, and that is
0:26:58 > 0:27:02not how businesses work. It was then she said they made an
0:27:02 > 0:27:05extraordinary suggestion? They said you don't have to tell the
0:27:05 > 0:27:10Jobcentre, try it for a week without telling the Jobcentre.
0:27:10 > 0:27:13they told you to work without telling the Jobcentre how did it
0:27:13 > 0:27:20make you feel? Well I want to be a police officer, and I'm interested
0:27:20 > 0:27:30in the law and abiding by it. To be told to be against the rules of my
0:27:30 > 0:27:46
0:27:46 > 0:27:50benefit claim, that is not OK to me. A4e has launched its own internal
0:27:50 > 0:27:54investigation into the fraud claims. But pressure is growing in
0:27:54 > 0:28:01parliament to suspend its contracts. I have been astonished by the
0:28:01 > 0:28:07number of e-mails, letters and phone calls I have had, both from
0:28:07 > 0:28:12ex-employees and clients of A4e, full of allegations, both of
0:28:12 > 0:28:16malpractice and of poor practice. That is why I have consistently
0:28:16 > 0:28:22said that any common sense attitude by the Government now would mean
0:28:22 > 0:28:27that they should call a halt to the A4e work, suspend the contracts,
0:28:27 > 0:28:30right across Government, carry out their own investigation, don't
0:28:30 > 0:28:34depend on the A4e's internal investigation, and refer all
0:28:34 > 0:28:37further allegations to the police. Companies that help ministers meet
0:28:37 > 0:28:43targets can find it easy to make friends in high places, while it
0:28:43 > 0:28:48was bidding for work, under Labour, A4e employed the former minister,
0:28:48 > 0:28:56David Blunkett, as a consultant. Then it employed a former Cameron
0:28:56 > 0:29:00staffer, one Jaunty Olive Cooper as head of strategy. Now it has viewer
0:29:00 > 0:29:04friends and faces questions. A4e said the Government was told of the
0:29:04 > 0:29:08fraud investigation in November 2010, ten days before David Cameron
0:29:08 > 0:29:12appointed Emma Harrison as his adviser. Tonight the DWP said they
0:29:12 > 0:29:19were only formally notified in February 2011. The question is who
0:29:19 > 0:29:29is right? In a molt the Russian oligarch,
0:29:29 > 0:29:31
0:29:31 > 0:29:35Beresford bears, will debate -- -- In a letter co-signed by the Lib
0:29:35 > 0:29:40Dem peer Shirley Williams, he said he backed amendments to limit
0:29:40 > 0:29:46competition and the role of the private sector, will pressure from
0:29:46 > 0:29:49the Lib Dems, even at the top, have an affect on David Camerons plans
0:29:49 > 0:29:52for the health service. Was the letter a surprise? Not really,
0:29:52 > 0:29:57today, Monday and Wednesday, would always be the big votes in the
0:29:57 > 0:30:00Lords, and the Liberal Democrats in the Lords are amongst the most
0:30:00 > 0:30:04vocal opponents of the bill. It would always come to a head. Now we
0:30:04 > 0:30:08have this letter, Nick Clegg and Shirley Williams co-signed. What is
0:30:08 > 0:30:13interesting is you have spring conference, where you will see all
0:30:13 > 0:30:16the activists. Alongside the Lib Dem peers you have another
0:30:16 > 0:30:19disgruntled group. He had to be seen to come out and get something
0:30:19 > 0:30:23from the Government in terms of the bill. That is what we have seen
0:30:23 > 0:30:26from the letter. What is interesting from the clip we will
0:30:26 > 0:30:29play, is he's self-conscious that the Prime Minister knew and the
0:30:29 > 0:30:36Prime Minister gave him the OK to go ahead and write the letter.
0:30:36 > 0:30:40course we have discussed these in Government, there are, as you know,
0:30:40 > 0:30:43a much wider range of amendments being debated in the coming days.
0:30:43 > 0:30:47It is important to address the concerns people have expressed
0:30:47 > 0:30:52about the role of competition. I have always regarded competition as
0:30:52 > 0:30:56a means to a better NHS and not an end in itself. That is why the
0:30:56 > 0:31:01amendments will make it clear that competition is the servant of the
0:31:01 > 0:31:06NHS, never the master. It sound perfectly choreographed, were the
0:31:06 > 0:31:11Tories upset by the demands? They would say, actually these demands,
0:31:11 > 0:31:15it sounds like he's calling for an end to capitalism when you read the
0:31:15 > 0:31:20letter, but when you boil them down, they are five or six demands across
0:31:20 > 0:31:24disparate areas of the bill. If he wanted to go for the area he said
0:31:24 > 0:31:28he did, which is competition, he would strike out section 3, which
0:31:28 > 0:31:31the Labour Party say they will do, he's not calling forethat. They are
0:31:31 > 0:31:35incredibly complicated things he's calling for, and they are
0:31:35 > 0:31:41meaningful, but they are not there, let's get rid of that, we have done
0:31:41 > 0:31:44it. It is difficult to fully agree with how he has claimed it. The
0:31:44 > 0:31:48other thing, you have to remember there is a series of things being
0:31:48 > 0:31:50negotiated across Government, not just the NHS bill, a huge budget is
0:31:50 > 0:31:55being negotiated, every time the Liberal Democrats come forward and
0:31:55 > 0:31:58say they want this on an area like public policy, on an area like the
0:31:59 > 0:32:04NHS, the Tories are thinking we will keep that, and when we have a
0:32:04 > 0:32:08debate about mansion taxes and increase in tax thresholds. What
0:32:08 > 0:32:11about their backbenchers? We have a clip from one, Nick de Bois, they
0:32:11 > 0:32:17are fed up that the Liberal Democrats are negotiating in public
0:32:17 > 0:32:25and the Tories are more discreet. I'm surprised by the intervention.
0:32:25 > 0:32:31I think it is more about politics than substance. The key thing is,
0:32:31 > 0:32:36if that what it takes to get the bill on the statute bill, then so
0:32:36 > 0:32:40be it. The idea it could be about to go on to the statute book, they
0:32:40 > 0:32:46can't believe they are about to possibly get this bill all the way
0:32:46 > 0:32:49through to being policy. It has been a headache for the Government.
0:32:49 > 0:32:53Russia's state-controlled television has said the Government
0:32:53 > 0:32:58has foiled a plan to assassinate the Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.
0:32:58 > 0:33:03Channel One TV, says the plot, previously unreported, has come
0:33:03 > 0:33:08from terrorists in the Ukraine, who plan to kill Vladimir Putin after
0:33:08 > 0:33:13the next election. The timing, before Russians go to the polls,
0:33:13 > 0:33:17has caused some to question the official version of the news.
0:33:17 > 0:33:22We will be speaking to our panel in a moment. First we report from
0:33:22 > 0:33:26Moscow. The Russian TV report showed
0:33:26 > 0:33:35Ukrainian forces storming a building in Odessa three weeks ago.
0:33:36 > 0:33:39Inside was a man said to be on an international wanted list. Adam
0:33:39 > 0:33:46Osmayev. Russian TV said he previously lived in this house,
0:33:46 > 0:33:49rocked by an explosion, in which an accomplice died. He told
0:33:49 > 0:33:53interrogators they were going to Moscow to try to assassinate
0:33:53 > 0:33:58Vladimir Putin. He said they would use mines, but he wasn't going to
0:33:58 > 0:34:03do it himself, the guy who died was. The deadline was after the
0:34:03 > 0:34:08presidential election. Another man, arrested with him,
0:34:08 > 0:34:12said they were told to go to Odessa, to learn to make bombs. Then in
0:34:12 > 0:34:16Moscow, they would engineer diversions at economic facilities.
0:34:16 > 0:34:21Finally, would come the attack on Putin.
0:34:21 > 0:34:24This laptop, shown to the reporter, by an investigator, from Russia's
0:34:24 > 0:34:30FSB security agency, supposedly shows details of the plot.
0:34:30 > 0:34:36Including, it was said, a video of Mr Putin's motorcade.
0:34:36 > 0:34:40But on the streets of Moscow itself, where Mr Putin is certain to be
0:34:40 > 0:34:46elected President next month, the details of the plot weren't causing
0:34:46 > 0:34:51much alarm today. Most people were cynical about its very existence.
0:34:51 > 0:34:57TRANSLATION: It's not serious, it is not serious at all. It can't be
0:34:57 > 0:35:02true. Why? TRANSLATION: Because it just can't be.
0:35:02 > 0:35:10Tran tran -- TRANSLATION: We're in an election campaign, and this
0:35:10 > 0:35:15story is just meant to get people interested. Many people condemn
0:35:15 > 0:35:21Putin, his policies, so I think he thought this story up himself.
0:35:21 > 0:35:28REPORTER: He thought it up himself? TRANSLATION: Yes, I think so, he
0:35:28 > 0:35:32did it all himself. TRANSLATION: I think it is a PR
0:35:32 > 0:35:42campaign. TRANSLATION: What is the aim? TRANSLATION: To raise Putin's
0:35:42 > 0:35:46rating, I suppose. The assassination story comes a day
0:35:46 > 0:35:50after thousands of anti-Putin protestors formed a living ring
0:35:50 > 0:35:54around the centre of Moscow, the latest demonstration in their
0:35:54 > 0:35:57campaign for fairer elections. They say the Kremlin rigged the voting
0:35:57 > 0:35:59for a new parliament three months ago, they are convinced the same
0:35:59 > 0:36:05thing will happen again in the presidential poll this coming
0:36:05 > 0:36:10Sunday. In reply, Mr Putin has suggested
0:36:10 > 0:36:16his critics are serving an outside agenda, and that Russia needs to be
0:36:16 > 0:36:20defended. TRANSLATION: We won't allow anyone to impose their will
0:36:20 > 0:36:26on us, because we have our own will, that's always helped us to win. We
0:36:26 > 0:36:31are a nation of victors, it is in our genes, it gets passed on from
0:36:32 > 0:36:39generation to generation, and we will win this time. I want to ask
0:36:39 > 0:36:46you, Welwyn. Today's story, about an assassination plot against Mr
0:36:46 > 0:36:50Putin, is confusing in many details, Ukrainian security officials
0:36:50 > 0:37:00initially refused to confirm they suspected any such conspiracy S
0:37:00 > 0:37:02
0:37:02 > 0:37:07although they later said it was true. Many here feel the case will
0:37:07 > 0:37:11be used to crackdown on opponents, who the Prime Minister likes to
0:37:11 > 0:37:17portray as a dangerous fifth column. Russians remember that under both
0:37:17 > 0:37:22Lenin and Stalin, assassination plots, real or contrived, triggered
0:37:22 > 0:37:26waves of brutal repression. Even this business tycoon, who normally
0:37:26 > 0:37:31avoids criticising Putin is worried. TRANSLATION: Who says history
0:37:31 > 0:37:38doesn't repeat itself, it might be repeating itself.
0:37:38 > 0:37:44All of the famous processes against the troits skiists, and right and
0:37:44 > 0:37:48left centre. You are paralleling with 1930s? All built on conspiring
0:37:49 > 0:37:52against Stalin or the revolution. Look at this, this morning's news
0:37:52 > 0:37:59from Odessa, that they have actually arrested some people
0:37:59 > 0:38:05trying to organise an attempt on Putin's life. There is already some
0:38:06 > 0:38:10syllables about some London, exiles involvement, look at the
0:38:10 > 0:38:15manifestations, Putin was talking to 130,000 people, in the January,
0:38:15 > 0:38:20it was 19th of January 1937, 200,000 people were brought to
0:38:20 > 0:38:25Moscow, they marched through the streets, and they spoke to crush
0:38:25 > 0:38:32chof, in support of Stalin killing all of the opposition. These
0:38:32 > 0:38:35similarities are sometimes rather unnerving. No wonder knows what
0:38:35 > 0:38:43will happen after Putin declares his victory, of course there will
0:38:43 > 0:38:47be no return to the 1930s, but more plots, that's pretty certain.
0:38:47 > 0:38:53Sergei Markov is what is known as an election representative for
0:38:53 > 0:39:00Prime Minister Putin, he joins us from Washington, and Boris
0:39:00 > 0:39:05Berezovsky, an oligarch, living in London, a known opposer to
0:39:05 > 0:39:10President Putin. You heard what was said there, it is all part of an
0:39:10 > 0:39:17election campaign, probably thought up by Putin himself? I feel strange
0:39:17 > 0:39:27myself, frankly speaking, I respect the BBC, now this BBC looks like
0:39:27 > 0:39:33anti-Putin propaganda special tape, maybe I don't know. A -- you had
0:39:33 > 0:39:40three recordings, all anti-Putin, you mentioned about people
0:39:40 > 0:39:47criticising Putin, I didn't see the name, I suppose it Alexander
0:39:47 > 0:39:52Lebedev by voice, he's sponsoring very strong anti-Putin media in
0:39:52 > 0:39:58Washington. Why did you tell him not to criticise others, it is not
0:39:58 > 0:40:03true. We are happy for you to defend this. We all know it was
0:40:03 > 0:40:13Vladimir Putin to crush, radical Islamists terrorist Government in
0:40:13 > 0:40:13
0:40:13 > 0:40:16Chechnya, and also crushed tycoons like Boris Berezovsky, and
0:40:16 > 0:40:20others...(inaudible) all them hate him. The reason we are talking
0:40:20 > 0:40:24about this tonight, is we have only heard about this plot today, and
0:40:24 > 0:40:29Russia is weeks away from an election, that is why many think
0:40:29 > 0:40:35the timing is rather suspicious? Please don't stop me, why are you
0:40:35 > 0:40:45interrupting me, I'm sorry, you are like Fox News, please, everybody
0:40:45 > 0:40:51knows that Vladimir Putin has a lot of enemies, tycoons, and also this
0:40:51 > 0:40:58radical Islamists also, and others. Of course they try to organise some
0:40:58 > 0:41:02kind of killing of him a few times, just Russian Government inform
0:41:02 > 0:41:05public opinion. Don't interrupt me, why you interrupt me.... I think we
0:41:05 > 0:41:09have to go to the studio guest, there is no reason why this
0:41:09 > 0:41:14wouldn't be a real plot against a man in power who clearly has
0:41:14 > 0:41:20enemies? I think definitely, there should be conspiracy --
0:41:20 > 0:41:23transparency that it was a real plot, and that it was not. My
0:41:24 > 0:41:31understanding is it is really strange that every time, before
0:41:31 > 0:41:37elections it has happened. In 2000, it happened, in 2004, it happened
0:41:37 > 0:41:44in 208, it is almost the same story. In 2000 we have houses explosion,
0:41:44 > 0:41:49Putin election campaign. And then the second Chechen war, in 2004 we
0:41:50 > 0:41:54have, again, an attempt of assassination. To be fair the
0:41:54 > 0:41:59Ukrainians have now admitted there was this plot, we know the plot
0:41:59 > 0:42:04exists? I'm not sure, I don't believe in this story 100%. I can
0:42:04 > 0:42:09refuse this story. But, again, for me it looks like a made up story,
0:42:09 > 0:42:14because it is all the time the same, but today was very funny. You have
0:42:14 > 0:42:20no evidence, have you? It is, you asked my opinion, and I just give
0:42:20 > 0:42:24you answer. Let me go back to Sergei Markov, you mentioned
0:42:24 > 0:42:28Lebedev, he thinks this will be used as an excuse to crack down on
0:42:28 > 0:42:37opposition groups, make everyone who opposes Putin sound like a
0:42:37 > 0:42:41terrorist? I mentioned it is not neutral journalism if you called
0:42:42 > 0:42:49Lebedev, who didn't criticise Vladimir Putin, he criticising
0:42:49 > 0:42:54Putin many times. He is financially supported by a very anti-Putin
0:42:54 > 0:42:58media in Russia. I don't think this will be used for cracking down on
0:42:58 > 0:43:06the position. Vladimir Putin has polarity, something about 60%,
0:43:06 > 0:43:10according to all polls. Why a leader with 60% popularity needs to
0:43:10 > 0:43:14support his position. That is a good point, I'm putting your point
0:43:14 > 0:43:23to Boris Berezovsky, if Putin is doing so well in the polls why does
0:43:23 > 0:43:29he have to pull a stunt? appreciate that he's supporting Mr
0:43:29 > 0:43:34Putin in the campaign, he supported in 2004 and he lost completely the
0:43:34 > 0:43:39other person, and I appreciate that he's supporting Putin in his
0:43:39 > 0:43:45campaign. Why would you pull a stunt with these polls? I don't
0:43:45 > 0:43:52believe the polls he's representing. I supported victor in election and
0:43:52 > 0:43:56he won the election and then the revolution happened, and we didn't
0:43:56 > 0:44:00prepare for that. I was talking that it will be revolution, I
0:44:00 > 0:44:04predicted it would be revolution, but they didn't listen to us. They
0:44:04 > 0:44:10believed that he won the election. In the election people will have
0:44:10 > 0:44:14badges for the revolution, that will happen. Many people in Moscow
0:44:14 > 0:44:17seem to question whether this plot was real or not, as you heard from
0:44:17 > 0:44:22Boris Berezovsky, he says there is a pattern, this kind of thing
0:44:22 > 0:44:27emerges ahead of every single election? Of course not every
0:44:27 > 0:44:32single election. We remember that when Vladimir Putin had been
0:44:32 > 0:44:37elected in the year 200, it was the -- 2000, it was the real war in
0:44:37 > 0:44:43Chechnya, we remember, it was army, it was a big territory controlled
0:44:43 > 0:44:47by terrorists. They directly repeated many times that they will
0:44:47 > 0:44:54attack Russian civilians in Russian cities, in the heart of Russia.
0:44:54 > 0:45:02They made it. It is everything clear only this. Then in the next
0:45:02 > 0:45:04elections, 2008, and 2004, nothing happened. Boris Berezovsky, briefly,
0:45:04 > 0:45:08do you think that these demonstrations that we have seen in
0:45:08 > 0:45:14the past few days will result in anything, or do you think that
0:45:14 > 0:45:19Putin's grip on power is pretty solid? I'm sure Putin could falsify
0:45:19 > 0:45:29the election with the help of Mr Markov and people like him. But
0:45:29 > 0:45:31
0:45:31 > 0:45:35Putin will be never in Russia. Briefly? All psychological points
0:45:35 > 0:45:40are repeated and repeated, but Putin's popularity allows him to
0:45:40 > 0:45:43win with something like 58%. What reason to make a falsification
0:45:43 > 0:45:46before the election, if the polls show you. It is very strange, you
0:45:46 > 0:45:50know. Thank you very much indeed.
0:45:50 > 0:45:55That's all from Newsnight tonight. The Artist was last night only the