:00:13. > :00:17.Tonight, wanted on terror charges in the US, this British man has
:00:17. > :00:20.spent eight years in a high security prison, fighting
:00:20. > :00:25.extradition, we have an unprecedented interview from behind
:00:25. > :00:29.bars, in which he asks the British Government to put him on trial here.
:00:29. > :00:35.I would ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to please put me on
:00:35. > :00:40.trial in this country, and to find out what has gone wrong in my case.
:00:40. > :00:43.On Tuesday he will learn his fate. I will speak to the US legal
:00:44. > :00:47.attache, about our controversial extradition laws, and will be
:00:47. > :00:50.debating whether they need to be changed. Newsnight has learned that
:00:50. > :00:54.Government is gearing up to charge for freedom of information
:00:54. > :00:57.inquiries, which David Cameron has described as furring the arteries
:00:57. > :01:01.of Government. The rigours of the Freedom of Information Act, that
:01:01. > :01:04.called mallet, has shrunk the space in which politicians feel they can
:01:04. > :01:09.talk freely, so much so that the back of a London taxi may actually
:01:09. > :01:13.be the last place they feel they can have a conversation privately
:01:13. > :01:17.and honestly. Last night the candidates for
:01:17. > :01:19.London mayor challenged each other on Newsnight to reveal the tax they
:01:20. > :01:23.pay. I'm happy to publish details of everything I have earned in the
:01:23. > :01:33.last fuer four years, are you going to do the same? Of course I will.
:01:33. > :01:37.Tonight we will tell you what we found out.
:01:37. > :01:40.Good evening, this week the political debate has been around
:01:40. > :01:45.secret courts, e-mail surveillance, and issues of justice, human rights,
:01:45. > :01:49.and now extradition. We begin the programme with the case of Barbar
:01:49. > :01:53.Ahmad, who has spent eight years in jail fighting extradition to the
:01:53. > :01:57.United States on terror charges. Next Tuesday the European Court of
:01:57. > :02:00.Human Rights will rule on his case and others. Following an
:02:00. > :02:10.unprecedented High Court battle, the BBC won the right to interview
:02:10. > :02:16.him in prison. He's the longest- serving British prisoner in jail
:02:16. > :02:21.never convicted of a crime. The US authorities are fighting to
:02:21. > :02:25.extradite him, claiming he ran extremist websites to support the
:02:25. > :02:29.global Jihad. They were the authoritative source,
:02:29. > :02:34.number one, for Jihad and mujahideen on the web. There was
:02:34. > :02:40.no-one else that came close to them. Not even close.
:02:40. > :02:43.In days he will find out his fate. In an exclusive interview from
:02:43. > :02:47.prison, Barbar Ahmad tells Newsnight he has been denied
:02:47. > :02:50.justice by the British authorities. I would urge the Director of Public
:02:50. > :02:55.Prosecutions to please put me on trial in this country, and to find
:02:55. > :03:00.out what has gone wrong in my case. There has been a serious and
:03:00. > :03:04.unprecedented abuse of process that has gone on in my case.
:03:04. > :03:09.For opponents of the extradition treaty with the US, this case
:03:09. > :03:14.highlights how unfair that treaty A British citizen, banged up in a
:03:14. > :03:18.high-security prison, in his eighth year, without trial, without charge,
:03:18. > :03:26.that is a Kafka-esque situation here, happening on British soil. I
:03:26. > :03:29.think this case shames us all. Barbar Ahmad is the man the
:03:29. > :03:34.Government said we couldn't meet. But the BBC challenged ministers in
:03:34. > :03:39.the High Court, and judges said it was in the public interest to hear
:03:39. > :03:43.his story from Long Lartin Prison, in wore chesser. He has been held
:03:43. > :03:47.on a special unit for half-a-dozen men, each of them is accused of
:03:47. > :03:51.being among the most dangerous extremists in the world. In a few
:03:51. > :03:56.days time the European Court of Human Rights will deliver one of
:03:56. > :03:59.its most important judgments, can men like Barbar Ahmad be extradited
:03:59. > :04:06.to the United States. When did they interview you?
:04:06. > :04:08.first interview was the next day. He was first arrested in 2003, in a
:04:08. > :04:11.Scotland Yard counter terrorism operation. Officers were briefed
:04:11. > :04:16.that he was providing logistical and financial support to terrorists
:04:16. > :04:20.abroad, through a website he had allegedly stet up. Days later he
:04:20. > :04:26.was re-- set up. Days later he was released without charge, and
:04:26. > :04:31.accused the police of assaulting him. That area is swollen, I had
:04:31. > :04:38.bleeding in that ear. I was punched all over my body, I was sneeed,
:04:38. > :04:44.handcuffs were placed on my wrists, and they were tightened until I was
:04:44. > :04:49.screaming in agony. They took me in the van, and for 20 minutes there
:04:49. > :04:54.was more abuse and more abuse of the handcuffs, until my throat
:04:54. > :04:57.became dry from screaming. Last year four police officers were
:04:57. > :05:02.prosecuted for support, and acquitted, it came after the Met
:05:02. > :05:06.agreed the assault had happened, and paid Barbar Ahmad �60,000 in
:05:06. > :05:09.damages. Months after he was released, he was re-arrested by
:05:09. > :05:15.Scotland Yard's extradition unit, now he was wanted by the Americans.
:05:15. > :05:19.At the heart of their case against him, a website they say he ran.
:05:20. > :05:24.matter where they are hiding, be it a cave, be it in the ground, be it
:05:24. > :05:34.in safe house, or the dark corners of cyberspace, law enforcement is
:05:34. > :05:37.
:05:37. > :05:41.there as well. The website was called azzam.com, the Americans say
:05:42. > :05:46.he used to raise funds and raise support for terrorism, first in
:05:46. > :05:52.Chechnya and then Afghanistan. The site no longer exist, but the words
:05:52. > :06:02.live on. Azzam Publicatinos has been set up to propagage the call
:06:02. > :06:10.
:06:10. > :06:16.for Jihad, among the Muslims sitting down, the purpose of Azzam
:06:16. > :06:20.publications ...This man is likely to be called for evidence if Barbar
:06:20. > :06:25.Ahmad will be put on trial. He does his research in the United States.
:06:25. > :06:30.It was not hard to come across him, it was the undisputed king of
:06:30. > :06:39.Islamic Jihadi on the web. He shows me graphic footage filmed
:06:39. > :06:42.in Chechnya. This scene became known globally, because of Azzam
:06:42. > :06:46.Publications. You have here, foreign fighters dragging the
:06:46. > :06:51.bodies of dead Russian soldiers out of this convoy they have just
:06:51. > :06:54.ambushed. This is something nobody has ever seen before.
:06:55. > :07:01.The leader of the group then machine guns to death, a wounded
:07:01. > :07:07.Russian soldier. This video is going to appeal to
:07:07. > :07:13.people who are so angry, and are so furious, and so mobilised, that
:07:13. > :07:19.seeing people being murdered on camera, even soldiers, is something
:07:19. > :07:24.that is inspiring. I asked Barbar Ahmad if he agreed
:07:24. > :07:28.with the Americans, that this video had a sole purpose. They say that
:07:28. > :07:34.material was used to recruit people for violent Jihad, and that's why
:07:34. > :07:37.they want to put you on trial? there was anything on there that
:07:37. > :07:40.broke any law of the United Kingdom, or if there was anything in there
:07:40. > :07:43.that was wrong, I don't understand for the last 16 years where the
:07:43. > :07:48.police and Crown Prosecution Service have been. It is just a
:07:48. > :07:53.question of taste and decency as well? Something like that is a war
:07:53. > :07:59.crime, obviously I don't support the wanton killing of captured
:07:59. > :08:08.prisoners of war. Did you run the Azzam website, as the Americans
:08:08. > :08:10.allege -- Azzam.com website as the Americans allege? I want all this
:08:10. > :08:15.proved in a court of law, I call on the Crown Prosecution Service to
:08:15. > :08:20.put my heart and everyone else's party at rest, and put me on trial
:08:20. > :08:24.in this country. Barbar Ahmad is a British citizen, who grew up in a
:08:24. > :08:28.middle-class family in south London. As a teenager he became sickened by
:08:28. > :08:33.events in Bosnia. He revealed to Newsnight that he joined a
:08:33. > :08:38.volunteer brigade of the Bosnian army and force against the Serbs.
:08:38. > :08:41.Here were a defenceless people, to whom horrific things were happening,
:08:42. > :08:45.and everyone was sitting, and international community were having
:08:45. > :08:51.conferences and negotiations, and nobody was doing anything to stop
:08:51. > :08:55.the slaughter of the innocents. Bosnia was a turning point for some
:08:55. > :09:01.British Muslims, Al-Qaeda later tapped into the anger it caused.
:09:01. > :09:05.But Barbar Ahmad denies he ever supported Osama Bin Laden's Jihad.
:09:05. > :09:10.If by Jihad you mean defending yourself and your home and your
:09:10. > :09:14.family, then, of course I support that, as every human being should
:09:14. > :09:17.have the right to defend their home and their family and themselves. If
:09:17. > :09:20.by that one means attacking innocent people, or blowing up
:09:20. > :09:27.nightclubs or violence for political means, then I don't
:09:27. > :09:33.support that. After 9/11, everything changed for
:09:33. > :09:36.the man from Tooting in south London. MI5 installed a secret
:09:36. > :09:39.listening device in his home, and the Americans were slowly building
:09:39. > :09:46.their case. Investigators were alerted by a
:09:46. > :09:51.tip-off from a company, tucked away in a quiet corner of Connecticut.
:09:51. > :09:54.Days after 9/11, staff at this web hosting company contacted the
:09:54. > :10:01.American authorities. They were concerned about allegedly extremist
:10:01. > :10:06.material found on one of the websites hosted here. That website
:10:06. > :10:11.was Azzam.com. UK investigator -- US investigators say the records
:10:11. > :10:14.show the website was operated from Imperial College London, where
:10:14. > :10:17.Barbar Ahmad worked. This is a serious allegation made against me,
:10:17. > :10:20.I have never been questioned about this allegation or shown the
:10:20. > :10:25.evidence against me. The alleged crimes were on computers in London,
:10:25. > :10:30.but the website was based in America. It is this question over
:10:30. > :10:34.where he should be tried that is at the heart of Barbar Ahmad's battle.
:10:34. > :10:39.The Crown Prosecution Service decided in 2004 he couldn't face
:10:39. > :10:42.trial. But the CPS has told Newsnight, that it only saw a small
:10:42. > :10:48.number of documents seized by British police. Barbar Ahmad says
:10:48. > :10:51.the rest of the evidence was sent directly to the US.
:10:51. > :10:54.That allegation has led to questions in parliament, including
:10:54. > :10:57.questions about the role played by the Metropolitan Police.
:10:57. > :11:01.I would love to know exactly what happened to the evidence that they
:11:01. > :11:05.collected, how much of that was given to the CPS, how much of it
:11:05. > :11:08.went directly to the United States, why did it go directly to the
:11:09. > :11:12.United States, who asked for that to happen? I think there is a whole
:11:13. > :11:18.grey area here. It is very murky, we need to get to the bottom of it,
:11:18. > :11:28.which is why I called for a public inquiry.
:11:28. > :11:30.
:11:30. > :11:35.The Metropolitan Police say they Barbar Ahmad is appealing for an
:11:35. > :11:39.11th hour review of his files. His lawyers have compiled a dossier of
:11:39. > :11:42.evidence that could be used against him in Britain, they say other men
:11:42. > :11:46.have been prosecuted for similar crimes, including having material
:11:46. > :11:50.that began life on Azzam. If they charge you with fundraising for
:11:50. > :11:53.terrorism? I would happily stand trial for anything that the Crown
:11:53. > :11:56.Prosecution Service decided to charge me with. Because I wish to
:11:56. > :12:01.clear my name, I wish to get my life back.
:12:01. > :12:04.Although Barbar Ahmad alleges he has been the victim of an abusive
:12:05. > :12:09.process, the US says everything was above board, and cases like these
:12:09. > :12:13.are what the extradition treaty with the UK is designed for. Here
:12:13. > :12:18.we have an example of transnational terrorism, that, in our minds,
:12:18. > :12:23.continues to go to the top of the list, so to speak. The example of
:12:23. > :12:27.having him extradited to the United States to stand trial for what did,
:12:27. > :12:32.as a violation of US law, is the rightness of the issue, from our
:12:32. > :12:38.side. The US case goes wider than the
:12:38. > :12:43.website and terrorist fundraising. Prosecutors say Barbar Ahmad was
:12:43. > :12:45.sent classified material from a US sailor on board this battleship.
:12:45. > :12:50.Information about the ship's movements, that allegedly could
:12:50. > :12:56.have been used to mount a terrorist attack. Barbar Ahmad denies this.
:12:56. > :12:59.If he's extradited he will probably end up before a judge at this court
:12:59. > :13:04.in Connecticut, he wouldn't face the death penalty. He would have
:13:04. > :13:09.the opportunity to assert all the arguments that any other defendant
:13:09. > :13:14.would get to assert. He would be accorded all of the right, the many,
:13:14. > :13:20.many rights that are guaranteed to criminal defendants under the
:13:20. > :13:27.United States constitution, which is a very, very generous document,
:13:27. > :13:31.to criminal defendants. If convicted, he faces life in this
:13:31. > :13:34.maximum security prison in Colorado. His lawyers say conditions there
:13:34. > :13:39.are inhumane, this is the core issue that the European Court of
:13:39. > :13:43.Human Rights will rule on next week. If judges say he can't be
:13:43. > :13:49.extradited, the British authorities face a dilemma about what to do
:13:49. > :13:53.with him. I just try to take each day as it comes. Either way, for
:13:53. > :13:59.Barbar Ahmad the clock is ticking. I'm fighting for my life, and I'm
:13:59. > :14:03.running out of time. In a way, this interview is my last
:14:04. > :14:09.chance to try to convince the authorities here to end my
:14:09. > :14:12.nightmare by putting me on trial in this country.
:14:12. > :14:18.Barbar Ahmad is not the only extradition to the US that has been
:14:18. > :14:22.controversial in recent times. The called NatWest Three or Enron Three,
:14:22. > :14:25.the alleged computer hacking, Gary McKinnon, the Richard O'Dwyer, the
:14:25. > :14:29.student accused of copyright offences, and the businessman,
:14:29. > :14:35.Christopher Tapping, have all had public campaigns. To discuss
:14:35. > :14:39.extradition as the US embassy's legal attache, a former adviser to
:14:39. > :14:42.the former general attorney. I know you won't discuss any particular
:14:42. > :14:47.case, but there is disquiet in the US, and in a sense, the kind of
:14:47. > :14:51.crimes we are talking about, on- line, cyberterrorism, are very much
:14:51. > :14:56.20th century crimes, which is hard to decide where the site of the
:14:56. > :15:01.crime actually took place? You are right, I think there is public,
:15:01. > :15:04.there is some more difficulties in those kinds of cases in
:15:04. > :15:08.understanding where the crime took place. No-one has any difficulty
:15:08. > :15:12.when I talk about someone who is in London, picking up the phone to
:15:12. > :15:16.order a hit on someone they want to be murdered in Florida. And then if
:15:16. > :15:19.that hit takes place, that crime took place in Florida, even though
:15:19. > :15:24.the person who was on the telephone may have never left London. When it
:15:24. > :15:29.comes to things like computers, and on-line crimes, and even banking,
:15:29. > :15:32.banking is a global issue now, it is very hard to establish, and that
:15:32. > :15:37.is we're not talking about a specific case, but for a number of
:15:38. > :15:41.cases, it is hard to establish where the scene of the crime was?
:15:41. > :15:47.Computers make it thatch easier to commit crimes all over the world, -
:15:47. > :15:51.- that much easier to commit crimes all over the world, that is why it
:15:51. > :15:54.is increasingly important to detect them, because crime increasingly
:15:54. > :16:01.crosses boundaries, that is why the treaty is so important. One of the
:16:01. > :16:04.suggestions is there is an independent forum, to decide to
:16:04. > :16:07.judge where the scene of the crime took place. To decide between
:16:07. > :16:12.Britain and the United States where this crime should be prosecuted, if
:16:12. > :16:16.indeed it is a crime, an alleged crime. What do you say to the idea
:16:16. > :16:19.of an independent forum? Many people don't understand the system
:16:19. > :16:23.that presently exists for determining where a case should be
:16:23. > :16:28.tried. What happens is fairly early on in an investigation, prosecutors
:16:28. > :16:30.in the United States and in the United Kingdom, if there is
:16:30. > :16:35.jurisdiction in both place, will confer with someone another and
:16:35. > :16:39.discuss the case, and talk about the factors in the case, not only
:16:39. > :16:43.where the accused is located, but where the harm was insecured, where
:16:43. > :16:46.any loss was insecured, where any victims were located, and also
:16:46. > :16:50.where the witnesses are, where the investigation was conducted. There
:16:50. > :16:54.are quite a few factors that the prosecutors consider. The
:16:54. > :16:57.prosecutors are those who know best what the evidence is. Often the
:16:57. > :17:02.investigation itself may not even be public yet. But there is an
:17:02. > :17:07.imbalance, there is an unevenness between the United Kingdom and the
:17:07. > :17:10.US, for an extradition to take place from the US to the United
:17:10. > :17:13.Kingdom. Not only has the judge to decide if there is evidence there,
:17:13. > :17:16.the defendant is also enjoyed, it is not the case for the UK to the
:17:16. > :17:21.US, it is simply a judge deciding whether there is a quality of case,
:17:21. > :17:24.the defendant is not involved at all, so it is imbalanced? Many
:17:24. > :17:28.people think that is true, but the system you have just described is
:17:29. > :17:33.actually a myth, it does not work that way. People in the United
:17:33. > :17:38.Kingdom and in the United States have the ruent to challenge their
:17:38. > :17:42.extradition, in fact -- right to challenge their extradition. Many
:17:42. > :17:46.people in the UK have done that successfully. Many requests have
:17:46. > :17:50.been denied by the courts. People in the United States have a similar
:17:50. > :17:53.opportunity, yet nobody has successfully challenged their
:17:53. > :17:57.extradition from the US to the UK under the treaty. It is interesting
:17:57. > :18:03.but not correct. Isn't it absolutely right to say
:18:03. > :18:10.that in the US, for a UK extradition to the US, the judge
:18:10. > :18:14.doesn't have to decide if there is a prima as ifia case? That's
:18:14. > :18:20.correct. It is the same in the United States, if you are in the
:18:20. > :18:24.United States the United States don't have to present prima facia
:18:24. > :18:30.evidence, the standards are the same. Does it frustrate you that
:18:30. > :18:35.the idea of the treaty was to speed up the process, and actually, the
:18:35. > :18:39.process, in many cases, is elongateed beyond anything anyone
:18:40. > :18:47.could have imagined? It is frustrating, I don't think the long
:18:47. > :18:50.delays in these cases serve anybody's interests.
:18:50. > :18:54.One of the problems of extradition from the UK to the US, as some
:18:54. > :18:58.defendants see it, is the conditions in US prisons,
:18:58. > :19:02.particularly, but not only the supermax prisons, that actually,
:19:02. > :19:06.that conflicts with human rights, like that one we saw in Colorado?
:19:06. > :19:12.There are a lot of myths about prison conditions, our systems are
:19:12. > :19:15.very similar in so many ways. Our trial systems are as alike, I don't
:19:15. > :19:19.think there is another system in the world that is as much like the
:19:19. > :19:24.system in the UK as the system in the US. Our prison conditions are
:19:24. > :19:28.very similar as well. We have been talking in the United Kingdom about
:19:28. > :19:31.the question of secret courts, and the reluctance of the CIA to hand
:19:31. > :19:37.over evidence, which they then say would be used in open court, which
:19:37. > :19:44.would be counter to their modus op Peter Mandelson die, there is talk
:19:44. > :19:48.in -- modus operandi, there has been talk about secret courts here?
:19:48. > :19:50.We want a system to protect classified information here in the
:19:51. > :19:55.UK. The proposals under consideration are not for us to
:19:55. > :19:58.judge, because it is not our system. But it is important for our
:19:58. > :20:01.intelligence community that information be projected.
:20:01. > :20:05.Amy Jeffress thank you very much indeed.
:20:05. > :20:11.To debate Britain's extradition treaty with the US, is David
:20:11. > :20:14.Bermingham, one of the called NatWest Three, whose book The Price
:20:14. > :20:18.To Pay has been published, Mike O'Brien QC, solicitor general in
:20:18. > :20:22.the last Government, and Tory MP, Dominic Raab, who has campaigned
:20:22. > :20:26.for reform. Do you think, Dominic Raab, at the
:20:26. > :20:30.moment, it is dangerous now to talk about crimes committed without
:20:30. > :20:35.borders. Because, indeed, crimes committed without borders is very
:20:35. > :20:38.hard to decide where prosecution can take place? That is an abstract
:20:38. > :20:41.academic question. At the moment there are two fundamental problems,
:20:41. > :20:45.first of all, British citizens in this country, will not have the
:20:45. > :20:49.evidence against them locked at by a judge in the same way as it
:20:49. > :20:54.happens in the US. That is crystal clear. What about Barbar Ahmad, he
:20:54. > :20:59.has been eight years in a high- security prison, without charge in
:20:59. > :21:03.the UK, does that speak to justice? Absolutely not, it is reprehensible.
:21:03. > :21:07.The other issue, the idea of anyone held in pre-charge detention, for
:21:07. > :21:10.seven or eight years, is wrong in principle. If they are guilty they
:21:10. > :21:14.should be prosecuted, if they are not, they should be let free. The
:21:14. > :21:19.other problem is forum, where you have the cross-border cases, which
:21:19. > :21:23.is the bouyant you are making. The -- point you are making. This the
:21:23. > :21:28.US offers this foreign arrangement to other countries for protection
:21:28. > :21:34.for their citizens. When you have a cross-border case, that shouldn't
:21:34. > :21:38.be hagled by prosecutors behind closed doors, but under criteria
:21:38. > :21:41.set by the UK Government. Let's talk about Barbar Ahmad before we
:21:41. > :21:47.talk about the forum, is it justifiable to have a man in the UK,
:21:47. > :21:50.in jail, for eight years, without charge? No, that's much too long,
:21:50. > :21:55.and the system needs to operate much more effectively. I do think
:21:56. > :21:59.there needs to be some changes in it. Should there be a forum for
:21:59. > :22:03.deciding an, an independent forum for deciding where the alleged
:22:03. > :22:09.crime took place? I think that's a much more complicated issue, of
:22:09. > :22:14.course there is legislation in 2006, which tried to insert into the law
:22:14. > :22:17.an issue of forum, as they call it, where the case should be tried,
:22:17. > :22:22.with the idea that defendants should be able to be tried in the
:22:22. > :22:25.UK, if that's where the most significant part of the offence
:22:25. > :22:28.occurred. That is, of course, what some people want. However, the
:22:28. > :22:32.problem is, that is not where the witnesses may be, it is not where
:22:32. > :22:36.the victims may be, it is not where the investigation probably took
:22:36. > :22:40.place. Why did they not bring it into force. Therefore, it is the
:22:40. > :22:44.case that, I think forum needs to be looked at, I think there is an
:22:44. > :22:49.argument for a change on it, however it is not the change in the
:22:49. > :22:54.2006 act not brought into law. Actually a man or woman's chance of
:22:54. > :22:58.freedom or conviction, that should be the primary reason for having
:22:58. > :23:01.the trial, where it should be most he have Kayious? What we are
:23:02. > :23:07.looking at with extradition is an issue of arrest, what is the cry
:23:07. > :23:15.tear yum of which you should arrest someone, not the criteria of where
:23:15. > :23:20.you should convict someone. were part of the system. It should
:23:20. > :23:30.seem as if it works, you were tried, you were guilty and you did your
:23:30. > :23:35.time and you came back? extradition worked and we we were
:23:35. > :23:38.there. You pleaded guilty? We did what 80% of people did in the
:23:39. > :23:42.country, we took the plea bargain and we came home. Particularly with
:23:43. > :23:51.this case, it has striking parallels, not only with our case,
:23:51. > :23:54.but with a terrifying case of someone called Mr Riases, there is
:23:54. > :23:57.no ability for a judge to take a reasoned look at all the
:23:57. > :24:01.circumstances and say, hang on a minute, depifrpb all the
:24:01. > :24:04.circumstances of the case, this is -- differences of all the
:24:04. > :24:08.circumstances of the case, this ought more properly to be heard
:24:08. > :24:12.here. In terms of conditions, and we have heard Barbar Ahmad, the
:24:13. > :24:16.whole the point of going to the European Court of Human Rights,
:24:16. > :24:22.means the inhumane conditions would mean he wouldn't have his human
:24:22. > :24:25.rights, you were not in a super-max prison? I think the mere fact that
:24:25. > :24:35.the European Court of Human Rights has taken so long to look at these,
:24:35. > :24:35.
:24:35. > :24:38.suggests a real issue. There is no doubt, it is not a secret, in
:24:38. > :24:42.supermax in Colorado are in solitary confinement for up to 20
:24:43. > :24:47.years, they never see another human being. Some say the system works
:24:47. > :24:49.perfectly well, David Cameron and Barack Obama talked about it, an
:24:50. > :24:53.independent inquiry, is it worth upsetting the relationship with the
:24:53. > :24:59.United States when the point about terrorism is one that is very well
:24:59. > :25:02.made all over the world, and is a global issue? The extradition
:25:02. > :25:05.arrangements for terrorist offences and serious crime are vitally
:25:05. > :25:08.important, which is precisely why you don't want the relationship
:25:08. > :25:12.soured by lots of these relationships becoming a thorn in
:25:12. > :25:16.our side, because there is no fairness to us. I find Mike
:25:16. > :25:21.O'Brien's position untenable. They brought in a lousy deal, and in
:25:21. > :25:24.2006 they partly corrected it, by enacted in law this forum test, now
:25:24. > :25:28.he's opposing bringing it into force. I can't understand it.
:25:28. > :25:32.you think the Tory Government will change it? I hope so, the House of
:25:32. > :25:36.Commons has unanimously called for the US and EU regulations for
:25:36. > :25:40.extradition to be reformed. What would that mean, you heard the
:25:40. > :25:43.ambassador here saying this works well, there is no need to change
:25:43. > :25:47.it? With the greatest of respect, the principle position of the
:25:47. > :25:51.United States Government is that they are more than happy to support
:25:51. > :25:55.their request for extradition with evidence. They have 130 treaties
:25:55. > :25:59.worldwide, there is only three where they don't produce evidence.
:25:59. > :26:03.France who don't extradite to the US, Ireland who will not extradite
:26:03. > :26:07.if the crime is deemed to be committed in Ireland, and us, that
:26:07. > :26:12.is it. There is no issue with the US saying they won't give evidence,
:26:12. > :26:16.they happily will. We gave it up, the Labour Government in 2003.
:26:16. > :26:19.Dominic has misrepresented my position, my position is we need
:26:19. > :26:24.change. There is a political crisis in relation to this legislation,
:26:24. > :26:28.rather than a legal one. The problem is, not only that we have
:26:28. > :26:32.Barbar Ahmad on detention, also the McKinnon case, which has raised
:26:32. > :26:38.serious concerns, but also the Government has come in and said
:26:38. > :26:43.this legislation is imbalanced. you agree with that? I think that
:26:43. > :26:47.is arguable, what we have now got is Dominic Grieve, no mean lawyer,
:26:47. > :26:50.saying it is not imbalanced any more, we listened to Scott Baker's
:26:50. > :26:53.report and we think it is not imbalanced. I think there is a
:26:53. > :26:58.crisis of confidence in this legislation, that must be addressed
:26:58. > :27:02.by the Government. Whether that is by trying to renegotiate the treaty
:27:02. > :27:06.with the US, that will be difficult, and EU partners, there is much of
:27:06. > :27:09.the same legislation in place. That is a big problem they have got.
:27:09. > :27:13.crisis of confidence is not enough for the legislation to be changed
:27:13. > :27:17.in itself, surely it is about imbalance? I'm not convinced that
:27:17. > :27:22.the argument that Grieve puts that there is an equality there is right.
:27:22. > :27:29.I think the argument that Dominic puts is there is a big difference.
:27:29. > :27:34.Will the treaty be be here in three times? We extradite five citizens
:27:34. > :27:41.to one of those that comes in, we need balance and a fair system.
:27:41. > :27:44.You idiot, you niave, irresponsible nincompoop, that is how Tony Blair
:27:44. > :27:48.describes his own actions in bringing in the Freedom of
:27:48. > :27:52.Information Act in 2007, which David Cameron says is furring up
:27:52. > :27:55.the arteries of Government. It is thought to have cost the Government
:27:55. > :28:00.almost �8 million, some say it is money well spent, others say it is
:28:00. > :28:03.a waste of precious Government time and tax-payers' money. Newsnight
:28:03. > :28:07.has heard there are moves afoot to reform.
:28:07. > :28:11.Looking back at bringing in the Freedom of Information Act, Tony
:28:11. > :28:18.Blair said it was a pretty imbecileic position. For political
:28:18. > :28:24.leaders he said it is like saying to hitting you over -- someone
:28:24. > :28:28.hitting you over the head with a stick to give them mallet. The
:28:28. > :28:32.Prime Minister's text messages letters and e-mails are going in.
:28:32. > :28:36.The rigours of the Freedom of Information Act, that called mallet,
:28:36. > :28:42.means that politicians feel the space where they can talk openly
:28:42. > :28:47.has been shrunk massively, the back of a London taxi may be the last
:28:47. > :28:51.few places they can talk to each other privately. A senior official
:28:51. > :28:55.is on the verge of putting out guidance saying no personal e-mails
:28:55. > :28:58.can be used for Government business. They want to put ministers in the
:28:58. > :29:03.position of being able to say all Government business is on the
:29:03. > :29:09.record. The aim of the civil servant,
:29:09. > :29:14.Whitehall head, is to draw a line under the issue, to protect the
:29:14. > :29:19.primal text messages. If everyone signs up to the new regime,
:29:19. > :29:29.personal correspondence of the past might be unknown.
:29:29. > :29:40.
:29:40. > :29:42.In an unnoticed case, the Information Commissioner has
:29:42. > :29:45.recently ruled that if you were once in Government, and when you
:29:45. > :29:48.are in Government you used your personal e-mail account for
:29:48. > :29:51.Government business, even after you have left the job, it could still
:29:51. > :29:55.be searchable. For the people in this office, Labour headquarters,
:29:55. > :29:57.that could be quite a lot of searches, they were in power for 13
:29:57. > :30:00.years. But all of this is house keeping,
:30:00. > :30:04.compared to some of the really big freedom of information requests.
:30:04. > :30:07.Today the Government is facing new calls to release the risk register
:30:07. > :30:11.on the health bill. You are used to seeing the front of Downing Street,
:30:11. > :30:13.this is the back of Downing Street, the inner workings of the office,
:30:13. > :30:16.it is freedom of information requests that allow us to get
:30:16. > :30:21.closer in and see how they make their decisions. If you actually
:30:21. > :30:25.work inside the building, it doesn't have quite such a benign
:30:25. > :30:30.effect, at a recent meeting of senior civil servants, they
:30:30. > :30:33.discussed the FOI act, and the "effects" it was having across
:30:33. > :30:37.Government, according toe one official, it is simply paralysing.
:30:37. > :30:43.Someone who has been in Government and managed freedom of information
:30:43. > :30:48.requests, says it wasn't difficult. FOI requests, people could be loose
:30:48. > :30:51.about talking about things, it didn't mean they were better at it,
:30:51. > :30:55.FOI could make people more professional in the way they put
:30:55. > :30:59.things, it couldn't stop people having discussions, but they had to
:30:59. > :31:03.think about it being on the front of a newspaper. If you are positive
:31:03. > :31:07.enough about your policy decisions, you should have no problem
:31:07. > :31:12.defending the policy in public if it is released to. You have to look
:31:12. > :31:15.at people's loosely-worded e-mails that are personal about people,
:31:15. > :31:19.that is unprofessional, what is the problem. The Prime Minister has a
:31:19. > :31:23.different view? In my two years of experience with the Freedom of
:31:23. > :31:27.Information Act and all the rest of it. It seems to me the real freedom
:31:27. > :31:33.of information is the money that goes in and the result that is come
:31:33. > :31:38.out. Making Government more transparent is a positive thing. We
:31:38. > :31:41.spend an age of dealing with FOI requests that are all about
:31:41. > :31:44.processes. What the public, country and parliament needs to know, is
:31:44. > :31:47.what are you spending, how much are you spending and what are the
:31:47. > :31:51.results. The solution being discussed, no doubt on official
:31:51. > :31:55.Government phones and computers, is to make freedom of information
:31:55. > :32:02.applicable to more organisations in the name of transparency, but to
:32:02. > :32:06.put down on the frifous requests, the Government is gearing up to --
:32:06. > :32:09.friflous questions, the Government is gearing up for a change of tack.
:32:09. > :32:13.If there is a slight tweaking of the Freedom of Information Act, to
:32:13. > :32:16.deal with a few of the slight oddities coming out, that will be
:32:17. > :32:21.fine. If there is any sense of what we are seeing is a reduction in the
:32:21. > :32:23.access of information about what is going on in Government, I and the
:32:23. > :32:27.Liberal Democrats would be concerned about that and do our
:32:27. > :32:30.best to stop it. This will be a fight to define
:32:30. > :32:34.transparency s the Government believe it is about a barrage of
:32:34. > :32:38.data relosed from these departments, others believe it is about the
:32:38. > :32:46.public's right -- released from these departments, other believe it
:32:46. > :32:51.is the public's right to see what is going on The journalist Heather
:32:51. > :33:00.Brooke is a freedom of information specialist, and Steve Bomford of
:33:00. > :33:04.the first division association, -- and the first division association
:33:04. > :33:08.head. David Cameron said at first it was a disinfectant, what changed
:33:09. > :33:14.his mind? He will have to explain his change of mind. It is about the
:33:14. > :33:19.change of balance, there has to be a degree of transparency, we are in
:33:19. > :33:23.a an age where a great deal of information is available. Ministers
:33:23. > :33:27.have encouraged that. But there has to be a private space in which
:33:27. > :33:31.ministers and civil servants can discuss key policy issues. There no
:33:31. > :33:35.benefit to the public, indeed it will lead to worse quality
:33:35. > :33:39.Government f you try to make too much of that public as debate and
:33:39. > :33:42.dialogue takes place. Heather Brooke, you do agree, surely, that
:33:42. > :33:45.civil servants and ministers should be able to have private
:33:45. > :33:51.conversation about blue sky thinking, about some extraordinary
:33:51. > :33:54.things, that you don't need to know everything do you? Let's go back to
:33:54. > :33:59.why he has changed his mind, that is because he has been in power
:33:59. > :34:02.nearly two years. What always happens with transparency laws is
:34:02. > :34:06.politicians like them when they are in opposition, as soon as they are
:34:06. > :34:10.in power. That is true isn't it. They suddenly lose all appetite for
:34:10. > :34:13.them. That is true isn't it? There is truth, that is because Tony
:34:14. > :34:18.Blair and David Cameron had not held office before, once you hold
:34:18. > :34:22.office you realise how complex the issue is. You then realise what a
:34:22. > :34:27.pain it is to have the public asking you questions. I think
:34:27. > :34:31.that's what is lost is this idea that the citizen has a right to ask,
:34:31. > :34:35.and why should they have to justify being able to access information
:34:35. > :34:39.which was actually collected in their name by public servants, such
:34:39. > :34:43.as yourself, who are paid for by the public. The public, by and
:34:43. > :34:47.large, are smart enough to realise that there must be a conversation
:34:47. > :34:52.between civil servants and ministers, that might not lead
:34:52. > :34:57.anywhere, that might be misconstrued, and is aren't in some
:34:57. > :35:02.way sinister? I understand that, people have a real misunderstanding
:35:02. > :35:05.if they think it is a simple process to get information under
:35:05. > :35:08.the Freedom of Information Act. In my case I thought I was looking for
:35:08. > :35:12.basic information, how MPs spend money in the course of their public
:35:12. > :35:16.duties, that took five years and a trip to the High Court. That is not
:35:16. > :35:19.acceptable. You are by nature secretive? I think Heather ran an
:35:19. > :35:24.excellent campaign with MPs, and did the country a great service in
:35:24. > :35:28.bringing issues like that into the public domain, it has improved the
:35:28. > :35:32.quality, I think, of politics. We are seeing that in the Civil
:35:32. > :35:37.Service, a lot more information available, including about salaries
:35:37. > :35:39.for people at senior levels, which people have signed up to. I am
:35:40. > :35:44.concerned around the issue of policy determination. I do take the
:35:44. > :35:47.Prime Minister's point in that clip you ran, that a lot of the requests
:35:47. > :35:50.are trivial and about process. That doesn't add anything. I think it is
:35:50. > :35:56.this question of getting a balance. I think what's happening at the
:35:56. > :36:00.moment is the Government is sitting back and reflecting on what will
:36:00. > :36:04.allow considerable transparency and a lot more data that people can use
:36:05. > :36:07.as they wish, but still protecting the quality of debate within
:36:07. > :36:11.Government. We will end up with a technocratic Government, rather
:36:11. > :36:15.than a Government that makes radical policy? We are in danger of
:36:15. > :36:22.not reading the law. The law has an exemption for policy making.
:36:22. > :36:24.Ministers do have a veto over this sex section of the -- section of
:36:24. > :36:28.the Freedom of Information Act. They are protected in that sphere.
:36:28. > :36:34.It is a straw man argument to say we need to reduce our access.
:36:34. > :36:38.do you feel about, this is going to be a kind of minefield in itself,
:36:38. > :36:43.that there will be possible charging for different kinds of
:36:43. > :36:47.FOIs? I want to go back, when the act was first in place, in 2005,
:36:47. > :36:51.charl low Faulkner, if you remember, was the minutes -- Charley Faulkner,
:36:51. > :36:55.if you remember was the minister of justice, this is like history
:36:55. > :37:02.repeating, we had exactly the same conversation. The same arguments
:37:02. > :37:06.were put forward about frifl rouse requests. There are a lot? I made a
:37:06. > :37:16.freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice, I want to
:37:16. > :37:17.
:37:17. > :37:20.know how many of those requests are frivilrous, there were two. Civil
:37:20. > :37:22.Service resources are very stretched and every part of
:37:22. > :37:26.Government will have to be scrutinised in terms of value for
:37:26. > :37:28.money. It is for the Government to make the case about a particular
:37:29. > :37:33.fee structure, what I am concerned about, and we saw that today for
:37:33. > :37:37.example with the arguments about the NHS risk register, which I know
:37:37. > :37:41.we haven't touched on and which is technical and complicated. What
:37:41. > :37:48.that decision has done is threaten the quality of advice that comes in
:37:48. > :37:51.future. There is not only the danger of moving towards
:37:51. > :37:54.technocratic Government, because Governments are there to make
:37:54. > :37:58.ideolgical decisions and other decisions, that is appropriate, but
:37:58. > :38:02.about civil servants becoming politic sized, if they believe too
:38:02. > :38:05.much of what they say flows into the public domain.
:38:05. > :38:08.In America candidates for President regularly publish their tax returns
:38:08. > :38:12.and other financial statements. Will that soon become normal here.
:38:12. > :38:17.Last night on our debate for London mayor, all four candidates in the
:38:17. > :38:21.studio made a pledge to publish their tax returns.
:38:21. > :38:25.I'm just wondering why we don't end this by everybody just publishing
:38:25. > :38:29.what they earn, and what they have paid in tax, why not bring it out
:38:29. > :38:36.into the open. Then there is no more arguments, we can talk about
:38:36. > :38:42.some of the issues we all have in our manifestos. You will all do
:38:42. > :38:50.that? I will publish my accounts for the last four years and let the
:38:50. > :38:56.public see who is paying tax and who is not. I will put out my
:38:56. > :38:59.accounts, and I would love to see the former mayor's. You will
:38:59. > :39:05.publish your's? I will publish details of everything I have
:39:05. > :39:08.concerned in the last four years. Are you going to do the same?
:39:08. > :39:10.course I will. Allegra Stratton has been casting
:39:10. > :39:15.her eye over what happened the morning after the night before.
:39:15. > :39:19.What went on? This morning Boris has published what he earns, which
:39:19. > :39:24.is over �400,000, which is a lot of money. He has also published what
:39:24. > :39:30.he pays in tax, which is over �200,000, which is also a huge
:39:30. > :39:34.amount of money. He did campaign to reduce the 50p tax rate? We now
:39:34. > :39:39.know fully why. Brian Paddick has published his salary, and what we
:39:39. > :39:43.have learned from that is a large part of it is a generous police
:39:43. > :39:49.pension. What then happened was Ken Livingstone was also forth coming
:39:49. > :39:53.with some details. What he did was more technical, he published the
:39:53. > :39:57.dividends he gets from a company, his own company, what he didn't
:39:57. > :40:01.fully make clear is exactly what else is in that company. The man
:40:01. > :40:08.who campaigned on absolute clarity about tax issues will be dogged by
:40:08. > :40:12.more questions in the next few weeks. Here to work out the
:40:12. > :40:16.difficulty maths our tax experts. What do you make of this? I think
:40:16. > :40:20.two things, one that people like Ken Livingstone, who at their peak,
:40:20. > :40:25.were very astute politicians, should not have let this single
:40:25. > :40:35.story run for weeks and weeks, and add fuel to it himself at times,
:40:35. > :40:35.
:40:35. > :40:39.like in your debate last night. How brilliant to remember all those
:40:39. > :40:43.figures, but the issues should be, the tax thing is relevant, but it
:40:43. > :40:46.shouldn't be quite so central one you are discussing things. He was
:40:46. > :40:51.selected in September 2010 by Labour, you would think they would
:40:51. > :40:55.have got their ducks in a row in the last two years? The trouble for
:40:55. > :40:59.Ken Livingstone is he's guilty of such hypocrisy, having made such an
:40:59. > :41:02.issue of it, having said all this stuff that he thought nobody should
:41:02. > :41:07.be allowed to vote if they are evading tax, he made it an issue,
:41:07. > :41:10.having done so, just as in many ways in the 1980s he has changed
:41:10. > :41:14.British politics again. This will now become part and parcel of
:41:14. > :41:18.British politics. People will have to and be forced to reveal issues
:41:18. > :41:22.like this, we will see more and more mud thrown. I completely agree
:41:22. > :41:27.with Ian, it is a central issue and deeply damaging one for Ken
:41:27. > :41:32.Livingstone. Whether, as a result, we should be determining the
:41:32. > :41:38.outcome of elections on what people earn, it will get ridiculous.
:41:38. > :41:44.at Boris Johnson, we know now he earns a huge amount of money, on
:41:44. > :41:50.which he pays tax, that might play a different way for him? It might
:41:50. > :41:56.be one more reason we have a chasam in the vast sums some people are
:41:56. > :42:00.earning. We live in a transparent age and we need to get used to it.
:42:00. > :42:03.There is nothing wrong with him earning vastly different sums of
:42:04. > :42:06.money with people in London, and there is nothing wrong with Ken
:42:06. > :42:13.Livingstone having a company through which he pays himself?
:42:13. > :42:17.has to explain why he does that. And he has done many times, perhaps
:42:17. > :42:24.not convincingly. People lol know Boris Johnson earns this money as a
:42:24. > :42:26.columnist, I note it with jealousy, as others note it. It is not the
:42:26. > :42:34.decisive issue. There is an interesting issue about transport
:42:34. > :42:36.and fares, and how the heck repay to renovate what is a rundown
:42:36. > :42:39.transport system. For selfish reasons, surely, we should make a
:42:40. > :42:46.judgment on who can deliver all of that, it is a tough call this time
:42:46. > :42:51.round. Isn't that, in the end, more important, that -- than what they
:42:51. > :42:55.earn. After the budget, George Osborne was asked what his taxman
:42:55. > :42:58.will be, it comes along with your CV as a candidate for community
:42:58. > :43:03.council, local elections, parliamentary elections, Europe,
:43:03. > :43:09.that will be one of the bottom lines? Steve is doing a noble job
:43:09. > :43:13.pretending this is an election where policy matters, the reality
:43:13. > :43:16.is it is about personality. Boris and Ken are cartoon characters and
:43:16. > :43:20.character is a big part of the question people are voting on. The
:43:20. > :43:26.reality is this is an important part, if people make an issue of
:43:26. > :43:29.tax, it is inevitable it becomes part of the test of character.
:43:29. > :43:34.Presumably true in times of austerity, these things have
:43:34. > :43:37.greater significance than in the boom years? Tax evasion and high
:43:37. > :43:41.earning and tax has become big issues. They are big issues today,
:43:41. > :43:45.and that is why we have seen other people caught recently. It would
:43:45. > :43:49.have been the same fascination bust or boom, they are fascinated by
:43:49. > :43:54.what people earn. In a political contest it becomes more highly
:43:54. > :43:57.charged. I'm not as ernest about people, I'm fascinated by what
:43:57. > :44:00.people earn. Interestingly if this debate had happened the first time
:44:00. > :44:06.round, we wouldn't have got the Congestion Charge, which has
:44:06. > :44:10.changed all our lives, those in London and outside. What in the end
:44:11. > :44:14.what decides elections is not the money. Do we ask Ed Milliband and
:44:14. > :44:17.David Cameron. If we move to a situation like the
:44:17. > :44:21.American presidential candidates, who have to be transparent about
:44:21. > :44:25.what they earn and what assets they have as well. Maybe we should go to
:44:25. > :44:29.the Norwegian system, whereby every single person has to put their tax
:44:29. > :44:33.returns in public, maybe we will end up there. We are going to a
:44:34. > :44:38.situation whereby politicians are, like it or not, rightly or wrong
:44:38. > :44:41.low, there will be questions asked on these sorts of issues. Likely
:44:41. > :44:45.there will be more mud thrown and putting a lot more people off
:44:45. > :44:49.plilgts. If in the end people make a decision on what people earn, and
:44:49. > :44:52.the individual flaws of candidates, rather than the policies that
:44:52. > :44:59.affect their lives, they will be the ones that suffer. You can't
:44:59. > :45:03.appreciate a great artist because he was a Nazi, you can still
:45:03. > :45:08.appreciate the art. We are not accusing any candidates of being
:45:08. > :45:16.Nazis, or great artists, if only they were. In the end you have to
:45:16. > :45:26.look at the art in this case, which is the policies here.
:45:26. > :45:59.
:46:00. > :46:05.He was the man behind the ants who were in turn behind the greatest
:46:05. > :46:11.names in rock. Born in Southall in London, and called the father of
:46:11. > :46:17.loud, Jim marshall died today at the age of 88. We will leave you
:46:17. > :46:27.with ringing in your years curtesy of Jimi Hendrix and Mr Marshall.
:46:27. > :46:52.
:46:53. > :46:57.Hello there, we have a frost tonight across the southern half of
:46:57. > :46:59.the UK, it could be down to minus four in some rural areas. The frost
:46:59. > :47:03.lifting in the morning. Cloud continuing to stream down from the
:47:03. > :47:06.north. A scattering of showers for England and Wales, but patchy rain
:47:06. > :47:09.for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Not much rain through the Midlands,
:47:09. > :47:13.not much sunshine either, or the cloud through the afternoon. As you
:47:13. > :47:17.move into southern counties of England, so we see more sunshine.
:47:17. > :47:20.Less windy than it was today. Temperatures higher, 12, 13, a big
:47:20. > :47:24.improvement on today. It should feel a little bit warmer as well.
:47:24. > :47:28.As you move further north back into Wales, we move into more cloud
:47:28. > :47:31.again, some brighter skies across the south of the country, more
:47:32. > :47:35.likely to catch showery bursts of rain in the north of Wales. For
:47:35. > :47:39.Northern Ireland not much sunshine here. Clouds getting into double
:47:39. > :47:45.figures, a little bit of light rain or drizzle. Most of the rain in
:47:45. > :47:48.Scotland will be across the northern half of the mainland, cold
:47:48. > :47:52.in the Northern Isles, double figures through the central
:47:52. > :47:56.lowlands. As you look through Saturday, there is cloudy skies in
:47:56. > :48:00.most areas, not a great deal of rain. Similar story across the
:48:00. > :48:04.south, always brighter on Friday across southern parts of England
:48:04. > :48:08.and Wales, again cloudy skies, generally dry on Saturday. It