:00:12. > :00:15.Tonight, is the care being offered to children and young people
:00:15. > :00:19.adequate, why are social service departments apparently dumping
:00:19. > :00:23.children in towns and cities miles from where they live, which even
:00:24. > :00:30.the local police don't know are being used as childrens' homes.
:00:30. > :00:33.you have a situation where a sexual predator is sitting in car outside
:00:33. > :00:38.a children's home, targeting the children inside this home, a home
:00:38. > :00:42.that the police do not even know exists. The three key people
:00:42. > :00:45.involved are here with us. The undercover policeman who was
:00:46. > :00:50.supposed to be there to keep us safe, but is now accused by an MP
:00:50. > :00:58.of carrying out a firebombing. The MP is with us, as is a former Home
:00:58. > :01:02.Office Minister. The US told Russia again today to stop arming Syria
:01:02. > :01:05.with weapons, including helicopter. We talk to the former presidential
:01:05. > :01:11.contender, Callum Kane, who says it is time to take action.
:01:11. > :01:15.Martin Amis, on the state of England, and whether he's become a
:01:15. > :01:25.grumpy old man. When you hit 60, you think, this can't possibly end
:01:25. > :01:30.well t will end in tears. It was one of the most troubling
:01:30. > :01:34.police investigations of recent years. A group of predatory men
:01:34. > :01:39.abusing some of our most troubled and vulnerable children. The
:01:39. > :01:42.criminals in Rochdale are said to have sought out troubled girls for
:01:42. > :01:46.sexual exploitation. When children are taken into care, the care
:01:46. > :01:51.provided on behalf of all of us, they are supposed to be being put
:01:51. > :01:55.into place of safety. We know where they are, don't we? It turns out we
:01:55. > :02:00.don't necessarily. Newsnight has learned that according to estimates
:02:00. > :02:10.based on police figures, there could be 4,000 incident as year of
:02:10. > :02:15.
:02:15. > :02:18.children going missing from care in England.
:02:18. > :02:23.It's a lovely place for day out, if the sun shines. But when the beach
:02:23. > :02:26.and the amusement arcades empty in Margate, there are plenty of
:02:26. > :02:30.outsiders left behind with no ticket home. Providing for children
:02:30. > :02:35.in care from other parts of the country is an industry on the Kent
:02:35. > :02:40.coast. They are looked after here in unusually large numbers, though
:02:40. > :02:46.not always very well. Craig, not his real name, was sent
:02:46. > :02:52.here from London five years ago, when he was 1. Now he's got his --
:02:52. > :02:56.11. Now he's got his first job, at one time he was getting into a lot
:02:56. > :02:59.of trouble. At first when they saw I was doing it they didn't cautious
:02:59. > :03:03.that is when I got into trouble with the police for crime. I was
:03:03. > :03:10.able to do that a couple of years ago when I was able to go out on
:03:10. > :03:14.your own, they don't care about you, they sort of give up on you.
:03:14. > :03:19.But the risk is not looked after children getting into crime, it is
:03:19. > :03:23.those children becoming the victims of older criminals. Last month a
:03:23. > :03:28.gang of men was jailed in Rochdale for the sexual abuse of teenage
:03:28. > :03:32.girls, one of whom had been in a residential care home. What is to
:03:33. > :03:36.stop similar crimes being committed again in places like this? As in
:03:36. > :03:40.many seaside resorts, there is an unusual transient population here.
:03:40. > :03:43.It is exactly the kind of place you might think, well you shouldn't be
:03:43. > :03:46.sending vulnerable children, who need security more than anything
:03:46. > :03:51.else. But in a system which depends
:03:51. > :03:54.largely on private provision, it is not always the best interests of
:03:54. > :03:59.the children that come first. They are sent where there are places
:03:59. > :04:05.available. Councils are legally obliged to
:04:05. > :04:08.place looked after children in their own area unless it isn't
:04:08. > :04:12.reasonably practicable. Of the roughly 65,000 children in care in
:04:12. > :04:18.England last year, about a third were placed outside their own
:04:18. > :04:24.council area. Sometimes a long way away. Of the nearly 6,000 in care
:04:24. > :04:29.homes, almost half are outside their own area.
:04:29. > :04:33.Once grand resorts like Thanet, with its large, cheap house, are
:04:33. > :04:37.among the places where fostering and privately-run children's homes,
:04:37. > :04:42.are now an important source of income. The local MP says areas
:04:42. > :04:45.like her's are the solution for the many councils, particularly in
:04:45. > :04:48.London, who can't find enough places locally for the children
:04:48. > :04:54.they care for. They aren't much of a solution for the children
:04:54. > :04:57.themselves. I find it staggering that those
:04:57. > :05:01.authorities then placed them in areas that they haven't done a
:05:01. > :05:06.proper assessment of the safety for those children. They have been
:05:06. > :05:10.taken out of traumatic environments, difficult families, and then, they
:05:10. > :05:16.are placed miles and miles away from anything, any point of
:05:16. > :05:19.reference, in an area that doesn't necessarily have the profile that
:05:19. > :05:24.you would expect that a local authority should find for a child
:05:24. > :05:28.who is already traumatised. Kent police recently identified a high
:05:28. > :05:33.concentration of privately owned children's homes, in one small I
:05:33. > :05:37.can't remember of Thanet, which also has a high concentration of
:05:37. > :05:42.drug dealers, prostitute, probation hostels, and ropblgsterd
:05:42. > :05:48.paedophiles, all in close prox -- registered paedophile, all in close
:05:48. > :05:53.prox simty. Two years ago schools in Margate refused to take any more
:05:53. > :05:57.looked after children from outside Kent, in protest of what they call
:05:57. > :06:01.an immoral policy. We wonder why London Boroughs would want to send
:06:01. > :06:04.their most vulnerable children to this part of the country. We find
:06:04. > :06:07.it utterly extraordinary they would want to send their most vulnerable
:06:07. > :06:10.children to an area with such significant social problems. We
:06:10. > :06:15.think it is irresponsible of them. We also think it is cynical.
:06:15. > :06:20.know there has been a high number of arrests in this I can't remember
:06:20. > :06:26.for drugs, for soliciting sex. We know that is going on in this area
:06:26. > :06:31.in Cliftonville, and yet we have still got children's homes set up
:06:31. > :06:34.there, and children network with each other. Rochdale is waiting to
:06:34. > :06:36.happen in Thanet, it could be happening already for all we know.
:06:36. > :06:40.Head teachers Kent say they are often told nothing about the
:06:40. > :06:43.complex needs of children from other areas. Social workers rarely
:06:43. > :06:47.attend meetings, because it is too far to come.
:06:47. > :06:51.Councils who move a child to another area are obliged by law to
:06:51. > :06:55.give the host authority details of the child's care package. And of
:06:55. > :07:03.any risks involved. But often, information's not passed
:07:03. > :07:10.on. The child becomes invisible. Invisible sometimes until he or she
:07:10. > :07:17.runs away, and the police are brought in. Philip Shakesheff, a
:07:17. > :07:20.from West Mercia police, has helped collate a computer programme to put
:07:20. > :07:24.together details of missing children. Details should be given
:07:24. > :07:28.in advance. First time we find out is when they become a victim of
:07:28. > :07:31.crime or, more commonly, go missing. We have to play catch up, it is a
:07:31. > :07:36.complete shock to us that we have a child living on us who is high-risk,
:07:36. > :07:40.from another area. Holly, not her real name, is 16.
:07:40. > :07:44.She's run away many times in the two years she has been in care in
:07:44. > :07:50.the West Midlands. Once, while missing, she found herself in place
:07:50. > :07:53.where she feared other girls were being used for sex. But her care
:07:53. > :07:59.workers, she says, don't really care at all. All they have to do
:07:59. > :08:04.when you go mis, they just have to ring the police and say you are
:08:04. > :08:08.gone, that is how you get dealt with, it is the police who deal
:08:08. > :08:13.with it. They aren't trying to find you? No, they don't search for you.
:08:13. > :08:17.They will try to ring you a few times. But they don't come looking
:08:17. > :08:22.for you. If you say you needed to be picked up from somewhere, they
:08:22. > :08:25.don't come and pick you up. Even if you ask them to pick you up? They
:08:25. > :08:30.don't pick you up. You have to get back on your own. There was many
:08:30. > :08:33.times when I used to go missing, I would say I'm stuck, I have no bus
:08:33. > :08:38.fare, I can't get home. They were like you have to ring the police
:08:38. > :08:45.and get the police to drop you back. But they are supposed to be caring
:08:45. > :08:50.for you? Yeah. They are meant to, but... In my 31 years service I
:08:50. > :08:54.have never had a phone call from a carer saying this child's been
:08:54. > :08:59.missing for three days, this is what I have done to try to find the
:08:59. > :09:03.child. What have you done? How can we work together? Many care homes,
:09:03. > :09:09.up and down the country, are making significant amounts of money, up to
:09:09. > :09:16.�200,000 a year to look after one child, and I think there are clear
:09:16. > :09:21.issues in terms of resources, and I feel there is significant evidence
:09:21. > :09:26.there that would suggest that the police are filling in the vacuum in
:09:26. > :09:33.these resources. Dealing with a missing person report costs police
:09:33. > :09:37.on average �2,000 a time. And police believe figures collated by
:09:37. > :09:43.councils massively underestimate the scale of the problem.
:09:43. > :09:47.England, there were two thirds, approximately two thirds of the 152
:09:47. > :09:51.local authorities that said nil, there were no children in their
:09:51. > :09:59.care who went missing for longer than 24 hours in their area. I
:09:59. > :10:02.thought that is not a reflection on our experience in West Mercia. In
:10:02. > :10:07.West Mercia we are dealing with about eight children who go missing
:10:07. > :10:13.a day. The Government says 930 children in
:10:13. > :10:18.care in England went missing in 2010 to 2011, it records only those
:10:18. > :10:21.absent for more than 24 hours. But an estimate by the UK Missing
:10:21. > :10:26.Persons Bureau, based on records from several police forces suggests
:10:26. > :10:31.the total number of cared for children, who went missing, is
:10:31. > :10:35.about 10,000. The number of incidents is estimated at 42,000, a
:10:35. > :10:39.figure that's been little noticed until now.
:10:39. > :10:42.But police can't tackle the problem of disappearances properly, because
:10:42. > :10:46.they don't always know where the children's homes are. It is
:10:46. > :10:50.important, of course, for the children's protection that the
:10:50. > :10:55.homes aren't marked. But it is absurd, many think, that the
:10:55. > :10:58.inspection agency, Ofsted, won't even tell the police.
:10:58. > :11:03.That's one of the points made by a group of MPs in a hard-hitting
:11:03. > :11:06.report on the care system, to be published next week.
:11:06. > :11:10.Under the current system you can have a situation where a sexual
:11:10. > :11:15.predator is sitting in a car outside a children's home,
:11:15. > :11:20.targeting the children inside this home, a home that the police do not
:11:20. > :11:24.even know exists. Sometimes you wonder who the care system is for,
:11:24. > :11:30.whether it's for the children in the system, or for the
:11:30. > :11:35.organisations that run the system. A system where, despite the huge
:11:35. > :11:38.sums spent on care, children often feel they are on their own.
:11:38. > :11:42.From the last year or two they have looked after me all right, but
:11:42. > :11:44.before that I didn't think it was much of caring, it weren't caring,
:11:45. > :11:48.they weren't them sort of people, they were there for the money. If
:11:48. > :11:51.you had a little flip out, they would have a go at you, they would
:11:51. > :11:54.always bring their problems into work, they wouldn't let you have
:11:54. > :11:57.your outburst, but it was all right for them to have their problems n
:11:57. > :12:02.and discuss it with the staff, and then be stressed off with you
:12:02. > :12:05.because of their family problems. In a system dependant largely on
:12:05. > :12:10.private provision, where it is easy to set up a children's home, the
:12:10. > :12:15.role of the inspection agency, Ofsted, is crucial.
:12:15. > :12:21.But something, the regulator itself -- some think, the regulator itself,
:12:21. > :12:26.is failing. At no stage throughout have Ofsted approached us to ask us
:12:26. > :12:29.about concerns for any home in West Mercia, pro-actively have they
:12:30. > :12:34.approached the police and asked is there any concerns about any of the
:12:34. > :12:39.homes. At no stage have they asked us to share with them data about
:12:39. > :12:49.any of our homes and numbers of missing persons' op soweds that
:12:49. > :12:53.they are reporting. I think it is - - I think it is amazing that a
:12:53. > :12:58.number of missing persons have been recorded from a home, and Ofsted
:12:58. > :13:02.can award a "good" inspection. That leads me to believe they are
:13:02. > :13:07.checking box, not waiting -- weighting what care the home
:13:07. > :13:10.provides in the case of what is important for the child.
:13:10. > :13:13.Government accepts it needs better figures on missing children. It is
:13:13. > :13:21.pressing for fewer out of area placements, and higher standards in
:13:21. > :13:24.homes. But there can be no quick fix for a system that some
:13:25. > :13:28.professionals think is broken. For children like holly it is too late,
:13:28. > :13:32.she will be living semi- independently in her own flat,
:13:32. > :13:37.leaving behind a home she believes never even tried to be a home for
:13:37. > :13:41.her. I had issues, that is why I went missing. But to go back home
:13:41. > :13:44.and have people, like, being off with you, like you don't belong
:13:44. > :13:48.there, there is no point in you being there, that is what makes it
:13:48. > :13:52.worse. We can now talk to the care home
:13:52. > :13:57.provider, the care home inspector, and the local authority boss.
:13:57. > :14:00.Jonathan Stanley is from the Independent Children's Homes
:14:00. > :14:06.Association, representing the providers of 60% of care home
:14:06. > :14:11.places in England. We have the director of social care
:14:11. > :14:15.for Ofsted. And Andrew Webb, director of Children's Service at
:14:16. > :14:19.Stockport Council, and Vice President of the umbrella work, the
:14:19. > :14:24.Association of Children's Service. In the ideal world, if you had a
:14:24. > :14:28.child in your care, how far away from their previous home would you
:14:28. > :14:31.keep them? Some children need to be placed a fair way away, for their
:14:31. > :14:34.own protection. Some need to be protected from their familiarly if
:14:35. > :14:41.they have been removed because they have been abused. The majority, we
:14:41. > :14:44.know, do best if they are kept as close as possible near their roots,
:14:44. > :14:47.schools they have attended for years. The first thing I would want
:14:47. > :14:51.to say about the film we have seen t reflects only a very small part
:14:51. > :14:54.of the care system. The majority of children in care do very well, the
:14:54. > :14:58.stability in their placements is improving all the time. It has
:14:58. > :15:04.always been difficult to place teenagers. You don't dispute the
:15:04. > :15:10.figure that half of children in care are not being in care near
:15:10. > :15:13.their original home? I think it was a third in the film. No, and as I
:15:13. > :15:16.say, the reason for those placements being out of area are
:15:16. > :15:20.complex, many of them good reasons. Particularly in the urban areas,
:15:20. > :15:24.you could be place add couple of miles across the border and be in
:15:24. > :15:28.roughly the same communety. There isn't an issue of a third of
:15:28. > :15:33.children -- community. There isn't an issue of a third of children
:15:33. > :15:36.being placed away from home and in seaside towns. Do you assess the
:15:36. > :15:41.sort of area in which they are going to be placed? No, we place
:15:41. > :15:45.them in homes that have been registered and approved for the
:15:45. > :15:49.purpose of placing children. I'm not sure how you could assess an
:15:49. > :15:53.area. I tell you what you could do, one very easy thing to do, is talk
:15:53. > :15:57.to the local police? I think what you have heard is the police don't
:15:57. > :16:02.always know what is going on. You don't get a very good picture of
:16:02. > :16:06.what an area from a single phone call. Are you suggesting that we
:16:06. > :16:09.might create no-go areas for children in care, something like
:16:09. > :16:13.that? I'm suggesting if you were told by the police that there was a
:16:13. > :16:17.highly transient population, there was a great deal of drug use, there
:16:17. > :16:22.was a hostel for paedophiles released from prison, that sort of
:16:22. > :16:27.thing, that you might think twice about it? Yes, if the young person
:16:27. > :16:32.was at risk. Would it not be a good idea to ask the police? I'm not
:16:32. > :16:35.sure how wide would you cast the net, one street, two streets? The
:16:35. > :16:42.idea is fraught with problems, as soon as you start trying to unpick
:16:42. > :16:45.it. What we need to do is make sure the care prove vieders are capable
:16:45. > :16:50.of managing -- providers are capable of managing the children
:16:50. > :16:54.that are with them. You are acting as parents, effectively, and yet
:16:54. > :16:59.children are clearly being put in places you wouldn't put your own
:16:59. > :17:02.children? There are children, local children living in these areas. I
:17:03. > :17:07.don't think it is reasonable to say you can write off a whole area and
:17:07. > :17:13.not place children in them. I think there is a lot more sophistication
:17:13. > :17:18.required to understand the nature of an area than simply ringing the
:17:18. > :17:24.police. I'm wondering why you don't inquire? The police don't always
:17:24. > :17:29.know where a children's home is, as you heard Ann Coffey MP explaining.
:17:29. > :17:32.Can you help us here Mr Stanley, why is it that so many of these
:17:32. > :17:35.children's homes are in seaside towns, with highly transient
:17:35. > :17:42.populations and the rest of it? Before I answer that, I think there
:17:42. > :17:45.is a very good reason, and a good way of knowing where the children
:17:45. > :17:48.homes are. The social workers have to advise the children's homes and
:17:48. > :17:53.the independent reviewing officers, twice a year. They will know where
:17:53. > :17:56.the homes R the reason why we have homes where they are, it is a very
:17:56. > :18:03.complex and historical journey we have been on, originally in London,
:18:03. > :18:06.for example, the homes were placed outside the city by Victorian
:18:06. > :18:09.philanthropists. The reason is, it is cheaper to get larger
:18:09. > :18:12.accommodation there, isn't it? isn't always the case that
:18:12. > :18:16.children's homes are placed in cheaper areas. I can take you to
:18:16. > :18:20.places around the country. Maybe not always, but there is pattern
:18:20. > :18:26.here, do you accept? We have can take you to places around the
:18:26. > :18:30.country where providers have set up in select areas of towns, so they
:18:30. > :18:34.get good access to schools and a good supportive nurturing community.
:18:34. > :18:38.You have some other explanation, have you for the fact that there
:18:38. > :18:42.are various seaside towns in this country, where there is a high
:18:42. > :18:47.concentration of children's homes? I can understand how they arrive,
:18:47. > :18:49.we have to go back to the historical roots. We saw Victorian
:18:50. > :18:56.philanthropists set up outside the city, and regional planning set up
:18:56. > :18:59.on the coast. As the councils closed their homes on the coast, so
:18:59. > :19:02.people open them up as private homes. If we want to move forwards,
:19:02. > :19:07.we have to understand how to get the children back from the coast to
:19:07. > :19:15.the city, but that will mean us thinking of the economics of care.
:19:15. > :19:19.Are you also able to provide some long-winded explanation of why it
:19:19. > :19:25.is a child in one of your homes goes missing and the owner not
:19:25. > :19:30.trying to find the child? I'm not accepting it is long-winded, I'm
:19:30. > :19:33.accepting it is very complex and we can't go into that. When someone
:19:34. > :19:37.goes missing, every local authority has a missing person's protocol,
:19:37. > :19:40.which children's homes have to follow. They have to be reported to
:19:40. > :19:46.regulators and social workers, it isn't the case that people do
:19:46. > :19:50.nothing n all cases. Nobody says it is in all cases. But it does happen,
:19:50. > :19:54.and it should never happen, should it? It should never happen. Is it
:19:54. > :19:57.not reasonable for a child in care to expect that should they
:19:57. > :20:01.disappear, get into trouble and whatever, that someone would try to
:20:01. > :20:05.seek them? I'm saying that does happen, in the instances in your
:20:05. > :20:09.film, clearly that didn't happen, in that child's experience, but it
:20:09. > :20:14.does happen, because that is what the local authority protocols and
:20:14. > :20:18.the children's homes protocols say must happen. These are homes
:20:18. > :20:22.getting up to �250,000 a year, aren't the people of this country
:20:22. > :20:28.entitled to expect that the people who take money in that sort of
:20:29. > :20:34.volume, will, in all circumstances, exercise due care? As we were
:20:34. > :20:37.talking earlier, we know that not all of the children are of that
:20:37. > :20:42.level of need. There are some children that do need that level of
:20:42. > :20:46.need, and with that package of care comes psychology, psyche kiery, and
:20:46. > :20:53.high levels of staff who have been reporting that young person. From
:20:53. > :20:57.the regulator's point of view. Why aren't the police told which houses
:20:58. > :21:02.are children's homes? I agree with the person in the film, who said
:21:02. > :21:04.that's an absurd position. The reason is, quite simply, is the law
:21:04. > :21:10.doesn't allow us to share that information at the moment.
:21:10. > :21:14.would like to? Personally I would very much support a change in that
:21:14. > :21:18.regulation. At the moment the regulations pro-hib bit us from
:21:18. > :21:22.sharing that information with -- pro-hib bit us from sharing that
:21:22. > :21:26.information with anything but local authorities. Do you, as regulators,
:21:26. > :21:30.assess the suitable of an area for children's homes? No, we don't.
:21:30. > :21:38.Shouldn't you? We don't because that is not a basis within the
:21:38. > :21:48.regulation that is are set for us that we have to work within. That
:21:48. > :21:52.is not Within the boundaries of us shutting down or opening up a
:21:52. > :21:56.children's homes. I think it is gaps and weaknesses in the planning
:21:56. > :22:00.legislation. Will you do anything about it? It is not within our
:22:00. > :22:07.power to take action on that particular issue, but certainly
:22:07. > :22:15.taking part in this kind of debate, I accept there is a serious consen
:22:15. > :22:22.racial of homes in particular areas -- serious consideration about
:22:22. > :22:27.homes concentration in particular areas. The people best to decide on
:22:27. > :22:31.these issues are local people and local authorities have a part to
:22:31. > :22:36.play. There is a part planning legislation can be used in this
:22:36. > :22:39.debate. That needs to be revolve and it needs to be clearer what
:22:39. > :22:45.powers the local authorities have in these situations. What about the
:22:45. > :22:50.suggestion of your own rating of homes. If a child disappears from a
:22:50. > :22:54.home 100 times, how can that home be entitled to get a rating of
:22:54. > :22:57.good? No home is entitled to get a rating of good. It is a question of
:22:57. > :23:00.weighing up all the evidence and coming up with a judgment. That
:23:00. > :23:03.would be a very rare event, you would have to know the
:23:03. > :23:06.circumstances of the case to make a judgment. Where we might find a
:23:06. > :23:10.home, where the staff are doing everything they conceivably could
:23:10. > :23:14.do, to try to keep that child safe to track that child, to know where
:23:14. > :23:17.that child is going to protect that child, liaising very actively with
:23:17. > :23:22.the police and other agencies involved to try to protect that
:23:22. > :23:26.child, but they simply, at that point in time, cannot crack that
:23:26. > :23:30.very difficult behaviour. We would not necessarily say that home was
:23:31. > :23:36.failing. Mr Webb, do you agree that you have two people here saying it
:23:36. > :23:40.is time for a change in the law, do you agree? The Association of
:23:40. > :23:46.Directors of Children's Service will stimulate a debate charting
:23:46. > :23:51.next month on what care should be for. -- starting next month on what
:23:51. > :23:54.care should be for. The model we have for young people is outdated.
:23:54. > :23:58.It doesn't assess the complexity of the interaction between the youth
:23:58. > :24:00.justice system and the care system. It doesn't pick up the issue of
:24:00. > :24:04.preventing young people becoming detatched from their communities in
:24:04. > :24:10.the first place, and so on. It is time for a debate about what, as a
:24:10. > :24:17.society, we should be doing for our more troubled young people.
:24:17. > :24:25.would all like to see that? There is unanimity, everyone agrees it is
:24:25. > :24:28.not working properly? It is not just a strategy, it is meeting the
:24:28. > :24:31.needs of children with high level needs. Some need national resource
:24:31. > :24:35.force the specialist care they need. I agree it is not working properly
:24:35. > :24:39.for all children, that is what we should expect. The saddest thing in
:24:40. > :24:44.the film is the two young people who said quite separately "they
:24:44. > :24:49.didn't care", that is bad home, a failing home, and an inadequate
:24:49. > :24:55.home. It is important to say a description of every children's
:24:55. > :24:59.homes in this country, many are doing a very good job. Nobody will
:24:59. > :25:06.say that was a skriings of all homes? That is the picture put
:25:06. > :25:09.across by the media. We know most of our homes are good in Ofsted
:25:09. > :25:13.ratings. Could it really be possible that a policeman took part
:25:13. > :25:18.in a firebombing causing millions of pounds worth of damage, that he
:25:18. > :25:22.did so on an undercover mission, on the public payroll, and never
:25:22. > :25:24.caught by colleagues and the police. According to the Green Party MP,
:25:24. > :25:27.Caroline Lucas, it is certainly possible. Today in Westminster,
:25:27. > :25:37.around the cloak of parliamentary privilege, she named the man
:25:37. > :25:41.concerned. Summer 1987, the early hours of the morning, and three
:25:41. > :25:45.firebombs light up three department stores. Later that night there is a
:25:45. > :25:50.call to the BBC, the Animal Liberation Front has claimed
:25:50. > :25:56.responsibility. Those attacks, 25 years ago, were serious and
:25:56. > :26:00.effective, eight million pounds worth of damage was done to
:26:00. > :26:04.Debenhams stores, and the chain was forced to drop all its fur clothing
:26:04. > :26:08.a policy that still holds today. Only two of the arsonists
:26:08. > :26:12.responsible for the attacks have ever been caught and convicted.
:26:12. > :26:16.Today's allegations centre on this store in Harrow, North London.
:26:16. > :26:20.Using parliamentary privilege, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas,
:26:20. > :26:25.named the man alleged to be responsible. Not extremist animal
:26:25. > :26:30.rights protestor, but a serving police officer, Bob Lambert. There
:26:30. > :26:33.is no doubt in my mind, that anyone planting an incendiary device in a
:26:33. > :26:36.department store, is guilty of a very serious crime, and should have
:26:37. > :26:41.charges brought against them, that is absolutely anybody, including f
:26:41. > :26:47.the evidence is there, Bob Lambert, or the people supervising him.
:26:47. > :26:51.This is the man she's talking about. Lambert was unmasked as a police
:26:51. > :26:56.spy last year, but these angry members of London Greenpeace.
:26:56. > :26:59.you proud of what you did, it was abusive to people, it was damaging.
:26:59. > :27:04.He spent much of his career undercover, working for the met
:27:04. > :27:08.police, he ended up running the whole unit responsible for
:27:08. > :27:14.infiltrating protest groups, and is now a respected axe dem ib. Back in
:27:14. > :27:21.the 198 -- academic. Back in the 1980s with long hair and a cheap
:27:21. > :27:24.bedsit in London, he went by the name of Bob Robinson. He was Bob
:27:24. > :27:31.Robinson, someone I really liked, I got on well with, I thought he
:27:31. > :27:36.really liked me. Maybe he did. But he was still willing to put me away
:27:36. > :27:42.for over four years of imprisonment. This man did go to prison for the
:27:42. > :27:44.Debenhams attacks, he was caught, redhanded, making firebombs on his
:27:44. > :27:48.kitchen table. It was Geoff Shepherd's allegations about Bob
:27:48. > :27:55.Lambert that were raised in parliament today. Caroline Lucas
:27:55. > :27:58.quoted his statement. "Three Debenhams stores had attacks on
:27:58. > :28:02.them, including the Harrods store. Straight away I knew Bob had
:28:02. > :28:07.carried out his part of the plan. There was no doubt in my mind
:28:07. > :28:12.whatsoever, that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the store
:28:12. > :28:17.in Harrow". Since unmasked, Bob Lambert admitted he did work
:28:17. > :28:22.undercover, and has apologised to law-abiding protestors for some of
:28:22. > :28:28.his actions. He denies planting an incendiary device in the Harrow
:28:29. > :28:33.store. Since Mark Kennedy was he revealed as an undercover spy last
:28:33. > :28:36.year, there has been other allegations against undercover
:28:36. > :28:40.officers. This is a serious alleged criminality by the police, but it
:28:40. > :28:45.fits into a pattern of apparent misconduct, at all levels of the
:28:45. > :28:49.police and the prosecution, in all sorts of different ways.
:28:49. > :28:52.Lambert was promoted after the Debenhams fires, and eventually led
:28:52. > :28:58.the police's undercover operations. One reason why the allegations are
:28:58. > :29:02.being taken so seriously. Seniority of the officer at the
:29:02. > :29:06.centre of these latest allegations is incredibly important, because it
:29:06. > :29:10.shows that this is not the result of a one-off rogue officer acting
:29:10. > :29:14.alone, but it is systemic and it is cultural, it is approved, and it is
:29:14. > :29:22.authorised. Geoff Shepherd says the police
:29:22. > :29:26.could have arrested the Debenhams arsonist, when they collected the
:29:26. > :29:31.insendry device on the morning of the attack of -- incendiary devices
:29:31. > :29:36.on the morning of the attack. met on the morning where we picked
:29:36. > :29:39.up two incendiary devices each, and each person went off in a separate
:29:39. > :29:43.direction to their particular store. The key question, that still hasn't
:29:43. > :29:47.been answered, is why, if the police knew about these attack, if
:29:47. > :29:54.they knew about the planning, they didn't stop them in advance, when
:29:54. > :29:59.they had the chance. One question was answered today, Bob Lambert is
:29:59. > :30:02.one of a group of undercover officers, sued by women, who say
:30:02. > :30:06.they were duped into having sex. Senior police officers said that
:30:06. > :30:09.should never happen, today the Government disagreed. To ban such
:30:09. > :30:13.actions would provide a ready-made test for the criminal group target
:30:14. > :30:17.today find out whether there was an undercover officer deployed amongst
:30:17. > :30:20.them. Once minute, today's allegations have led for calls for
:30:20. > :30:24.fall public inquiry into the actions of undercover officers. The
:30:24. > :30:28.Government says there is no need for that. And the guidelines now in
:30:28. > :30:32.place are tough enough to protect the public.
:30:32. > :30:35.Here to discuss this are the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, who
:30:35. > :30:38.raised the subject in Westminster today, and Tony McNulty, who was a
:30:39. > :30:42.councillor in Harrow at the time of the bombing, and later MP for the
:30:42. > :30:47.area, and minister for policing and security under the last Labour
:30:47. > :30:52.Government. You don't object to the idea of undercover policemen, do
:30:52. > :30:55.you? I don't, what I do think we need to be clear about, as the
:30:55. > :30:58.rules governing that undercover behaviour. There are more and more
:30:58. > :31:02.concerns about what exactly is allowed, who is being held to
:31:02. > :31:06.account and so forth. We have the story you have just reported there,
:31:06. > :31:08.and we have these eight women who have been duped, not just into
:31:08. > :31:12.having sex, but having long-term relationship, including children,
:31:12. > :31:16.with undercover officers. I think that means we really do need to
:31:16. > :31:18.have a public debate about what limits, if any, there are to the
:31:18. > :31:24.activity of undercover police people. If you think about the
:31:24. > :31:27.furore, if you think about the furore over hacking phones, or
:31:28. > :31:32.internet snooping, how much more intimate is it for somebody to come
:31:32. > :31:35.into your house, into your bed, share your life but. We need a
:31:35. > :31:39.public debate about how much the police get involved with that.
:31:39. > :31:44.Nothing wrong with public debate and setting the rules, and making
:31:45. > :31:50.it clear? No, I'm glad Caroline accepts in a democracy, undercover
:31:50. > :31:54.policing has a role to protect T I think to besmirch a police officer
:31:54. > :32:01.under the cowardly cover of parliamentary privilege, based only
:32:01. > :32:06.on the assertion of a convicted arsonist is terrible. She merely
:32:06. > :32:09.read out a statement? With nothing other than this individual's
:32:09. > :32:14.assertion, that is an abuse of parliament. Can you ask me a
:32:14. > :32:17.question of why it is, that if the police know in advance of an
:32:18. > :32:23.intended firebombing why they choose to let it happen? No in
:32:23. > :32:28.these circumstances, bearing in mind that I was probably shopping
:32:28. > :32:31.on a regular basis in this department store, I would be
:32:31. > :32:35.interested. As I would be in catching perpetrator. The actions
:32:35. > :32:40.under the cloak of parliamentary privilege have prevented, that I
:32:40. > :32:45.don't know. The notion that there should be a substantive debate on
:32:46. > :32:50.the perameters around undercover policing to prevent extremism and
:32:50. > :32:54.public disorder, violently, I'm with her. You think there should be
:32:54. > :33:00.an inquiry? I think there needs to be a comprehensive public inquiry
:33:00. > :33:03.into the whole issue of undercover policing. We have up to now 12
:33:03. > :33:05.secret inquiries going ahead, so people can't challenge what is
:33:05. > :33:09.being said. One of the concerns of the eight women bringing legal
:33:09. > :33:11.action against the police right now, is at the moment the police
:33:11. > :33:14.solicitors are saying that the evidence will be held again in
:33:14. > :33:18.secret, the women won't know what is being said about them, by the
:33:18. > :33:23.people that they are accusing. This needs to be really in the fresh
:33:23. > :33:26.light of day, so that we can have this debate, and say, OK, in our
:33:26. > :33:31.society, we are happy to have undercover police officers working,
:33:31. > :33:35.but these are the rules under which they operate, and these are what we
:33:35. > :33:42.do when they step outside that. would accept that? The Met are
:33:42. > :33:45.carrying out a review of their work from 1962, should that be broader
:33:45. > :33:50.and carry the concerns that Caroline has, I would agree, and
:33:50. > :33:55.the commissioner needs to look at that, hissor clee. Aspersions
:33:55. > :33:59.against police officers does not -- assertions and as St Petersburgs
:33:59. > :34:04.against police officers does not -- aspersions against police officers
:34:04. > :34:07.does not include in that debate. You are looking for clear rules?
:34:07. > :34:12.These things don't happen in a vacuum now, there is clear rules,
:34:12. > :34:15.there is the Ripper legislation and other aspects. Of course there are
:34:15. > :34:20.elements an the edges. The point about personal relationships and
:34:20. > :34:24.how deeply embedded and for how long someone is embedded undercover
:34:24. > :34:27.raise serious issues. You are not right to say that the rules are
:34:27. > :34:30.clear on. That I raised with the ministers today and asked about
:34:30. > :34:34.whether or not it is right that an undercover police officer can get
:34:34. > :34:38.into such an intimate relationship with children and it is completely
:34:38. > :34:43.unclear. It is clear, whether that framework and issues should be
:34:43. > :34:46.further explored in public debate I agree. Not by using the sanctity
:34:46. > :34:51.and privilege that is parliamentary privilege, that is an abuse you
:34:51. > :34:54.should be ashamed of. It is not an abuse f it is used in the context.
:34:54. > :34:58.I asked you in the Green Room, what have you done so far to work with
:34:58. > :35:04.the police, CPS and others to stand up to the assertions that this
:35:04. > :35:08.individual can be saying. You have gone straight from a chat with him
:35:08. > :35:11.to parliamentary abuse of parliamentary privilege. I replied
:35:11. > :35:14.in the Green Room to say that I don't know if the person is guilty,
:35:14. > :35:18.of course I don't. I do know this is something that ought to be
:35:18. > :35:22.investigated, that was the point of raising it in the context of
:35:22. > :35:24.parliamentary privilege and parliament to say we need a proper
:35:24. > :35:29.comprehensive inquiry that we haven't had until now, until now
:35:29. > :35:34.the police have been brushing it under the carpet? Not true, Dennis
:35:34. > :35:40.O'Connor, the Chief Inspector, set clear perameters in a clear report
:35:40. > :35:44.on undercover policing, the shame is this Government want to put Tom
:35:44. > :35:47.Windsor into his place who has no experience. We can agree on that.
:35:47. > :35:50.The French Foreign Minister has called for the United Nations
:35:50. > :35:54.Security Council to threaten the Syrian Government with a no-fly
:35:54. > :35:59.zone if they don't adopt the international peace plan. But there
:35:59. > :36:03.seems little prospect that have august body taking any action. As
:36:03. > :36:06.Russia and the United States continue to trade insults. The
:36:06. > :36:10.Russians have denied American claims they are supplying attack
:36:10. > :36:14.helicopters to the Al-Assad regime, and have accused them in return of
:36:14. > :36:19.destablising the renal. Some in Washington are calling for action.
:36:19. > :36:23.As you found a little earlier when I spoke to Senator John McCain.
:36:23. > :36:27.Senator, what do you make of the Russian reNile that is they are
:36:27. > :36:32.supplying arms to President Assad? It is a return to the old kind of
:36:32. > :36:37.Cold War rhetoric, that Russians used to use denying the undeniable,
:36:37. > :36:45.it is very obvious that Russian tanks and artillery, and helicopter
:36:45. > :36:50.gunships are being used by Al-Assad. The Russians are the main supplier.
:36:50. > :36:54.To call it a civil war is the wrong description, it is an unfair fight.
:36:54. > :36:58.Even though some arms are coming in from some other countries, not the
:36:58. > :37:04.United States, to help the rebels. The Russians, of course, say the
:37:04. > :37:08.United States is supplying the rebels. I wish the United States
:37:08. > :37:15.was, I think we should. I'm absolutely believing that we should
:37:15. > :37:18.provide a sanctuary, that we should provide them with a, particularly
:37:18. > :37:24.anti-tank weapons, with which to depend themselves. Here are people
:37:24. > :37:27.demonstrating peacefully, now being massacred in the most brutal and
:37:27. > :37:34.atrocious fashion. But creating safe havens might require the use
:37:34. > :37:38.of American force, might it not? could require the use of the United
:37:38. > :37:42.States and other countries' air power. But if you told Bashar Al-
:37:42. > :37:46.Assad, that if he attacked a sanctuary, that he would pay a very
:37:47. > :37:50.heavy prie, I think it is very possible he would -- price, I think
:37:51. > :37:54.it is very possible he would not do T the best way for Bashar Al-Assad
:37:54. > :37:59.to be motivated, with the help of the Russians, to leave Syria, is if
:37:59. > :38:06.he thinks he can't win. Right now, on the battlefield, he is
:38:06. > :38:09.prevailing. Why is Syria worth risking the life of a single
:38:09. > :38:12.American serviceman? First of all, I don't think we would be risking
:38:12. > :38:19.the lives of many, because I don't believe there would be American
:38:19. > :38:26.boots on the ground. But, second of all, in the words of our military
:38:26. > :38:31.experts, the fall of Bashar Al- Assad would be the greatest blow to
:38:31. > :38:35.Iran in 25 years. As you know Syria is a client state of Iran. This
:38:35. > :38:39.would free up Lebanon, it would be a huge blow to Hezbollah and have
:38:39. > :38:45.enormous effects. Second of all, people are being massacred, people
:38:45. > :38:49.are being tortured and raped and killed. I went to a refugee camp on
:38:49. > :38:53.the Turkish-Syrian border, it is a horrible thing to hear these
:38:53. > :38:57.stories and meet these people. These wars are a lot easier to get
:38:57. > :39:03.into than out of, aren't they? I heard the same thing about libia.
:39:03. > :39:07.We helped in Libya, -- Libya. We helped in Libya, Gadaffi came down,
:39:07. > :39:11.and on July 7th they will have their first election, which I would
:39:11. > :39:17.view as reasonably free and fair. They said the same thing about
:39:17. > :39:20.Bosnia and Kosovo, they said the same thing about Rwanda. So. They
:39:20. > :39:26.said the same thing about Afghanistan and were ignored, 11
:39:27. > :39:31.years on, troops are still there? That's right. We cannot forget that
:39:31. > :39:35.we went to Afghanistan because it was the place where the 9/11
:39:35. > :39:39.attacks originated, and we had no other choice. Because the Al-Qaeda
:39:39. > :39:43.was there. That is where the attacks came from that killed
:39:43. > :39:47.several thousand brave, innocent Americans. That is why we went to
:39:47. > :39:51.Afghanistan. But, it is still 11 years on, and on going military
:39:51. > :39:55.problems in which lives are being lost. That is the big danger can an
:39:55. > :39:59.intervention like this in Syria, isn't it? As I said, I do not, and
:39:59. > :40:03.I know none of us who want intervention and want boots on the
:40:03. > :40:08.ground. This is a multinational effort, the Turk would play a very
:40:08. > :40:12.lead role. America should lead, that is the Americans job, that is
:40:12. > :40:18.to lead, this President won't even utter a word on behalf of these
:40:18. > :40:21.people who are being slaughtered and massacred, as short a time ago
:40:21. > :40:24.as Friday. That is not what Ronald Reagan was all about, I will tell
:40:24. > :40:30.you. Thanks thank you.
:40:30. > :40:35.Can you work out where this is? It has a life expectancy on a par with
:40:35. > :40:42.Djibouti, and a fertility rate somewhere between Millauy and Yemen,
:40:42. > :40:50.dead before 60, an average of six children per family, or single
:40:50. > :41:00.mother. It is the fictional state of Diston, conjoured up by Martin
:41:00. > :41:02.
:41:02. > :41:05.Amis in his latest novel, Lionel Asbo: State of England. He has the
:41:06. > :41:13.disposition of someone more violence than most. He wins the
:41:13. > :41:17.lottery. In Diston everything hated
:41:17. > :41:21.everything else, and everything else in return hated everything
:41:21. > :41:27.back. Everything soft hated everything hard, and visa versa,
:41:27. > :41:33.cold, fought heat, heat fought cold. Everything honked and yelled and
:41:33. > :41:38.swore at everything. All was weightless and all hated weight.
:41:38. > :41:46.Lionel Asbo, the protagonist of our book, is a aggressively ignorant,
:41:46. > :41:49.he's violent, he's a lout, and the book is subtitled "State of
:41:49. > :41:53.England", are you saying he some how represents the state of
:41:53. > :41:57.England? I'm not saying anything, all I'm saying is the book, all 270
:41:57. > :42:05.pages of it. This is not strict realisim, this is a sort of
:42:05. > :42:09.fairytale world of abitary rewards and abitary punishments, of nursery
:42:09. > :42:14.rhymes. That's the imagery of the novel. It is not a frowning
:42:14. > :42:20.examination of England. But you have chosen to put State of England
:42:20. > :42:24.as a subtitle? I sometimes regret that. When people say that this is
:42:24. > :42:29.a pretty scathing attack upon what we used to call the working-class,
:42:29. > :42:33.what are you saying? That is not an attack on the working-class. He is
:42:33. > :42:38.not a member of the working-class, he's a member of the criminal class.
:42:38. > :42:45.A member of the unworking-class? The residuals, it used to be called,
:42:45. > :42:53.the underclass. It is not even an attack on that. It is, novels don't
:42:53. > :42:59.come out of negative feelings. You couldn't write with disgust and
:42:59. > :43:05.contempt, they are you will erotic and embracing feelings. But Lionel
:43:05. > :43:11.Asbo represents something, doesn't he, he represents a particular sort
:43:11. > :43:15.of human being, whom many of the middle-classs in this country live
:43:15. > :43:25.in terror of? I don't know if he represents it, he's an example of
:43:25. > :43:26.
:43:26. > :43:30.it, and is then comically magnified by a stroke of luck. He joins that
:43:30. > :43:34.considerable strata of English society who are famous of being
:43:34. > :43:38.famous, in the trite phrase, and yet, some how, capture the
:43:38. > :43:45.imagination of England. You wonder what kind of shape the imagination
:43:45. > :43:48.of England is that it is captured by the marginal, and as you say,
:43:48. > :43:53.undeserving figures. What do you conclude about the imagination of
:43:53. > :44:01.the state of England, by the fact it is so obsessed with celebrity
:44:01. > :44:04.and material success, unearned very often? I think you could make the
:44:04. > :44:09.labourious historical case that we have been in decline for 70 years,
:44:09. > :44:16.and what are the consequences of that in the public mind. They are
:44:16. > :44:24.not going to be obvious, they are going to be subliminal. The
:44:25. > :44:30.obsession with triviality is one of the symptoms of decline. We lead
:44:30. > :44:34.the world in decline. America is just embarking on that, they are
:44:34. > :44:36.children in the matter of decline, we have been doing it longer than
:44:36. > :44:41.anyone else. We rose earlier than any other country, with the
:44:41. > :44:45.exception of Holland, perhaps. We had our revolution a century before
:44:45. > :44:50.the French and the Americans. We were further along and we're
:44:50. > :44:55.further along in decline. Do you like England? I'm as attached to it
:44:55. > :45:00.as you would expect after living here...I Don't know, having read it
:45:00. > :45:08.I don't think you are attached to it at all? Having lived here for
:45:08. > :45:11.half a century, it is affectionate, not scathing. England, it seems, it
:45:11. > :45:16.getting and you yourself are getting more sensitive about
:45:16. > :45:21.criticism from without. Do you think England is above reproach?
:45:21. > :45:27.of course not, nowhere is above reproach? I'm connected to England,
:45:27. > :45:37.not only through habitation, and having lived here, but through its
:45:37. > :45:41.literature. I'm proud of being English, I'm proud of coming from
:45:41. > :45:51.the the country of Shakespeare and others. You are not a bitter man a
:45:51. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :45:58.jolly man? I think my love of life has increased. When you hit 06, you
:45:58. > :46:01.think it can't possibly end well, it will end in tears. Very quickly
:46:01. > :46:10.you begin to value life as much as you did when you were a child. If
:46:10. > :46:14.this is a second childhood, it is good fun. You have a leave-taking
:46:14. > :46:19.point about you. Not anger, and not reactionry anger, I don't want to
:46:19. > :46:29.turn the clock back. That is the idlist kind of inquiry. I want to
:46:29. > :46:29.
:46:29. > :46:39.see what is there, and see what comedy is there in it.
:46:39. > :47:14.
:47:14. > :47:24.She says let's seal our pledge with a jobby in the limo. That's all
:47:24. > :47:25.tonight, Kirsty is in the chair tonight, Kirsty is in the chair
:47:25. > :47:29.tomorrow night, good night. Hello there we are still expecting
:47:29. > :47:32.another dose of a wet and windy weather to sweep northwards across
:47:32. > :47:36.the whole country, Thursday night and Friday. Ahead of it is fairly
:47:36. > :47:39.quiet for most of Thursday, after a bright start cloud will increase. A
:47:39. > :47:42.scattering of showers but fairly light. Some sunny spells, in
:47:42. > :47:47.northern England, not too bad here, we will see the cloud increasing in
:47:47. > :47:51.the Midlands. That could give us one or two showers. Some sunshine
:47:51. > :47:55.hanging on across East Anglia, cloud amounts increasing in the
:47:55. > :47:58.south-east of England, the wet and windy weather arriving in the south
:47:58. > :48:02.west of England during the afternoon. The weather here going
:48:02. > :48:06.downhill, as the wind picks up in Wales, so the cloud will increase
:48:06. > :48:08.in the afternoon. Light showers ahead of the main rain which,
:48:08. > :48:11.arrives in the evening. A scattering of hours for Northern
:48:11. > :48:16.Ireland. Sunshine inbetween. Temperatures much as they have been
:48:16. > :48:21.over the past few days, 14-15. Pleasantly warm in the sunshine in
:48:21. > :48:25.Scotland. Many parts will be dry. It looks pretty good in Edinburgh,
:48:25. > :48:31.with sunny spells around here. Notice how the weather changes as
:48:31. > :48:36.we head into Friday. It is Thursday into Friday as the rainband moves
:48:36. > :48:39.south-west wards northwards across the whole of the country. The main