:00:13. > :00:18.A new crisis for Newsnight. Tonight, this programme apologises, a key
:00:18. > :00:22.allegation in a report about child abuse was wrong. The abuse victim
:00:22. > :00:27.abuse was wrong. The abuse victim says he was mistaken.
:00:27. > :00:31.Humble apologies to Lord McAlpine. That's certainly not the man that
:00:31. > :00:35.abused me. That is certainly not the man I identified as abused me
:00:35. > :00:39.to North Wales Police in the 1990s. The senior Conservative named on
:00:39. > :00:43.the internet steps forward to tackle the slurs. And instructs his
:00:43. > :00:46.lawyer to set the record straight. We need to take a number of
:00:46. > :00:50.different actions. Firstly to try to get this taken down from the
:00:50. > :00:55.Internet. Which is not going to be easy. Then
:00:56. > :01:00.we have to look at Newsnight. MP wonders what on earth Newsnight
:01:00. > :01:05.was playing at. These experts will tell us where it all leaves the BBC
:01:05. > :01:08.and the thousands of abuse victims who were already terrified of
:01:08. > :01:12.speaking up. Also tonight, the Treasury has found a load of cash
:01:12. > :01:17.down the back of a sofa, rather than going on a bender we will pay
:01:17. > :01:21.down the deficit. We ask is there any more down there. Ash dieback,
:01:21. > :01:26.the continental tree killer is here to stay and can't be eradicate, say
:01:26. > :01:29.the Government. Is this the end of the -- eradicated, say the
:01:30. > :01:33.Government, is this the end of the English ash?
:01:33. > :01:43.We start tonight with a statement, issued in the last hour, by
:01:43. > :02:16.
:02:16. > :02:19.This time last week, here on Newsnight, Steve Messham, who was
:02:20. > :02:23.repeatedly abused as a child in North Wales, said one of his
:02:23. > :02:25.abusers was a senior politician of the Thatcher era. There wasn't
:02:26. > :02:28.enough information for Newsnight to name the individual. On the
:02:29. > :02:31.Internet, where the standard of proof was zero, there was no
:02:31. > :02:35.shortage of names. The Prime Minister had a list of them waved
:02:35. > :02:42.in his face on live television. Today, one of the names had enough.
:02:42. > :02:46.Lord McAlpine went public, to denounce false and seriously
:02:46. > :02:50.defamery allegations. Tonight Steve Messham has changed his story and
:02:51. > :02:56.apologised, and so has the BBC. He was at the heart of the Thatcher
:02:56. > :03:00.Government, a fixer, who served as both Deputy Chairman and treasurer.
:03:00. > :03:06.Today he issued a strongly-worded statement, denying he's the man at
:03:06. > :03:16.the centre of abuse allegations. In a statement, which runs to more
:03:16. > :03:32.
:03:32. > :03:36.than 1,000 words, he said: Lord McAlpine has been at the
:03:36. > :03:39.centre of a storm of internet gossip, triggered by a report on
:03:39. > :03:43.Newsnight last week. These were allegation of a paedophile-ring
:03:43. > :03:48.involving people from all walks of life, businessmen, a market trader,
:03:48. > :03:52.a senior public figure. In the report, a former care home
:03:52. > :03:56.resident, Steve Messham, claimed he had been abused by a senior
:03:56. > :04:01.political figure from the Thatcher era. There is no doubt Mr Messham
:04:01. > :04:04.was a victim of serial sexual abuse at the O'Briain home. The
:04:04. > :04:07.allegations were taken so seriously by the Government, that he met the
:04:07. > :04:12.Welsh Secretary this week to discuss the case. The journalists
:04:12. > :04:15.working on the Newsnight reports, did not show a photograph of Lord
:04:15. > :04:20.McAlpine to Mr Messham. When he finally saw one this evening, he
:04:20. > :04:26.said he was not the man who abused him Firstly I would offer my
:04:26. > :04:30.sincere and humble apologies to Lord McAlpine. That certainly is
:04:30. > :04:34.not the man that abused me. That is certainly not the man I identified
:04:34. > :04:38.as abused me to North Wales Police in the 1990s. That's certainly not
:04:38. > :04:42.the man that was on that photograph. I spoke out within the first five
:04:42. > :04:45.minutes of seeing the picture of him, I was on the phone straight
:04:45. > :04:51.away and issued an apology straight away. I was mortified, I felt for
:04:51. > :04:55.the man and his family. This should never have happened. But, Lord
:04:55. > :05:00.McAlpine's lawyers said the peer's reputation is in tatters, after a
:05:00. > :05:06.week of allegations and unfair charter on blogs and internet sites.
:05:06. > :05:10.He's broken hearted over this. His family are very upset. And he feels
:05:10. > :05:16.that, you know, bearing in mind his health isn't that good, that this
:05:16. > :05:20.is a total shock to receive at his time in life. Newsnight did not
:05:20. > :05:25.name Lord McAlpine in its report. And because of that, he was not
:05:25. > :05:29.approached for a response. But rumours of his involvement quickly
:05:29. > :05:33.took off on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites. At
:05:33. > :05:36.the heart of all this, is the way in which sites like Twitter look.
:05:36. > :05:40.If you looked up a comment or post about Newsnight this week, you
:05:40. > :05:46.would have seen a list of related search terms, including, like here,
:05:46. > :05:51.paedophile, and McAlpine. I saw, when I put on Twitter on the Friday
:05:51. > :05:54.afternoon, that the thing was ablaze. There was a hashtag
:05:54. > :05:57.Newsnight, that seemed to be leading to the names of certain
:05:58. > :06:02.politicians. That is the sort of thing that Twitter does, there
:06:02. > :06:08.isn't an old media equivalent of it. The only equivalent I can think of
:06:08. > :06:11.is occasionally when people in newspapers used to write somebody
:06:11. > :06:14.something about somebody without naming them, they might put a
:06:14. > :06:18.picture nearby. The process inside Twitter is making connections, and
:06:18. > :06:22.it is not too difficult to work out what the connections are. It is
:06:22. > :06:27.assumed Lord McAlpine's name was on a list of former politicians,
:06:27. > :06:32.handed to David Cameron on live TV, by the presenter Philip Schofield.
:06:32. > :06:35.As I say, if anyone has any information, about anyone who is a
:06:35. > :06:40.paedophile. Number Ten dismissed that, as a silly stunt. And warned
:06:40. > :06:45.against trial by Twitter. We have to be very careful before casting
:06:45. > :06:49.aspersions against individuals, or bandying people's names around, as
:06:49. > :06:52.was being done yesterday, without proper evidence. Every institution,
:06:52. > :06:56.every journalist and politician has to think carefully about those
:06:56. > :07:01.things. Lord McAlpine's solicitor said the peer now has no choice but
:07:01. > :07:04.to take legal action over the claims. We need to take a number of
:07:05. > :07:12.different actions, first thing to try to get this taken down from the
:07:12. > :07:15.Internet. Which is not going to be easy. Then we have to look at
:07:15. > :07:20.Newsnight, and the way in which they behaved, and the way they
:07:20. > :07:24.trailed it. They made it obvious who it was. Newsnight was heavily
:07:24. > :07:28.criticised for its handling of the Jimmy Savile scandal. And internal
:07:28. > :07:30.BBC investigation is under way into the decision to drop its reports
:07:30. > :07:34.last year, into sexual abuse by the star.
:07:34. > :07:39.Now the programme, and the BBC, is under fire again. This time, for a
:07:39. > :07:43.decision to run a report based on information which later turned out
:07:43. > :07:48.to be false. In the last hour, the corporation has issued a statement,
:07:48. > :07:52.saying it apologises unreservedly, for broadcasting that report.
:07:52. > :07:56.Some of us said when this story first came out, victims must have
:07:56. > :08:01.their say, and their day, if you like. Now we have had a victim who,
:08:01. > :08:05.I'm sure was just genuinely mistaken, maybe someone gave him
:08:05. > :08:08.the wrong information some time ago, it makes the whole issue even more
:08:08. > :08:11.complicated. There are still many unanswered questions about the
:08:11. > :08:15.abuse scandal in North Wales, and the Waterhouse investigation, what
:08:15. > :08:19.about the names of other alleged abusers, linked to the children's
:08:19. > :08:25.home, but never charged. What about the victims, who say they were told
:08:25. > :08:29.to keep quiet and not to give evidence. New allegations are still
:08:29. > :08:35.emerging, one man contacted the BBC to say he was drugged, taken away
:08:35. > :08:39.in an expensive car, and raped. He never gave evidence to the inquiry.
:08:39. > :08:42.I mentioned it in years to come, if I said anything, he would send the
:08:42. > :08:48.same people to come and get me and my family, and I would never see
:08:48. > :08:51.them again. Because he had friends in really high places.
:08:51. > :08:55.Government said tonight that it will still go ahead with a series
:08:55. > :08:59.of inquiries into the Welsh care home scandal. But there will also
:08:59. > :09:03.be wider questions asked, about anonymity for people accused of
:09:03. > :09:06.these crimes, and the role of both established media and the Internet
:09:06. > :09:09.in publicising and spreading those names.
:09:09. > :09:15.Obviously we wanted to ask questions of the BBC, but no-one
:09:15. > :09:19.was available for interview. The Conservative MP, Rob Wilson,
:09:19. > :09:24.has been a concerned critic of the BBC's handling of Jimmy Savile's
:09:24. > :09:30.time at the BBC, and also how the BBC has behaved in recent week. Now
:09:30. > :09:33.this, Mr Wilson, how bad can it get? Well it's pretty bad, isn't it.
:09:33. > :09:39.This apology tonight which, I welcome, it needs to go much
:09:39. > :09:43.further, really. We have got a situation now where last Friday
:09:44. > :09:48.Newsnight broadcast an item which triggered a huge wave of innuendo
:09:48. > :09:55.and smears, across the Internet, and across Twitter. It really did
:09:55. > :10:00.bring into disrepute the journalism, really. Because the report was not
:10:00. > :10:05.fair or responsible. I think in terms of Ofcom's code of
:10:05. > :10:12.broadcasting conduct, I think it will certainly be an infringement
:10:12. > :10:15.of that. It was a pretty shoddy piece of journalism, and very poor
:10:15. > :10:22.of the BBC. I have news from the Director-Generar himself, who has
:10:22. > :10:28.ordered several actions, John -- director general's himself who has
:10:28. > :10:33.been appointing several actions, there is a moderator on Newsnight.
:10:33. > :10:35.An apology, and there will be an urgent report from the DG covering
:10:35. > :10:39.what happened on the Newsnight investigation we are talking about.
:10:39. > :10:42.Significantly, I want your response to the last two points. There will
:10:42. > :10:45.be an immediate pause in all Newsnight investigations to assess
:10:45. > :10:49.editorial robustness and supervision, and there will be an
:10:50. > :10:55.immediate suspension of all co- productions with the Bureau of
:10:55. > :11:05.Investigative Journalism across the BBC. I don't know, can you hear the
:11:05. > :11:12.
:11:12. > :11:17.stable door closing? I can't hear a lot of what you are saying.
:11:17. > :11:20.sound isn't working, the investigations aren't working!
:11:20. > :11:23.least the BBC is trying to act decisively, over the Savile
:11:23. > :11:27.incident, it was very slow, dragged the feet and took a long time to
:11:27. > :11:31.catch up. At least this time it seems to be acting fairly swiftly.
:11:31. > :11:35.I do welcome some of the actions it seems to be taking. Although I
:11:35. > :11:39.haven't seen the full detail, because it is only coming in. We do
:11:39. > :11:42.have to have a thorough look at why this happened. The editorial
:11:42. > :11:46.process within Newsnight has clearly gone badly wrong. It has
:11:46. > :11:51.gone badly wrong before over Savile, there is clearly a pattern within
:11:51. > :11:56.this. There are lot of theories about why this particular one got
:11:56. > :11:59.aired in the first place. There is one theory that it was an
:11:59. > :12:03.overcompensation for what happened with Savile. But there is also a
:12:03. > :12:07.theory out there that this was a diversionary tactic, to divert
:12:07. > :12:14.attention away from the BBC. I think if he's looking at this, I
:12:14. > :12:18.think he has to look at those issues as well. Is Newsnight Toast?
:12:18. > :12:22.-- is Newsnight toast? Newsnight has a proud tradition of excellent
:12:22. > :12:25.journalism, I wouldn't like at this stage, without seeing the detail of
:12:25. > :12:30.any investigation that is about to take place. I don't want to just
:12:30. > :12:35.have a kneejerk reaction to what has been going on. I want to have
:12:35. > :12:40.the information and the evidence in front of me, and take a considered
:12:40. > :12:43.view of whether Newsnight should continue or not.
:12:43. > :12:50.What effect will all of this have on the BBC, and on the people who
:12:50. > :12:53.were abused as children. People who were already reluctant to speak out.
:12:54. > :12:57.Professor Richard Wortley is the director of Jill Dando institute,
:12:57. > :13:03.Esther Rantzen founded ChildLine, and knows her way around BBC
:13:03. > :13:08.journalism, and Steve Hewlett is presenter of Radio 4's the The
:13:08. > :13:12.Media Show. Steve, how would you characterise this latest fiasco?
:13:12. > :13:17.is a disaster, little short of it, to be honest. Just weeks ago
:13:17. > :13:21.Newsnight is flayed alive, for not having broadcast something which
:13:21. > :13:24.now appears was probably true. Now it is being flayed alive for
:13:24. > :13:28.broadcasting something which we now know was certainly not true. The
:13:28. > :13:30.question here is, I don't think it is about good or bad faith, I
:13:30. > :13:34.assume good faith on the part of all the people involved in the
:13:34. > :13:38.investigation and the broadcast. But we expect from Newsnight, we
:13:38. > :13:43.need to have from Newsnight, and the BBC, not so much good faith,
:13:43. > :13:47.but we like that, as good journalism. In this case, we know
:13:47. > :13:51.for sure, the BBC had investigated this mission Messham and his --
:13:51. > :13:55.Steve Messham, and his allegations on two separate occasions and found
:13:55. > :13:59.them wanting. If you go back to the original Waterhouse report, you
:14:00. > :14:04.will see references to his evidence as bordering on fantasy. It would
:14:04. > :14:08.have taken two or three phone calls to establish, not that there is
:14:08. > :14:12.anything wrong with this gentleman, he was seriously abuse, one can
:14:12. > :14:16.have nothing but genuine sympathy about him. But his story about Lord
:14:16. > :14:20.McAlpine, was simply groundless. It would have taken two phone calls to
:14:20. > :14:24.find that out. What about the BBC's defence, that because Lord McAlpine
:14:24. > :14:28.wasn't named in the report, that is different? I think that is
:14:28. > :14:31.preposterous. If they know it is Lord McAlpine. Remember the Bureau
:14:31. > :14:35.of Investigative Journalism tweeted earlier in the day, last Friday,
:14:35. > :14:38.implying, at least, they later apologised they didn't mean it,
:14:38. > :14:41.nevertheless, implying that the person would be named. There is no
:14:41. > :14:46.doubt, that everybody involved in this, knew that the person he was
:14:46. > :14:49.referring to was Lord McAlpine. Strictly speaking, there is no
:14:49. > :14:52.requirement to get an answer from Lord McAlpine, because you are not
:14:52. > :14:56.accusing him of anything. Not to have contacted him, to check the
:14:56. > :15:01.allegation, when you know that is who he's talking about is absurd.
:15:01. > :15:04.Let me make one other point, it is all very well to talk about trial
:15:04. > :15:08.by Twitter, this was trial by Newsnight. Newsnight has turned
:15:08. > :15:13.theself into the internet. It is not Twitter that broadcast this, it
:15:13. > :15:16.is not the Internet that broadcast this, it is the BBC's top nightly
:15:16. > :15:20.current affairs show. That is why, on the back of everything has
:15:20. > :15:28.happened, it is little short of a disaster. What people are asking
:15:28. > :15:32.out there is who is running this show, I don't just mean "this" show,
:15:32. > :15:36.I'm talking about "this" show. You are shaking your head? I feel like
:15:36. > :15:42.I have lived through some of this myself, on That's Life, we
:15:42. > :15:45.investigated a boys' boarding school, owned by a multi-
:15:45. > :15:50.millionaire paedophile, who employed three paedophile teachers.
:15:50. > :15:55.I can say that safely, because they all went to jail over it. We took
:15:55. > :15:58.six months over that investigation, and did so with a barrister, and
:15:58. > :16:02.the BBC in-house lawyers, checking every single stage of the
:16:02. > :16:08.investigation. Telling us, not asking us to drop it, as Newsnight
:16:08. > :16:12.was asked to drop the Savile investigation, but saying you need
:16:12. > :16:16.more evidence, you still need more evidence. The boys themselves had
:16:16. > :16:19.to sign affadavits, the barrister tests to see if their evidence
:16:19. > :16:22.would stand up in court, whether they would be good witnesses. When
:16:22. > :16:26.you make this kind of terribly serious allegation, the lawyers
:16:26. > :16:30.have to be part of your team. I don't know where they were with
:16:30. > :16:35.Newsnight. Either when they dropped the Savile thing, or when they
:16:35. > :16:39.broadcast the other. In a sense, in journalistic terms, this is almost
:16:39. > :16:43.a bigger clanger than the Savile question. In the Savile case.
:16:43. > :16:46.Newsnight has outdone itself? has outdone itself in terms of
:16:46. > :16:49.journalistic failure. At least in the Savile case, you can imagine
:16:49. > :16:53.reasons why the editor might have been nervous about the story. I'm
:16:53. > :16:57.not going to go into all the detail. As a former editor myself. I can
:16:57. > :17:00.imagine he may have felt this is not right, it is not quite ready
:17:00. > :17:04.yet. Why they didn't press on is another question. In that case you
:17:04. > :17:07.can see reasons why, reasons for uncertainty. In this case, two or
:17:07. > :17:11.three phone calls should have established that this man's story
:17:11. > :17:15.was not to be taken at face value. Richard Wortley, let me bring you
:17:15. > :17:19.in here, it is worth saying, that while all of our focus, a lot of
:17:19. > :17:23.the media's focus in recent weeks has been on celebrities, and
:17:23. > :17:26.alleged paedophile rings, for most children who are abuse, if that is
:17:26. > :17:35.our primary concern, they are not being abused by celebrities, are
:17:35. > :17:40.they? Not at all. The serious cases r we know that 95% of child sex
:17:40. > :17:46.abuse occurs between perpetrators and victims who know each other, or
:17:46. > :17:50.had preexisting relationships. About 60%, in fact, occur within
:17:50. > :17:58.the home. The other 35% between friends of the family or other
:17:58. > :18:00.acquaintances. So, it is very much the tale -- tail of the dog. Those
:18:00. > :18:04.children will already have great difficulty in thinking about
:18:04. > :18:10.speaking out. I wonder what effect do you think all of this will have
:18:10. > :18:14.on them? I don't think it will help them speak out. The reasons they
:18:14. > :18:17.don't speak out are very complex. It is not just fear, it can be fear,
:18:17. > :18:21.it can be concerns that they won't be believed. In many cases it is
:18:21. > :18:24.the fact that they are in a pre- existing authority relationship
:18:24. > :18:30.with the perpetrator. Often they don't understand they have been
:18:30. > :18:33.abused, or they can't separate out the abuse from normal parenting, or
:18:33. > :18:38.normal authority kinds of activities. For example they may be
:18:38. > :18:42.abused while being bathed. And it is difficult, they can also have
:18:42. > :18:47.feelings of loyalty towards the abuser. In fact, many cases, if the
:18:47. > :18:52.abuser is a parent or guardian, they love the guardian. In those
:18:52. > :18:55.circumstances, Esther Rantzen, what are those children supposed to do
:18:55. > :18:58.when they have seen all the Savile stuff, with children apparently
:18:58. > :19:05.being ignored. Then they have seen a man, who who was certainly abused,
:19:05. > :19:09.over a number of years in North Wales, getting involved in this
:19:09. > :19:15.media kerfuffle. Any child beg abused now, and whoever the abuse
:19:15. > :19:19.is why, I have had a child ringing ChildLine comaiing why she couldn't
:19:19. > :19:26.tell us where she was, she says I have two dadies, lovely and monster
:19:26. > :19:32.daddy, if I tell you where I am, you will take monster daddy away
:19:32. > :19:36.and lovely daddy too. They must speak out. We encourage them to
:19:36. > :19:40.speak to a trusted adult. That way we can stop the abuse, if it is mum,
:19:40. > :19:45.grandmother, if it is the parent of a friend. We can stop the abuse.
:19:45. > :19:50.What really concerns me, is that abuser doesn't go to trial, and
:19:50. > :19:56.what worries me most about all these stories, is that the reason
:19:56. > :20:00.the original disclosures about Savile didn't go to trial is that
:20:01. > :20:04.our adversarial court process militates so ferociously against a
:20:04. > :20:08.child. A barrister said to me, a defence barrister said to me, I
:20:08. > :20:18.don't care how great a monster my client s or what it takes to break
:20:18. > :20:22.down a child, it is my job to do it and I will. As long as we use our
:20:22. > :20:26.adversarial process to break down children, these disclosure won't
:20:26. > :20:29.come to court. On the journalism, this news that investigations are
:20:29. > :20:34.being suspended on Newsnight. You do wonder then what's the point of
:20:34. > :20:37.it. You will be left with the papers won't you? Sort of.
:20:37. > :20:41.Newsnight's stock in trade is discussion of topical issues. It
:20:41. > :20:45.has always had a tradition of doing filmed piece, but most of them are
:20:45. > :20:50.not, in that sense, investigations. It maybe the BBC will decide if it
:20:50. > :20:54.is going to do investigations, they should be on the radio, and
:20:54. > :20:57.Panorama on TV and you accumulate all the skills necessary to do
:20:57. > :21:01.there. One of the things that the review into the original Savile
:21:02. > :21:06.discussion will no doubt come across, is the sense in which, not
:21:06. > :21:11.with standing good faith all round, it was pretty mismanaged. Handling
:21:11. > :21:18.investigative journalism, from an editor's point of view, is never
:21:18. > :21:22.easy. And the reputation of the BBC in the toilet? Research this week
:21:22. > :21:27.shows that 76% of people asked did not trust senior BBC executives to
:21:27. > :21:30.tell the truth. That is a genuine shocker. On top of which, some
:21:30. > :21:40.ComRes research, always shown in answer to the question whether you
:21:40. > :21:42.
:21:42. > :21:46.trust the BBC, 60% yes, 30% now, 2009, 65/35, this time 47% yes, 47%
:21:46. > :21:52.no, first time the figures have reversed. On trust in the BBC?
:21:52. > :21:57.completely trust the BBC, only the BBC would call us together in a
:21:57. > :22:02.studio and say me cull pa in this way. I think the -- mea culpa in
:22:03. > :22:06.this way. I think the BBC makes fantastic decisions and programmes.
:22:06. > :22:09.Thank you very much. Here is something you don't hear every day,
:22:09. > :22:15.the Treasury has found some money down the of the sofa. Quite a lot
:22:15. > :22:19.of money. Not enough to let the good times roll, but enough to get
:22:19. > :22:23.Joe Lynaminto the studio. This money wasn't really found down the
:22:23. > :22:27.back of the sofa was it? We should start with the printing press. In
:22:27. > :22:31.order to stoke up the economy, the Bank of England was charged with
:22:31. > :22:35.creating money through quanative easing. It created �375 billion
:22:36. > :22:38.over the last few years. What it did of bought Government bonds from
:22:38. > :22:41.banks and pension funds and insurance companies and all that
:22:41. > :22:45.kind of stuff. With this new money. Attached to those Government bonds
:22:45. > :22:51.something that is called a coupon, which is an interest rate. An
:22:51. > :22:56.annual period. Couldn't you do with a graphic to illustrate this, did
:22:56. > :22:59.they close the graphic department down? We don't have the money, the
:22:59. > :23:02.cash pile went else where the coupon has to be repaid by the
:23:02. > :23:05.Government. Here is the funny bit. The Treasury, or the Government,
:23:05. > :23:09.has to borrow from the Bank of England in order to repay this
:23:09. > :23:12.coupon. The difference between what it borrows for, which is half of
:23:12. > :23:17.one per cent, the current bank rate, and what it has to pay on the
:23:17. > :23:22.coupon to the bonds is around 2%. That has built up what is called a
:23:22. > :23:25.cash pile or profit. What is happening now, is that cash pile
:23:25. > :23:29.will no longer necessarily just sit there in the Bank of England. The
:23:30. > :23:35.Treasury will continue to pay the coupon, but it will get a dere-
:23:35. > :23:39.bait every quarter. That is where the -- it will get a rebate every
:23:39. > :23:43.quarter. That is where the figures are massaged, it will help reduce
:23:43. > :23:46.the debt pile in the short-term. What can George Osborne do with
:23:46. > :23:50.this? Potentially very little. The only thing he can necessarily do,
:23:50. > :23:55.is when he stands up to make his Autumn Statement in three woke time,
:23:55. > :24:01.he can say his target of bending the debt curve downwards. That
:24:01. > :24:04.would have been a great graphic, is now on target. Had he not found �35
:24:04. > :24:08.billion, which is what we are talking with here, he might not
:24:08. > :24:14.necessarily have been able to say that. Labour are saying it is all
:24:14. > :24:18.smoke and mirrors, and us jaundiced journalist are saying why are you
:24:18. > :24:21.doing in the Autumn Statement. The Government say we are coming into
:24:22. > :24:25.line with the Japanese and Americans in our process. Let's see
:24:25. > :24:28.what the office for national statistic, and the independent
:24:28. > :24:33.Office for Budget Responsibility. The disease that came from the
:24:33. > :24:35.continent, and is killing our ash trees is here to stay. According to
:24:35. > :24:40.England's Environment Secretary. They will try to slow it down. They
:24:40. > :24:43.will try to reduce its impact. But the official view is it is not
:24:43. > :24:53.going away. We have been learning that ash trees may not be the only
:24:53. > :24:57.
:24:57. > :25:02.ones under threat. It's not just our ash trees that
:25:02. > :25:06.face an uncertain furtherure. Scientists say trees throughout --
:25:06. > :25:13.future, scientists say trees throughout our woodlands and cities
:25:13. > :25:16.face a threat from pests that is unprecedented in recent history.
:25:17. > :25:20.Today's focus has been on minimising the impact of the ash
:25:20. > :25:25.crisis. But that's just the latest in a wave of infections that
:25:25. > :25:30.threatens our trees. And the Government's being told, very
:25:30. > :25:38.firmly, by scientists, that if it doesn't get this right, then other
:25:38. > :25:42.species are at risk. The plain tree could be next.
:25:42. > :25:49.We are facing a major threat from this particular pathogen. Which has
:25:49. > :25:53.been in Italy for many years. But is now spreading quite rapidly
:25:53. > :25:59.through the plane trees in many parts of Europe. It is moving
:25:59. > :26:03.northwards in France, quite rapidly too. So heading our way in the near
:26:03. > :26:09.future. Over the past 40 years, the UK has seen tree infections and
:26:09. > :26:12.pests come to light at an increasing rate. Back in 1971, it
:26:12. > :26:17.was Dutch Elm disease, flash forward to the past decade, and the
:26:17. > :26:27.rate of infection has picked up. With a new disease or pest almost
:26:27. > :26:35.
:26:35. > :26:39.every year. The oak prosessionry We are certainly facing a massive
:26:39. > :26:44.threat from potentially damaging agents coming into Britain. Maybe
:26:45. > :26:51.some via Europe, some directly into Britain. And it has accelerated
:26:51. > :26:55.enormously in the last 10-20 years. The reason for that is almost
:26:55. > :26:59.certainly global trade in living plant material. Obviously we have
:26:59. > :27:03.done that for many years, but the scale of it now is absolutely vast.
:27:03. > :27:08.It is very difficult to even conceive of the number of plants
:27:08. > :27:11.that are coming into Europe every year. From all over the world.
:27:11. > :27:16.Environment Secretary said today he's taken on board the scale of
:27:16. > :27:21.the threat, and will spend more money to address it. He warns that
:27:21. > :27:24.other areas of his department's budget will be cut as a result. The
:27:24. > :27:27.UK's largest woodland conservation charity has been calling on the
:27:27. > :27:33.Government to do more. I think the Government is on the right lines.
:27:33. > :27:36.But I think there is a lot more it could do. Owen Patterson was
:27:36. > :27:40.talking this morning about a radical look at things, more
:27:40. > :27:43.resource, we need to see the colour of the money on. That we need to
:27:43. > :27:47.look clearly at how plants come into the country. The controls that
:27:47. > :27:51.they needing to through before they are imported. So we don't
:27:51. > :27:55.inadvertantly bring in diseases that are on continental imports.
:27:55. > :27:57.Others warned this week there is a risk of us dropping the ball on
:27:57. > :28:03.tree health. Expertise in our universities has run down in the
:28:03. > :28:06.past 20 years. We need a standing team of people who have the
:28:06. > :28:11.knowledge and experience built up over years, and continuous among
:28:11. > :28:15.them, to respond to unexpected things that happen. The analogy is
:28:15. > :28:18.with a fire brigade. You keep them there for when you have a fire. You
:28:18. > :28:22.don't sack them because you haven't had a fire for a year.
:28:22. > :28:26.Government said today that on ash, they are not going to chop down
:28:26. > :28:29.mature trees, but try to spot the ones that are resistant and build
:28:29. > :28:33.up a national stock from those. They also want a radical re-think
:28:33. > :28:39.on the way we protect our forests, and they have asked the task force
:28:39. > :28:43.of scientists to come up with the best way to do that. Steven
:28:43. > :28:47.Woodward is one of ten scientists on that task force. He's already
:28:47. > :28:51.clear what he wants the Government to do to protect our plane trees.
:28:51. > :28:57.would suggest an immediate ban on the import of plane trees and any
:28:57. > :29:01.material that is might carry the pathogen into the UK. In the longer
:29:01. > :29:07.term I would suggest that we need to develop quarantine facilities,
:29:07. > :29:10.so we can hold any plant material, trees and so on, in a secure
:29:10. > :29:14.facility for some considerable length of time, before it is
:29:15. > :29:19.actually allowed into the market place in the UK. We asked the
:29:19. > :29:29.Government's key adviser on plant health, if that is a good idea?
:29:29. > :29:30.
:29:30. > :29:33.need to look at all of the risk on the horizon, Chalara fraxinea has
:29:33. > :29:37.caught us by surprise. In the case of plane trees, we already have
:29:37. > :29:40.regulation in place. It is already one of the 250 organism listed in
:29:40. > :29:45.the EU plant health rules. There are measures already there. Which
:29:45. > :29:49.wasn't the case for Chalara fraxinea.
:29:49. > :29:52.On ash, there is at least some breathing space over winter. When
:29:52. > :29:58.infection slows, valuable time for the Government to make sure that
:29:58. > :30:04.the impact of this infection is minimised, and it looks beyond the
:30:04. > :30:08.immediate crisis, to prevent the devastation of other UK trees.
:30:08. > :30:13.Review is up next. Jo Whiley is in glass Government
:30:13. > :30:21.There is a rock 'n' roll vibe tonight, as we prepare to tackle
:30:21. > :30:25.books from legends of the 60s, Pete Townshend Mick Jagger, we are
:30:25. > :30:32.marking the 100 anniversary of Fabricio Coloccini. We look at the