:00:11. > :00:16.Beat in, math, beaten in reading, beaten in science, British teenagers
:00:17. > :00:21.are performing no better in school tests than they were six years ago.
:00:22. > :00:26.What's gone wrong? How is it that above average spending on education
:00:27. > :00:35.seems to be delivering no improvement in performance? This man
:00:36. > :00:39.invented modern British policing, we talk to his greatest fan, the top
:00:40. > :00:44.cop of New York and Los Angeles about how to restore confidence in
:00:45. > :00:52.the police. Do you love this country? Is there more than a whiff
:00:53. > :00:56.of McCarthyism in how the Guardian has blown state secrets. And what
:00:57. > :01:02.possesses someone to decide to climb up the outside of a skyscraper for
:01:03. > :01:07.fun? As long as nothing gets broken and you know, hopefully the police
:01:08. > :01:10.don't get called in and you don't waste their time and nobody gets
:01:11. > :01:22.hurt, then nothing has been affected. We're a nation of dunce,
:01:23. > :01:27.at least we are if you take seriously the figures produced in an
:01:28. > :01:30.international survey of teenage achievement in maths, science and
:01:31. > :01:34.reading. Let's ignore the fact that in these rankings Britain is ahead
:01:35. > :01:37.of the United States and most of Europe. Let's ignore too that to
:01:38. > :01:41.benefit from a Chinese education you would have to live in China. Let's
:01:42. > :01:46.content ourselves with the simple question, why are British children
:01:47. > :01:48.so dumb? Which is the interpretation being put on the figures by most of
:01:49. > :02:16.the political class of this country. Stuck? You're not the only one, in
:02:17. > :02:20.the latest international tests for 15-year-olds, UK results are at best
:02:21. > :02:27.stagnant. Standards in some other countries are improving much faster.
:02:28. > :02:31.The OECD calculates the tables based on results in math, reading and
:02:32. > :02:37.science. All three are dominated by south-east Asian countries. In maths
:02:38. > :02:43.the UK comes 26th out of 65. In reading, we're 23rd, in science
:02:44. > :02:55.we're 21st. We lag behind Estonia and Poland! In the Arc Chain of
:02:56. > :03:01.schools, children learn maths Singapore style. We learn from maths
:03:02. > :03:08.mastery and copied from the Singapore style, we focus on number
:03:09. > :03:13.drilling, not going out into algebra and having depth not breadth. We
:03:14. > :03:17.encourage our year seven students to explain what they are learning to
:03:18. > :03:20.one another, and explicitly say what they are learning and how they have
:03:21. > :03:25.done it. They have only just started secondary school, but these pupils
:03:26. > :03:28.know in adult life there will be a global market. When you compete with
:03:29. > :03:32.other people from all over the world, you don't know what their
:03:33. > :03:35.school has taught them or if it is different from you, you have to try
:03:36. > :03:39.hard in everything. Michael Gove is shaking up the education system in
:03:40. > :03:44.almost every way, he has brought in new kinds of school, new kinds of
:03:45. > :03:50.tests, even new kinds of teacher. The aim of this seemingly constant
:03:51. > :03:54.change is to improve the results of English schoolchildren, so they can
:03:55. > :04:01.compete on an increasingly global playing field. So, is there anything
:04:02. > :04:05.the UK can learn from the Ps of success, like Poland? You can look
:04:06. > :04:11.at our reforms and the way we not only change the curriculum but we
:04:12. > :04:16.also have the aligning it with the examination system. On the one side
:04:17. > :04:21.we give a lot of autonomy, a lot of freedom to teachers and to our
:04:22. > :04:25.schools, on the other side we clearly state the goals they have to
:04:26. > :04:30.achieve. Then we test whether they achieve these goals or not on
:04:31. > :04:34.national exams. That is another thing Michael Gove is changing. He
:04:35. > :04:39.said today these results justify his reforms. He's following the most
:04:40. > :04:43.successful countries. But Labour disagree, saying he had learned the
:04:44. > :04:49.wrong lessons. England's free schools were modelled on Sweden's.
:04:50. > :04:53.No other country has fallen so abruptly as Sweden in maths over a
:04:54. > :05:01.ten-year period. Across all three measures, reading, maths, science,
:05:02. > :05:06.since 2009 Sweden has performed very poorly indeed, and many in Sweden
:05:07. > :05:10.regard the ideolgical programme of unqualified teachers and unregulated
:05:11. > :05:14.free schools as responsible for their drop in standards. It is the
:05:15. > :05:17.DHEAS unfortunately in Sweden results have slid. But as I
:05:18. > :05:21.mentioned in my remarks earlier, what we need to do is not just grant
:05:22. > :05:25.greater autonomy, as they have to school leaders in Singapore and in
:05:26. > :05:29.Hong Kong, in South Korea and elsewhere, we also need a more
:05:30. > :05:35.rigorous system of accountability. In such a big complex international
:05:36. > :05:39.study, it is easy to cherrypick. I suppose it is an inevitable that
:05:40. > :05:42.politicians will want to pick out points that suit their particular
:05:43. > :05:44.agendas, for us it is really important that we look at both
:05:45. > :05:48.issues of teaching standards, as well as the structures in education,
:05:49. > :05:55.and that we also look at the impact on the least advantaged pupils as
:05:56. > :06:00.well as on the system as a whole. Describe -- many people say they are
:06:01. > :06:06.simply no good at maths as though it is an inate ability. In its own
:06:07. > :06:10.conclusions the OECD said that is simply not true. Getting maths right
:06:11. > :06:14.is mainly down to hard work and high expectations.
:06:15. > :06:23.With us to discuss all that is Christine Blower, General Secretary
:06:24. > :06:31.of the National Union of Teachers, Peter Hyman and Mark Lehane. Do you
:06:32. > :06:34.recognise the picture painted in the survey? I have been in state
:06:35. > :06:38.education for 11 years, some things have changed an awful lot. Some
:06:39. > :06:41.things haven't. And what I have talken out of what has come out
:06:42. > :06:44.today is things haven't changed, or are not showing through in the
:06:45. > :06:48.survey results yet. It is too soon to see a difference. Do you
:06:49. > :06:51.recognise the picture painted? What we have done well at is lifting the
:06:52. > :06:55.floor over the last ten or 15 years and making the worst schools better,
:06:56. > :06:59.we haven't had a wave of innovation. The danger is we have learned the
:07:00. > :07:04.wrong lessons from the Far East, we think it is about rote learning, and
:07:05. > :07:08.it may have been at one point, but they have learned and moved on and
:07:09. > :07:12.are becoming problem-solvers and creative at the point we were
:07:13. > :07:16.chasing what they are doing ten years ago. Coming to the question
:07:17. > :07:19.about how we teach as opposed to what we teach necessarily, it is an
:07:20. > :07:25.indictment of teachers this isn't it? No it isn't. If you actually
:07:26. > :07:32.look at the figures today maths results are up for the UK, they are
:07:33. > :07:36.at the OECD average, and we have got fewer low-performers and we have got
:07:37. > :07:40.about the OECD of high-performers. You are pleased with these? That is
:07:41. > :07:45.not to say that schools can't improve things. We are essentially a
:07:46. > :07:52.self-improving profession. But it is just wrong to say that we stagnate
:07:53. > :07:57.or dropped. We are 26th in maths? Yes, and we used to be 28th. That is
:07:58. > :08:01.good is it? It is improving, it is not stagnating and not getting
:08:02. > :08:06.worse. Peter is right that actually what we really need to be doing is
:08:07. > :08:10.encouraging problem solving and creativity rather than rote
:08:11. > :08:16.learning. There is place for rote learning but it isn't the be all and
:08:17. > :08:21.end all of teaching. It doesn't measure literature or writing,
:08:22. > :08:24.creativity, which isn't to say maths and science aren't important, of
:08:25. > :08:28.course they are, but there is a broader picture here as well. There
:08:29. > :08:32.are a range of international surveys done every so often, there is some
:08:33. > :08:36.students that I taught a few years ago took part in that. They measure
:08:37. > :08:40.quite a narrow range of things. When you look across those, the general
:08:41. > :08:43.picture we have seen is gentle decline, that is fair to say, or a
:08:44. > :08:50.steady state. That's not good enough. As I say to the students at
:08:51. > :08:55.my school, you can employ in China a tri-lingual graduate for the same
:08:56. > :08:59.cost as someone stacking shelves in Bedford for Tesco, if we want to
:09:00. > :09:06.keep jobs in the country there is no point in being in the middle we have
:09:07. > :09:11.to be in the top 10%. We have had a catch-up policy not a get out there
:09:12. > :09:15.model. What is fascinating is the next survey in 2015 will measure
:09:16. > :09:20.collaborative probl solving. You may ask how will they do that. But Pisa
:09:21. > :09:26.has caught up with the way the world is going. That is the table, the
:09:27. > :09:30.Mecca? We are getting more traditional about measuring exam,
:09:31. > :09:33.Pisa is saying they want collaboration to be measured,
:09:34. > :09:36.creativity and problem solving. That is the right way of going. You
:09:37. > :09:42.expect a better result? Only if we follow that. Only if we don't go in
:09:43. > :09:47.the reverse direction. But the other thing is the very figures themselves
:09:48. > :09:52.are contested. If you had on for example Martin Steven, the former
:09:53. > :09:57.High Master of St Paul's, he would say the basic methodology is flawed,
:09:58. > :10:00.because actually there are children in all jurisdictions that don't
:10:01. > :10:05.answer all the questions and make assessments of what they might have
:10:06. > :10:07.said. It is from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
:10:08. > :10:12.Development isn't it? But the fact is it is open to contest. What is
:10:13. > :10:16.true is people do teach to the test in other countries, perhaps we
:10:17. > :10:20.should, but we don't. Is that one of the things that has gone wrong with
:10:21. > :10:25.education in this country, teachers teaching to the tests? If you have
:10:26. > :10:29.high-stakes tests then you would expect teachers to do that because
:10:30. > :10:33.there is a survival mechanism. Also they don't want the children to fail
:10:34. > :10:35.do they. All I would say is Peter says we have been getting more
:10:36. > :10:39.traditional in approaches to teaching and what we are covering. I
:10:40. > :10:43.know the reason why Peter set up his school and the teachers behind my
:10:44. > :10:47.school in Bedford set up the school, we think you can have your cake and
:10:48. > :10:51.eat it, you can have a traditional and core approach to the basics and
:10:52. > :10:55.blow open and be radical in how you address other things. That is
:10:56. > :10:58.exactly what we are doing at Bedford Free School, that is one of the
:10:59. > :11:03.things you will hopefully see it again when they do this again in
:11:04. > :11:08.2015 and 2018, a lot of the reforms you will see the benefits coming to
:11:09. > :11:12.fruition then. The National Union of Teachers thinks all schools should
:11:13. > :11:14.have that level of curriculum and autonomy, you shouldn't have to be a
:11:15. > :11:18.free school or academy. It is important that all schools and
:11:19. > :11:23.teachers are trusted to develop the curriculum. That way you do get a
:11:24. > :11:27.multiple approach. I don't think there is anything we are doing at
:11:28. > :11:30.our school, School 21 that couldn't have been done in my last school, a
:11:31. > :11:34.Community School. We are working on well being of the students, their
:11:35. > :11:37.oral communication, we are working on project-based learning, which
:11:38. > :11:41.means giving real tasks to student that is have value in the real
:11:42. > :11:44.world. I hope you are being engaged with the community, that is an
:11:45. > :11:47.important aspect. A lot of the projects are out in the community.
:11:48. > :11:51.One of the big changes we are seeing is not just what we are teaching, it
:11:52. > :11:55.is easier for new entrants to come into local areas and shake things up
:11:56. > :11:59.where they are needed, we are doing that Bedford. Hopefully that will
:12:00. > :12:03.spread those ideas further afield. I do d'oh any of you have an
:12:04. > :12:06.opportunity to have comparison with, you could benefit from Chinese
:12:07. > :12:10.education but you have to live in China, a bit of a downside many
:12:11. > :12:14.people might think. There are cultural differences, absolutely,
:12:15. > :12:17.between living here and China. There are a few things Chinese people are
:12:18. > :12:21.doing over here. What about your kids and how they behave or whether
:12:22. > :12:24.they will be happier or more successful adults than children
:12:25. > :12:28.being raised in South Korea or Singapore or Taiwan or wherever it
:12:29. > :12:34.is? It is balance of these qualities, the child suicide rates
:12:35. > :12:37.are very high in some of those countries. You want the balance of
:12:38. > :12:41.happiness and well being in the child, the rounded child, but also
:12:42. > :12:45.academic success. Ironically given how badly we have done on some other
:12:46. > :12:52.scales for happiness for children. In these OECD studies it does show
:12:53. > :12:56.that children in the UK are generally, generally feeling happy
:12:57. > :13:01.at school. Now actually children from low socioeconomic groups tend
:13:02. > :13:06.to feel less happy in school, and that's a big issue. Actually if you
:13:07. > :13:10.strip out social class, children in these studies are doing as well in
:13:11. > :13:15.state schools as they are in private schools. So you know, it is true
:13:16. > :13:20.that social class and socioeconomic status in families does make a
:13:21. > :13:27.difference to children's capacity. What has been shown in recent
:13:28. > :13:31.history is the difference in ambition and aspiration, but in
:13:32. > :13:35.cultures where education is seen as the key thing to do and families
:13:36. > :13:38.invest in it, they do very well. In those countries hard work is
:13:39. > :13:43.rewarded n this country we still have an ethos that the talented
:13:44. > :13:47.amateur is the person to tell blat, wherein -- celebrate, with where as
:13:48. > :13:52.in those countries they believe hard work. It is the idea you are not
:13:53. > :13:58.bornal leapted but you work to become successful. The talented
:13:59. > :14:02.amateur is Michael Gove's idea for teachers, we believe teachers to
:14:03. > :14:14.have proper status and to be properly trained.
:14:15. > :14:21.We had to move fast to get off the bridge. Yet another day passed today
:14:22. > :14:24.without the former International Development Secretary getting his
:14:25. > :14:31.job back, as things stand at present, it is the police whose
:14:32. > :14:35.reputation has suffered most in the called "plebgate affair". The
:14:36. > :14:38.current Police Commissioner in post hasn't had the happiest times of
:14:39. > :14:44.command. How different it would have been if the rules had allowed the
:14:45. > :14:50.much more charismatic Bill Bratton from the New York and Los Angeles
:14:51. > :14:57.police department to be in charge, as was wanted. Bill Bratton's policy
:14:58. > :15:00.of "zero tolerance" in the mid-1990s revolutionised attitudes to law
:15:01. > :15:04.enforcement and made him the most sought after police boss in the
:15:05. > :15:09.world. The idea, based on an academic theory known as "broken
:15:10. > :15:15.windows" was that if you concentrate on reducing relatively minor
:15:16. > :15:19.anti-social offences, a reduction in the major would follow. Working
:15:20. > :15:24.alongside the mayor, crime fell by a third and the murder rate was
:15:25. > :15:27.halved. Mr Bratton then successfully transferred the policy to Los
:15:28. > :15:33.Angeles, and there are now suggestions that the new Democrat
:15:34. > :15:37.Mayor of New York may be about to ask him to return for another run.
:15:38. > :15:41.But could we see his services being used on this side of the Atlantic,
:15:42. > :15:48.after riots across the country over the summer of 2011, Bill Bratton
:15:49. > :15:52.advised David Cameron on urban and gang violence. The Prime Minister
:15:53. > :15:56.was even keen for him to become the Met Police Commissioner, the rules
:15:57. > :15:59.at the time stated only British citizens could do the job. Now there
:16:00. > :16:06.are plans to change that and to bring in talent from outside the UK.
:16:07. > :16:09.The current Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard
:16:10. > :16:13.Hogan-Howe's term is up in 2016, which brings the Government plenty
:16:14. > :16:19.of time to put the new legislation on the statute book. What would Bill
:16:20. > :16:23.Bratton do to restore public trust in the police? Bill Bratton will
:16:24. > :16:28.tell us now, I hope, he will join us from his old patch in New York City.
:16:29. > :16:33.How do you, Mr Bratton, go about restoring confidence in the police?
:16:34. > :16:39.Good evening. I think that first and foremost you need transparency,
:16:40. > :16:43.policing for much of its history has been some what hidden behind the
:16:44. > :16:47.blue wall, if you will. Increasingly the more successful police
:16:48. > :16:53.departments, the more successful police leaders have embraced
:16:54. > :16:57.transparency. The idea of opening up their organisations to greater
:16:58. > :17:01.collaboration with their communities, with their political
:17:02. > :17:04.leadership. And the term "collaboration" is one that I
:17:05. > :17:07.certainly embrace and I would hope have modelled in the organisations
:17:08. > :17:13.that I have been privileged to lead over the last number of years. But
:17:14. > :17:17.when you get an apparent distinction between public interest and police
:17:18. > :17:20.interest, it is the absolute opposite of what you are talking
:17:21. > :17:26.about isn't it? Well, interestingly enough, the founder of modern
:17:27. > :17:32.policing, Sir Robert Peel, basically his nine principles of policing
:17:33. > :17:39.which, they are my Bible! They are as good now as they were in the
:17:40. > :17:42.1800. They are all about the idea of rather than seeing the two as
:17:43. > :17:46.separate, the idea again of providing platform where they can
:17:47. > :17:49.join and collaberate. So that the two, when they go their separate
:17:50. > :17:54.ways that is when you have your problems. You mentioned the
:17:55. > :18:00.transferability across the Atlantic of his principles to your country,
:18:01. > :18:06.what about, any object lessons you could have brought from the United
:18:07. > :18:11.States, New York, or Los Angeles to Britain? Well in the introduction to
:18:12. > :18:16.this piece that there was an error that I would like to correct, that
:18:17. > :18:20.the emphasis on "zero tolerance" as you referred to "broken windows"
:18:21. > :18:25.policing and "zero tolerance" in your country. That in and of itself
:18:26. > :18:28.will not solve any issue, either public satisfaction with the police
:18:29. > :18:32.or police effectiveness. What we did not do in this country which, I
:18:33. > :18:36.would argue you did not do in your country also was understand that you
:18:37. > :18:41.couldn't just focus on serious crimes and neglect the minor crimes,
:18:42. > :18:46.that is effectively what happened in my country in the 70s and 80, and as
:18:47. > :18:52.I have come to understand the situation in your country. You went
:18:53. > :18:58.the same thing, you began depolicing the enforcement of mine in the
:18:59. > :19:03.streets, which was what Sir Robert Peel was all about when he created a
:19:04. > :19:07.bobby, the police presence in the streets to prevent crime. You won't
:19:08. > :19:11.prevent crime by just looking at serious crime, it is looking at what
:19:12. > :19:16.causes it over time and what is neglected. It is what happens when
:19:17. > :19:21.the small crime is neglected the criminal feels embolden to commit
:19:22. > :19:25.big crime. It is amazing to read those principles about how right he
:19:26. > :19:30.had it then and they are appropriate for 21st century policing, whether
:19:31. > :19:35.in my country or yours. What about the minor crimes in this country
:19:36. > :19:43.that they are not cracking down on? My sense is the hooliganism, the
:19:44. > :19:47.term he used, the idea of the rowdiness associated with the
:19:48. > :19:53.emptying of the pubs at a certain time. My personal issue with
:19:54. > :19:57.graffiti, unchecked graph feety not covered over very quick -- graffiti,
:19:58. > :20:01.not covered over more quickly or dealt with quickly. I think your
:20:02. > :20:04.issues are the same as the American issues, the sense that when the
:20:05. > :20:09.public feels that the police are not dealing with things that are making
:20:10. > :20:13.them fearful. Whether it is aggressive begs, whether it is use
:20:14. > :20:19.of narcotics and open view, whether it is street prostitution. These are
:20:20. > :20:23.often times described as victimless crimes, the idea that there is not a
:20:24. > :20:27.victim, that the person seeking the services of the prostitute, the
:20:28. > :20:31.person spray-painting graffiti or smoking a joint in public, the
:20:32. > :20:34.victim may not be an individual, the victim is society. The victim is the
:20:35. > :20:39.neighbourhood and the community, the victim is the city. And there is no
:20:40. > :20:44.place more emblematic of that than New York City in the 1980s, where
:20:45. > :20:49.for 20 years all that type of anti-social behaviour was not dealt
:20:50. > :20:52.with by the police. And the public began to lose trust in the police,
:20:53. > :20:56.began to lose trust in Government. Then it was compounded by, in our
:20:57. > :21:00.case in the United States because of the gun violence that is so
:21:01. > :21:04.prevalent here. The horrific violent crime, the combination of the two
:21:05. > :21:07.together left unaddressed successfully, led to a great loss of
:21:08. > :21:11.faith in policing and Government. Would you like to come over to
:21:12. > :21:16.London and do what you did in New York? It remains to be seen. I
:21:17. > :21:18.happen to be a good friend and admirer of your current
:21:19. > :21:22.commissioner. I think that some of the recent statistics that I have
:21:23. > :21:27.seen have been produced by the Met, very promising. Understanding that
:21:28. > :21:33.you have got political issues that are being wrestled with at this time
:21:34. > :21:37.over there that I made it quite well known that at some point in my life
:21:38. > :21:40.if the position were to open that would be certainly something I would
:21:41. > :21:44.take a look at. The position is not open and is not likely to open for a
:21:45. > :21:48.few years, in the meantime I think you have g somebody in position
:21:49. > :21:54.there doing a pretty God job. Thank you very much indeed. An
:21:55. > :21:59.individual, a committee of politicians and the question "do you
:22:00. > :22:04.love this country"? It sounds like Senator Joe McCarthy, and his
:22:05. > :22:09.un-American activities commission. It wasn't, it was the chairman of
:22:10. > :22:14.the Home Affairs Select Committee, the never knowingly understated Vaz,
:22:15. > :22:18.having a go at the editor of the Guardian, talking about the evidence
:22:19. > :22:21.stolen by Edward Snowden. He replied that the newspaper loved the country
:22:22. > :22:25.and was trying to defend its democratic values. It wasn't only Mr
:22:26. > :22:31.Vaz asking him challenging questions, here is a flavour of the
:22:32. > :22:35.exchanges. Some of the criticisms against you in the Guardian have
:22:36. > :22:42.been very, very personal, you and I were both born outside this country
:22:43. > :22:48.but I love this country, do you love this country? How do you answer
:22:49. > :22:52.that? We live in a democracy. Most of the people working on this story
:22:53. > :22:56.are British people who have families in this country who love this
:22:57. > :23:01.country. I'm slightly surprised to be asked the question, but yes we
:23:02. > :23:05.are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature
:23:06. > :23:08.of the democracy and the nature of a free press and the fact that one
:23:09. > :23:12.can, in this country, discuss and report these things. It isn't only
:23:13. > :23:16.about what you have published it is about what you have communicated.
:23:17. > :23:21.That is what amounts or can amount to a criminal offence. You have
:23:22. > :23:27.caused the communication of secret documents. We classify things as
:23:28. > :23:32."secret" and "top secret" in this country for a reason, not to hide
:23:33. > :23:34.them from the Guardian but from those who harm us. You have
:23:35. > :23:39.communecated those documents. Is that a question? If you had known
:23:40. > :23:43.about the enigma code during World War II would you have transmitted
:23:44. > :23:47.that information to the Nazis. That is a well worn red herring if you
:23:48. > :23:51.don't mind me saying so. We invited the chairman of that committee and
:23:52. > :23:56.the man who asked Mr Rusbridger if he loves his country to tell us why
:23:57. > :23:59.he had asked the question. At first he said yes, and then he changed his
:24:00. > :24:04.mind and decided he couldn't make it afterall. We are joined by two other
:24:05. > :24:09.members of the committee, the Lib Dem Julian Huppert, and the
:24:10. > :24:13.Conservative Mark Reckless. What did you think when the question was
:24:14. > :24:17.asked? I was some what surprised by it, I don't think it gets to the
:24:18. > :24:20.heart of the issue. There is a huge issue about the surveillance, and it
:24:21. > :24:23.is amazing while there is debate in Germany and the US and around the
:24:24. > :24:29.rest of the world, here is the mobiling cuss of what did the
:24:30. > :24:34.Guardian do. I don't agree with the Guardian in much of what it writes
:24:35. > :24:39.but I wouldn't question that. Why do you think the question was asked? I
:24:40. > :24:45.don't know, I thought it was certainly interesting, it prompted a
:24:46. > :24:50.lot of coverage. What did you think, could you see why it was asked. Was
:24:51. > :24:56.anyone going to answer "no I don't love my country". It was an odd
:24:57. > :25:00.question but it was an odd session. There is this question of what
:25:01. > :25:03.exactly happened. We had the discussion about whether the
:25:04. > :25:09.Guardian broke the Fedex terms and conditions. That is a shame, we are
:25:10. > :25:13.going to have the head of MI 5 to give evidence to our committee. The
:25:14. > :25:16.real question is what can they do and what difference will it make,
:25:17. > :25:20.and how can they do their job properly without invading everyone's
:25:21. > :25:23.privacy. A lot of people from a foreign country would have found it
:25:24. > :25:27.strange that here you are haul anything a newspaper editor instead
:25:28. > :25:30.of asking why were the intelligence agencies up to what they were
:25:31. > :25:33.clearly up to? The Guardian has asked those questions, and I'm not
:25:34. > :25:37.calling into question the editorial judgment it has made. What I'm
:25:38. > :25:40.concerned about is how it has treated the information, whether it
:25:41. > :25:43.has applied the appropriate security, and in particular it seems
:25:44. > :25:48.to have communicated that information about members of
:25:49. > :25:52.Intelligence Services overseas and it appears three different
:25:53. > :25:56.circumstances. I just wonder if that's put potentially our agents,
:25:57. > :26:01.employees of the services into danger and whether the Guardian
:26:02. > :26:04.really needed to transfer, to communicate that information
:26:05. > :26:07.overseas in the way it did. Do you think an offence has been committed?
:26:08. > :26:11.It may well have been. So should there be a prosecution? I think the
:26:12. > :26:14.offence has been committed in terms of the communication of the data
:26:15. > :26:18.about members of the Intelligence Services, I think it could be useful
:26:19. > :26:21.to people who might be concerned in terrorism. The question is, whether
:26:22. > :26:25.the Guardian was justified in doing that, and whether it would be a
:26:26. > :26:30.public interest in prosecution. That is a matter for the CPS. The issue
:26:31. > :26:33.wasn't, was what the Guardian published in the public interest,
:26:34. > :26:37.but was it the way it treated the information in the public interest.
:26:38. > :26:42.In particular transferring 50 thousand miles to the New York Times
:26:43. > :26:47.and this issue about James Miranda on his games console going ow over
:26:48. > :26:53.to Rio and other information Fedexed. Why was the Guardian doing
:26:54. > :26:56.that with members of the Intelligence Services. There clearly
:26:57. > :26:59.an offence committed under the Terrorism Act? I don't think it is,
:27:00. > :27:07.because the section referred to in the session actually has a specific
:27:08. > :27:11.clause 583, which says it is not an offence if there is an excuse. I
:27:12. > :27:16.think an international news story would count as a reasonable excuse.
:27:17. > :27:21.I think the Guardian has been really careful. The NSA had all of this
:27:22. > :27:25.information, 58,000 files containing names and other information, yet a
:27:26. > :27:30.contractor with little seniority was able to get hold of it and take it
:27:31. > :27:34.away. There were 850 thousand people with access of t the question is how
:27:35. > :27:40.the NSA lost so much data, any of the other thousands of people could
:27:41. > :27:43.have sent it directly to people who could do us harm. Mobiling cussing
:27:44. > :27:47.on the Guardian is missing the key point. The key point is we know far
:27:48. > :27:54.more about what is happening in our name. This needs to be discussing.
:27:55. > :27:59.That what are the rules, we benefit massively from the Intelligence
:28:00. > :28:04.Service,s what are the limits, what is OK to do and what is not. Isn't
:28:05. > :28:09.it amazing that 850,000 people had access to this information? I'm not
:28:10. > :28:11.sure what that exact number is or how much that information was
:28:12. > :28:15.available and how easily to those people. But I am concerned that the
:28:16. > :28:19.information has been sent to a number of different countries, a
:28:20. > :28:23.number of different organisations, by the Guardian, and the security of
:28:24. > :28:27.that information may not be what it needs to be. In particular that
:28:28. > :28:31.foreign countries and their Intelligence Services may now have
:28:32. > :28:36.access to who our agents are in way they didn't before. That is an
:28:37. > :28:39.issue. The Guardian should assist the Security Services about what
:28:40. > :28:42.information was transferred and who the individuals were, so if
:28:43. > :28:46.necessary they can be protected. That is one point. I think it raises
:28:47. > :28:49.issues about the Intelligence Services, how there is oversight of
:28:50. > :28:54.that. I think it would be important in parliament to elect at least the
:28:55. > :28:58.subject of vetting, and the chairman and members of that Intelligence
:28:59. > :29:02.Committee who oversee these matters so we can be sure that actually the
:29:03. > :29:06.way they are looking at intelligence, and Julian and I may
:29:07. > :29:11.disagree about this, I may lean more to allowing the services to keep us
:29:12. > :29:15.safe by overseeing the information and seeing if there is suspicious
:29:16. > :29:21.patterns in it. I think parliament should decide and monitor the
:29:22. > :29:24.appropriate limits. By common consent the biggest threat to the
:29:25. > :29:28.spirit of world sport comes from the chemistry laboratories, the problem
:29:29. > :29:32.has been around for the best part of 50 years or so. Now the man at the
:29:33. > :29:34.head of the international organisation responsible foreign
:29:35. > :29:39.suring all sporting competition measures talent rather than who can
:29:40. > :29:44.most successfully get around drugs bans is a 7 #-year-old former bad
:29:45. > :29:52.minute done player, Sir Craig Reedie. I will talk to him shortly.
:29:53. > :29:57.First we have this report. Fast e higher, stronger. Mankind has always
:29:58. > :30:01.sought to perform to the best of its sporting ability. With that desire
:30:02. > :30:06.comes the temptation to gain an advantage, any advantage and emerge
:30:07. > :30:12.at the top of the pod come. Those who seek to cheat are using
:30:13. > :30:17.ever-more efforts to evade the testers. With the world anti-doping
:30:18. > :30:21.authority recognising the need for effective strategies to uncover
:30:22. > :30:24.those breaking the rules has never been more needed. I believe we are
:30:25. > :30:29.doing a vast Himont to keep sport clean. We shouldn't be -- amount to
:30:30. > :30:33.keep sport clean, we shouldn't be complacent. What we need in the
:30:34. > :30:37.deterrent effect is to make sure there is a good risk of the athlete
:30:38. > :30:41.being sampled, that the doping control officer will come and knock
:30:42. > :30:45.on the door and ask for a sample to be collected. And the methods of
:30:46. > :30:51.detection are as sensitive as we can make it. Sports Hall of Fame has big
:30:52. > :30:57.names again it, Lance Armstrong admitted earlier this year he used
:30:58. > :31:01.doping in his victories, tripped of his title, he's attempting to
:31:02. > :31:08.convince authorities he should be allowed back from the ban. Asafa
:31:09. > :31:12.Powell produced a positive test in July. Last week the entire board of
:31:13. > :31:17.the Jamaican anti-doping body resonde. That follows concerns by
:31:18. > :31:21.one doping executive that one out of competition test had been conducted
:31:22. > :31:25.in the six months prior to the London 2012 Olympics. Six Jamaican
:31:26. > :31:29.athletes have tested positive this year. With the Government there
:31:30. > :31:35.promising to back and restore confidence in the anti-doping
:31:36. > :31:38.programme. The London 2012 Olympics were for hundreds of athletes the
:31:39. > :31:42.pinnacle of their sporting career. It was here in East London and
:31:43. > :31:46.venues across the UK that some of the drama only sport can provide was
:31:47. > :31:49.played out. Now only a handful of athletes were caught using
:31:50. > :31:55.performance-enhancing drugs during the games themselves. Now a new
:31:56. > :32:02.casting method threatens to expose those who cheated but went
:32:03. > :32:07.undetected. The samples from the winter Olympics in Turin have been
:32:08. > :32:10.ordered to be unfrozen and examined. The warning is sooner or later you
:32:11. > :32:15.will be caught, even if it is some years after the event itself. We
:32:16. > :32:17.have electronic files on data collected during the Olympics, we
:32:18. > :32:21.have the possibility of going back simply on our electronic records to
:32:22. > :32:27.look for substances we may not have thought of. The idea is to say if
:32:28. > :32:31.you are taking drugs and we collect a sample from you, we will catch
:32:32. > :32:36.you. Nicola Adams know what it takes to win and win clean, Sheehy merged
:32:37. > :32:40.as one of the stars for 2012 for Team GB walking away with gold. Now
:32:41. > :32:45.like many she wants to know with confidence that her opponents are
:32:46. > :32:51.drug-free. I would hate to think I lost a competition to somebody who
:32:52. > :32:57.cheated. I go in there 100% all me. I go to compete and win and I like
:32:58. > :33:02.to think that everybody else, my opponents are doing exactly the same
:33:03. > :33:06.I am. Sir Craig Reedie, a leading figure within the British Olympic
:33:07. > :33:11.movement for many years will lead the doping agency. At 72 he
:33:12. > :33:16.acknowledges this is his final role in sports governance. Can he
:33:17. > :33:21.strengthen the global effort to combat an issue that threatens
:33:22. > :33:25.integrity and soul of sport but its very future too.
:33:26. > :33:30.Sir Craig Reedie joins us now from our Glasgow studio. Is this a
:33:31. > :33:34.problem, drug use in sport, that is getting worse? I would like to think
:33:35. > :33:37.that it isn't. I would like to think that it's getting marginally better,
:33:38. > :33:42.but I'm not niave enough to believe that we can win, absolutely. The
:33:43. > :33:46.problem will not go away. As one of your speakers there said it has been
:33:47. > :33:50.around for 50 years. I think there is evidence that we are beginning to
:33:51. > :33:56.get on top of it, the London Games was a good example. But it wasn't so
:33:57. > :34:00.much the very few people who were tested and caught positive during
:34:01. > :34:05.the games, it was the very sophisticated pre-games operation
:34:06. > :34:09.which was run by the IOC and the UK Anti-Doping Agency. Which I think
:34:10. > :34:12.encouraged somewhere over 30 athletes didn't appear in London at
:34:13. > :34:16.all. I think that's rather encouraging. You raised the question
:34:17. > :34:21.at the London Olympic Games there, given that there are samples and
:34:22. > :34:26.they are now capable of being analysed for presence of drugs maybe
:34:27. > :34:30.six months before the test was carried out. Frozen samples, do you
:34:31. > :34:38.think that they should be re-examined now, maybe even the
:34:39. > :34:41.Beijing Olympics too? There is a of limitations under the standard
:34:42. > :34:46.anti-doping codes which is eight years. Let's talk about the IOC they
:34:47. > :34:51.have a period of eight iritis within which they can retest frozen sample,
:34:52. > :34:57.that period under the new code will be extended to ten years. As one of
:34:58. > :35:02.your speakers said technology gets better, testing gets better and we
:35:03. > :35:06.are able to turn around to athletes and say if you cheat now we may well
:35:07. > :35:10.be able to test you at a later date and catch you when the technology
:35:11. > :35:14.gets better. And it wouldn't surprise me at all that London
:35:15. > :35:18.samples wouldn't be tested eight years from the London Games. Do you
:35:19. > :35:23.think they should be tested? I do, I think it is a major, major
:35:24. > :35:28.deterrent, at the end of the day the whole object of this exercise is to
:35:29. > :35:32.protect the clean athlete. I spent most of my sporting life trying to
:35:33. > :35:37.promote sport to young people, and I need people to believe, athletes to
:35:38. > :35:41.believe it is clean. I think this is a very good way of doing it. Not all
:35:42. > :35:47.samples are retested. They are done on a selected basis. And I mean
:35:48. > :35:50.London took somewhere around about 5,300 sample, it would be really
:35:51. > :35:56.over the top to test them all. But I think a reasonable selection will be
:35:57. > :36:01.tested at a future date in the knowledge of better testing
:36:02. > :36:05.procedures. That would mean the theoretical possibility that some
:36:06. > :36:08.medallists in the London Games could be tripped of their medals?.
:36:09. > :36:12.Absolutely, and the IOC have struggled with that regularly over
:36:13. > :36:16.the last five or six years, ever since the policy started. We have
:36:17. > :36:21.had medals returned to us, and they have been medals reawarded, they are
:36:22. > :36:25.done under the main, in the main under the rules of the international
:36:26. > :36:29.sports federation. The IOC would cancel a medal award and reallocate
:36:30. > :36:34.it. But, yes, that is entirely possible. I hope that too is a
:36:35. > :36:41.sanction. I'm sure you are a very fit and robust man, but do you feel
:36:42. > :36:45.tough enough for this job? It is an intellectual challenge. If you spent
:36:46. > :36:51.all your days trying to encourage people to do things, you now take up
:36:52. > :36:57.the heading of an organisation which in many ways tells people what not
:36:58. > :37:05.to do. You know, officials in the anti-doping community in some ways
:37:06. > :37:09.are policemen. That is a tough role. But at the end of the day if we
:37:10. > :37:12.can't be seen to win this battle then young people will not be
:37:13. > :37:16.encouraged to take part in sport, and people who watch it will
:37:17. > :37:20.question the validity of it. We will not have again the bonders of the
:37:21. > :37:23.London Olympic Games which I thought were outstanding for everybody who
:37:24. > :37:28.took part and certainly everybody who watched them. Thank you very
:37:29. > :37:31.much for joining us, thank you. Now for a strange dark side of our
:37:32. > :37:37.national life that most of us never see, and it is not the parliament
:37:38. > :37:41.channel! Urban exploring is the strictly unlicensed pursuit of going
:37:42. > :37:46.into places where you are not really meant to be, sewers, derelict
:37:47. > :37:52.buildings, or to the top of sky scrapers without taking a lift. Are
:37:53. > :37:56.these intrepid types taking a stand against property lying idle or
:37:57. > :38:02.surveillance culture or are they troublemakers going where they are
:38:03. > :38:07.not wanted. Stephen Smith has made it a habit of working completely in
:38:08. > :38:11.the dark. Don't try this at home. How are you feeling? I'm loving
:38:12. > :38:14.this, it doesn't get any better. Any plans for the weekend, or are you
:38:15. > :38:36.just hanging out? Oh my God. If you haven't
:38:37. > :38:40.encountered it before, this is the high-adrenaline, high-rise and
:38:41. > :38:47.high-stakes past time of urban exploring. Taking the fresh air
:38:48. > :38:55.route up the side of the Shard in London, for example, the tallest
:38:56. > :39:09.building in Europe. Newsnight went out for a night on the town in
:39:10. > :39:13.London with with Bradley Garrett, university person during the day and
:39:14. > :39:17.explorer at night. We see the skyline behind us, what do you see,
:39:18. > :39:20.a jungle gym, a world of opportunities, what is it? It is a
:39:21. > :39:25.realm of possibility and opportunity. Over the past four
:39:26. > :39:28.years we have climbed almost every major construction project in the
:39:29. > :39:33.city. We have climbed the Walkie Talkie building, the Cheese Grater,
:39:34. > :39:37.Heron Tower, there is something really enticing about walking into a
:39:38. > :39:40.building and kind of unravelling its history one thread at a time and
:39:41. > :39:50.trying to piece together the history of that place on your own. Paris,
:39:51. > :39:54.why go potholing on some lonely moor when you could go spelunking through
:39:55. > :40:05.the French sewers instead, like Bradley and friends. For the urban
:40:06. > :40:11.explorer half the fun is posting images like this on-line once you
:40:12. > :40:20.make it back, assuming you do. Injury and worse goes with the
:40:21. > :40:24.unauthorised territory. This is the Forth Bridge as you have never seen
:40:25. > :40:29.it before, filmed from a element-mounted camera as urban
:40:30. > :40:33.explorers shuffle across its mighty arches on their back sides. We did
:40:34. > :40:37.have a bit of a scare about three-quarters of the way down the
:40:38. > :40:41.bridge when it started raining, we had to move fast to get off the
:40:42. > :40:45.bridge, you don't want to be stuck on a bridge when it is raining.
:40:46. > :40:49.Bradley Garrett can't be prosecuted for trespass as it is not a criminal
:40:50. > :40:52.offence in the UK. Though he and others have appeared in court
:40:53. > :40:57.charged with criminal damage, following an alleged incident on the
:40:58. > :41:06.underground. What would you say to people who say what business is it
:41:07. > :41:12.of yours to enter these premises in this slightly cloak and dagger way?
:41:13. > :41:15.Obviously there are certain lines that you draw. You would never go
:41:16. > :41:19.into someone's house, for instance. But there are certain place,
:41:20. > :41:23.certainly places that were built and maintained with taxpayer money that
:41:24. > :41:27.urban explorers feel they have, you know, they have a certain right to
:41:28. > :41:31.see if they want to see them. What about this place over here then,
:41:32. > :41:37.that wouldn't have been built with tax-payers' money, I'm guessing? No,
:41:38. > :41:41.not at all. But it was empty, it was covered in scaffolding, it wasn't
:41:42. > :41:45.being used for any particular purpose. As long as you don't damage
:41:46. > :41:48.it and nothing gets broken and you know hopefully the police don't get
:41:49. > :41:52.called and you don't waste their time. And nobody gets hurt? And
:41:53. > :42:03.nobody gets hurt. Nothing has been affected. Emerging from the high
:42:04. > :42:09.grass in a corner of Regent's Park, it is Sir Simon Jenkins, chairman of
:42:10. > :42:13.the National Trust, and fully paid up member of the great and good.
:42:14. > :42:19.Naturally he thoroughly disapproves of pesky urban exploresers, ex--
:42:20. > :42:26.explorers, except that he doesn't really. This is where I came as a
:42:27. > :42:29.tiny boy, it was my sort of Loiin, the Witch and the Wardrobe
:42:30. > :42:36.territory. He used to let himself in to the ruins of a great house that
:42:37. > :42:41.once stood here. When I did my urban exploring in my youth we could go
:42:42. > :42:48.around dozens of warehouse, old churches, houses in Spitalfield,
:42:49. > :42:53.wonderful all sea captains' houses in Deptford, the London dock, the
:42:54. > :43:02.top of St Pancras Station. You were chased away by turnkeys and janitors
:43:03. > :43:10.were you? Frequently, all the time. With all of your weight on the
:43:11. > :43:13.National Trust that urban exploring is a good thing? There are
:43:14. > :43:17.circumstances where simply drawing attention to an empty property, that
:43:18. > :43:21.is wrong, can deliver good. It draws attention to it, it says to the
:43:22. > :43:30.people who own it, this is wrong, we have used for these build, come on
:43:31. > :43:33.now let as discuss it. Urban explorers have taken remarkable
:43:34. > :43:44.photographs like these, here and in Europe. They are accidental curators
:43:45. > :43:49.of a portfolio of lost properties. Those pictures were taken by these
:43:50. > :43:55.British urban explorers. There is an element of maybe urban archaeology.
:43:56. > :43:58.It is not like a strict science, but you are going there, having
:43:59. > :44:01.experiences and continuing the life cycle of that building by just being
:44:02. > :44:04.there and interacting with the objects you find, and you do find
:44:05. > :44:08.out little small stories about people, their lives, just from the
:44:09. > :44:11.documentation left behind. It is quite interesting to actually
:44:12. > :44:21.interact with that and be there with it instead of it all falling into
:44:22. > :44:25.nothingness and decay. Back on the Thames embankment, Bradley Garrett
:44:26. > :44:29.is off on his adventures again, in another unseen London, the world of
:44:30. > :44:35.urban exploration and things that go jump in the night! Now tomorrow
:44:36. > :45:20.morning's front pages: That's all from us tonight, I will
:45:21. > :45:26.be back with more tomorrow, I will leave you with London mayor Boris
:45:27. > :45:30.Johnson, stopped in his tracks on a London radio station when he was
:45:31. > :45:33.asked if he knew the cost of a rail fare, it is one way to kill minutes
:45:34. > :45:39.of air time. How much would it cost you to travel one way, angel to
:45:40. > :45:45.London Bridge? On what, on an oyster card? No just a one-off trip, you
:45:46. > :45:50.have forgotten your oyster, angel to London Bridge, how much will that
:45:51. > :45:56.cost you. (Countdown music) Here we go, here is the whole list, OK. Even
:45:57. > :46:11.I knew this. I don't use the things. If you want a one-way, a one-way...
:46:12. > :46:19.It is currently... . In zones 1-7 it is ?6. 70. Single? I don't think
:46:20. > :46:30.that's right either? That is what it says here! It seems unbelievably
:46:31. > :46:34.expensive to me, that is outrageous! Big changes in the weather over the
:46:35. > :46:35.next few days, through the morning we are going to push the band