:00:11. > :00:17.Noise around the abuse at Westminster and the role call of
:00:18. > :00:21.celebrity accusations has forced there to be an independent inquiry
:00:22. > :00:24.and review. With us is the former child protection professional who
:00:25. > :00:28.raised the alarm that politicians were involved in child sex abuse,
:00:29. > :00:32.and who has given his first television interview in 20 years to
:00:33. > :00:37.the BBC today. The Cabinet Secretary from the 1980s
:00:38. > :00:41.is here to talk amongst other things about a memo seen by Newsnight who
:00:42. > :00:47.suggest it really is the Civil Service in charge of the country.
:00:48. > :00:54.This Nigerian politician embeled millions, did he do it using British
:00:55. > :00:59.aid money and did parliament know about it. It is aid invested in
:01:00. > :01:03.companies alleged to be money laundering fronts for the biggest
:01:04. > :01:09.crooks in Nigeria. If you are not going to prosecute that what are you
:01:10. > :01:18.going to prosecute. Is the Speaker of the House of Commons, John
:01:19. > :01:23.Bosnian Serbing co-right when -- John Bercow says mocking short
:01:24. > :01:31.people is the same as any other discrimination right?
:01:32. > :01:34.This is an extraordinary moment in the life of the parliament, and in
:01:35. > :01:37.the actions of this Government, the Home Secretary has bowed to a
:01:38. > :01:43.prevailing mood in the country in the wake of cases such as Jimmy
:01:44. > :01:47.Savile and Rofl Harris, and the dogged determination of a backbench
:01:48. > :01:52.Tory MP to announce, against expectation, an independent inquiry
:01:53. > :01:56.in the handling of historic child abarks as well as how public
:01:57. > :01:59.institutions deal with the issues of child protection. The Prime Minister
:02:00. > :02:13.has promised they will leave no stone unturned. Was there a serious
:02:14. > :02:16.clean-up needed in parliament. Were some of the most powerful people in
:02:17. > :02:21.the country engaged in child abuse as has been suggested? A BBC
:02:22. > :02:25.documentary broadcast a decade later included an interview with a
:02:26. > :02:32.Conservative whip decribing reasons why the MPs might ask the whips'
:02:33. > :02:36.office for help. Anyone who have in trouble would come to the office and
:02:37. > :02:43.say I'm in a jam and can you help. It might be debt, it might be
:02:44. > :02:49.scandal involving small boys or any kind of scandal. The BLOECHLT has
:02:50. > :02:53.previously ruled -- the Government has previously ruled out holding an
:02:54. > :02:58.inquiry into historic allegations of child abarks today the Home
:02:59. > :03:01.Secretary announced two. Our priority must be finding the people
:03:02. > :03:06.behind these disgust be crimes, and wherever the need to prosecute we
:03:07. > :03:09.will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. And where there has
:03:10. > :03:14.been failure to protect children from abuse we will expose it and we
:03:15. > :03:18.will learn from it. The first inquiry concerns the dossier written
:03:19. > :03:23.by this man, the now dead MP, Geoffrey Dickens, which he handed to
:03:24. > :03:28.the Home Office and then Home Secretary Lord Brittan. It detailed
:03:29. > :03:33.the activities of a Westminster paedophile-ring, which has been lost
:03:34. > :03:36.or destroyed alongside other relevant documents. I felt it was a
:03:37. > :03:41.country where children could play happily. Mr Dickens campaigned on
:03:42. > :03:45.paedophilia and regularly used parliamentary privilege to make
:03:46. > :03:49.accusations. Newsnight has spoken to one person named by Dickens and
:03:50. > :03:53.wrongly smeared in the 1980s, he said it ruined his life. Put it
:03:54. > :03:59.before parliament that we castrate the buggers. So what do we know
:04:00. > :04:05.about the man behind the dossier. Geoffrey Dickens was a serious man,
:04:06. > :04:10.but until I actually mentioned the word "paedophile" to him, he had
:04:11. > :04:18.never heard of it. And when I told him what was alleged to be going on
:04:19. > :04:24.he took it up with great gusto and started creating these dossiers of
:04:25. > :04:28.which there has been so much trouble and speculation. Why has all this
:04:29. > :04:33.bubbled up now? Well the spiralling revelations about child abuse by the
:04:34. > :04:40.likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris reached fever pitch with
:04:41. > :04:49.allegations of what Leon Brittan did with the dossier. Names of alleged
:04:50. > :04:52.abusers have been swirling. People need to be careful if we want to
:04:53. > :04:58.protect the victims and let them see justice. We must follow a process,
:04:59. > :05:02.which I appreciate is annoying, if you have something that is exciting
:05:03. > :05:05.and interesting and indeed very important and you want to get it out
:05:06. > :05:11.there and make sure something is done about it. But sometimes, just
:05:12. > :05:14.being a little bit calm about these things can get a better result in
:05:15. > :05:20.the long run than rushing off and saying things in public early on.
:05:21. > :05:23.Among the inquiries into historical paedophilia already, Jimmy Savile's
:05:24. > :05:31.abuse at the BBC, following the revelations from the NHS last month,
:05:32. > :05:34.the Metropolitan Police's post-Savile Operation Yewtree has
:05:35. > :05:42.brought more accusations. And the examination of historical
:05:43. > :05:46.allegations at Fernbridge, and there is a look at care homes and criminal
:05:47. > :05:53.inquiry into alleged paedophile abuse in a residential school in
:05:54. > :05:56.Rochdale in the 1980s. Allegations that the abuse of children was
:05:57. > :06:01.suppressed by people in power. It can feel like another day another
:06:02. > :06:05.abuse scandal, today Theresa May announced a Hillsborough-style
:06:06. > :06:09.independent inquiry, investigating how public bodies from the police to
:06:10. > :06:13.schools handled child sex abuse allegations. Why has the Home
:06:14. > :06:18.Secretary changed her mind and added two new inquiries into the already
:06:19. > :06:22.burgeoning numbers of investigations into child sex abuse in Britain.
:06:23. > :06:25.What can the new ones achieve. It is where we need to be, so we can move
:06:26. > :06:29.on to it and get answers to what went wrong, we can establish who was
:06:30. > :06:34.part of the cover-up and identify some of the perpetrators that are
:06:35. > :06:42.still walking our streets. Do you want a man to represent or a party
:06:43. > :06:47.robot. Cyril Smith's alleged abuse was revealed by Mr Danczuk, but has
:06:48. > :06:53.the Government been pushed into taking action. We feel if there is
:06:54. > :06:56.not an inquisition into something the politicians aren't doing their
:06:57. > :07:00.job properly. There is a real danger we get carried away here. I think
:07:01. > :07:11.the politicians back there are getting too carried away. Back then
:07:12. > :07:15.it took several years to clean the buildings of Westminster, cleaning
:07:16. > :07:21.up what went on there is still on going.
:07:22. > :07:27.We have our guest in the studio, the former child protection manager, and
:07:28. > :07:31.the first one to raise the question of high-profile politicians being
:07:32. > :07:35.involved in child abuse. What is your reaction to the news there will
:07:36. > :07:38.be an inquiry and review today? It is a very positive step forward. I
:07:39. > :07:42.wouldn't want people to think that is the end of the story. It is just
:07:43. > :07:46.the beginning of a process that needs to start now. What about the
:07:47. > :07:51.nature of this inquiry, that people are going to lead it? I think it is
:07:52. > :07:55.absolutely crucial that survivors have the biggest say in who should
:07:56. > :07:58.be in an inquiry, survivors will only come forward if it is people
:07:59. > :08:02.they can trust and people who haven't let them down in the past.
:08:03. > :08:06.When I say people I mean institutions, that survivors have
:08:07. > :08:11.tried to talk to in the past but either haven't been believed or
:08:12. > :08:16.their stories have been seen as not credible because of the size of the
:08:17. > :08:22.galeses that they are making and the seriousness of them. In relation to
:08:23. > :08:26.the NSPCC have you got concerns? From a number of survivors I have
:08:27. > :08:31.spoken to and from a number of witnesses the concerns that they
:08:32. > :08:36.have about the NSPCC is it is very much the charity of the
:08:37. > :08:40.establishment and has for many, many years had people like Rolf Harris
:08:41. > :08:44.and Jimmy Savile associated with the fundraising side of it. What are the
:08:45. > :08:50.claims that you are actually making in relation to historic child abuse
:08:51. > :08:55.centered around Westminster? Obviously I'm not going to say on
:08:56. > :08:59.live television any details that might interfere with any police
:09:00. > :09:02.investigations, but for the last 30 years and longer than that, there
:09:03. > :09:08.have been a number of allegations made by survivors that people at the
:09:09. > :09:15.very top of powerful institutions in this country, which include
:09:16. > :09:21.politicians, judges, senior military figures, and even people who have
:09:22. > :09:24.links with the Royal Family, have been involved with the abuse of
:09:25. > :09:27.children. What was actually happening, can you give us some idea
:09:28. > :09:30.of the seriousness of the allegations? At the most serious
:09:31. > :09:37.level we are talking about brutal rape of quite young boys. Did you
:09:38. > :09:43.take your concerns to politicians say 20 years ago? After an
:09:44. > :09:47.investigation I was involved in was closed down before it had even got
:09:48. > :09:50.off the ground. A senior police officer from the Metropolitan Police
:09:51. > :09:56.and two very experienced investigative journalists and myself
:09:57. > :10:02.had a meeting with a very prominent figure in the opposition party, the
:10:03. > :10:07.Labour Party at that time and we essentially gave the details that we
:10:08. > :10:13.want to give now but nothing came of it. You seem to be suggesting that
:10:14. > :10:18.as far as Westminster is concerned paedophilia was used to create a
:10:19. > :10:31.kind of indebtedness, it was used as a weapon? That's the impression you
:10:32. > :10:35.would have from the statement Tim Fortesque. I'm saying that
:10:36. > :10:38.paedophiles infiltrate every institution, but the more powerful
:10:39. > :10:43.the institution it is, the more powerful the abusers are. And
:10:44. > :10:49.unfortunately parliament, politicians haven't been immune from
:10:50. > :10:53.the I will filtration -- infiltration of paedophiles. You
:10:54. > :10:58.can't name any names, and a number of people that you are alleging,
:10:59. > :11:01.that your survivors are alleging the perpetrators are dead. Are you
:11:02. > :11:07.alleging there are still people in positions of power who were involved
:11:08. > :11:11.20-odd years ago? Very much so. But what I must emphasise is this is
:11:12. > :11:15.what survivors are saying, and the problem up until now is that it has
:11:16. > :11:19.never been tested. There hasn't been the opportunity for survivors to be
:11:20. > :11:23.listened to. And what are allegations may or may not be true,
:11:24. > :11:29.but the allegations are there, and the allegations are against very
:11:30. > :11:32.specific named individuals. The initial impression that I would have
:11:33. > :11:36.is that there is a great deal of truth in them and they need to be
:11:37. > :11:41.investigated in great detail. Please stay with us, thank you very much.
:11:42. > :11:46.So questions both at the heart of the investigations are huge whether
:11:47. > :11:49.some senior politicians in the 1980s may turn out to be paedophiles and
:11:50. > :11:55.whether public institutions in which we trust may have allowed children
:11:56. > :11:59.to be abused. But is this a proportionate response or are we in
:12:00. > :12:12.danger of being swept along in a moral panic. We have our guests in
:12:13. > :12:15.the studio. First of all, do you think this investigation and indeed
:12:16. > :12:21.the review has come at the right time? It seems to me that we are so
:12:22. > :12:26.addicted to inquiries and investigations that it is acquiring
:12:27. > :12:30.a ritualistic, almost pointless character. We are always told this
:12:31. > :12:35.investigation or inquiry will put things right and bring closure, but
:12:36. > :12:39.you will find for many, a long, long time now, we have this continuous
:12:40. > :12:46.obsess why you desire to rummate with the past. It has almost been a
:12:47. > :12:50.psychological displacement strategy that we are losing sight of the fact
:12:51. > :12:54.that there are issues we can deal with the here and now. Some people
:12:55. > :12:59.can't get on with the here and now as we know with the Harrison and
:13:00. > :13:06.Savile case until these things are dealt with probably? These
:13:07. > :13:11.ritualistic performances do not bring closure but incite more
:13:12. > :13:16.denunciations, they lead to more people becoming the target of
:13:17. > :13:20.investigations. A complete proliferation of investigations
:13:21. > :13:28.going on. Obviously it would be awful if anyone who was innocent
:13:29. > :13:32.were accuse of anything of nefarious and terrible as child abuse, but if
:13:33. > :13:35.you were a parent of one of these children, would you not wish for a
:13:36. > :13:40.thorough investigation, for a public investigation to take place? It
:13:41. > :13:45.seems to me that the idea of investigating this historic, these
:13:46. > :13:50.historic wrongs and I'm sure a lot were done, retrospectively invites
:13:51. > :13:53.as much confusion as solutions. In a different climate if you had the odd
:13:54. > :13:59.individuals being investigated that could work. But surely it is
:14:00. > :14:02.actually preferable to have these things investigated and then
:14:03. > :14:08.discounted than not investigated at all? Exactly, to have a culture of
:14:09. > :14:10.secrecy. We have to remember that we weren't going to have this
:14:11. > :14:13.investigation even last week, do you think there is a danger here that
:14:14. > :14:18.what the Government is doing is responding to a rising hysteria? I
:14:19. > :14:23.don't think it is a rising hysteria, I think it is a rising anger. For
:14:24. > :14:29.once I think moral indignation and moral outrage are exactly the mood
:14:30. > :14:32.of the people and the mood that we should espouse at the moment. But
:14:33. > :14:38.that can lead to mistakes? Not always. And could lead to people
:14:39. > :14:42.being beaten up that were innocent? I think it could be if one innocent
:14:43. > :14:46.people were beaten up, but we want justice? People are not demanding,
:14:47. > :14:50.they come from a small section of society. I don't believe that. If
:14:51. > :14:55.you talk to normal human beings they don't get up in the morning and say
:14:56. > :14:59.we need yet another inquiry and judicial inquest, that is not what
:15:00. > :15:08.people are worried about. Is there are a danger of witch-hunts, the man
:15:09. > :15:14.burned in Bristol wrongly accused. You have a witch-hunt and a mob? My
:15:15. > :15:18.church, the Catholic Church only recently was investigated in this
:15:19. > :15:23.way, and they had to turn themselves inside out and people said, and
:15:24. > :15:29.Catholics said is this a witch-hunt? No. I think it is not. The way it
:15:30. > :15:33.has been found out and dealt with in the Catholic Church was specific. We
:15:34. > :15:37.don't have names or anything, I assume, approaching that kind of
:15:38. > :15:42.scale at Westminster? But we are beginning to see a culture of
:15:43. > :15:47.secrecy, and cover-up at Westminster, as there was within the
:15:48. > :15:53.Catholic Church, and I think the same impulses of "we're in power, we
:15:54. > :15:59.can abuse the most vulnerable among you", that is there. Let me ask
:16:00. > :16:02.Peter that, without naming names is what Christine is saying right, that
:16:03. > :16:07.there is a culture of those in power thinking they can do anything with
:16:08. > :16:11.impunity, was that the atmosphere described by some of the survivors?
:16:12. > :16:15.That is my experience and my view, yes. I must say I find it
:16:16. > :16:20.disappointing that after all these years that the views of Mr Fered
:16:21. > :16:24.direction are still being put across in a programme like this, when all
:16:25. > :16:30.we are asking for is to look at the evidence, to listen to survivors and
:16:31. > :16:36.to discount rumours, false allegations and just concentrate on
:16:37. > :16:39.very clear, solid allegations. And once and for all allow the
:16:40. > :16:45.opportunity for survivors to talk about their abuse in a very calm
:16:46. > :16:52.manner to very trusted people. Do you have a concerns about creating a
:16:53. > :16:57.kind of atmosphere where children think particularly of men as sexual
:16:58. > :17:01.predators? I think we already have that, if you look at the way that
:17:02. > :17:09.generational relations are managed in our society, adults, and not just
:17:10. > :17:13.men, but also women have become physically and distanced from
:17:14. > :17:20.children. We have children warned about the danger of strangers to the
:17:21. > :17:24.point of which the spontanity and informality of society no longer
:17:25. > :17:29.exists. I worry about what it causes children. That is a difficult thing
:17:30. > :17:33.to counter? It is true and it is a very price for us to pay. But when
:17:34. > :17:38.you look at the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile images and you think
:17:39. > :17:42.stranger danger might have been a good lesson for those children
:17:43. > :17:48.learned. I would rather my children went on the street had a bit of
:17:49. > :17:53.freedom and had independence. And pawed by Rolf Harris. We can make
:17:54. > :18:00.them aware of the risks. Thank you very much. The complex and fraud
:18:01. > :18:07.relationships between Government ministers and civil servants have
:18:08. > :18:10.provided endless fodder for satire, but Newsnight has discovered fury at
:18:11. > :18:15.the heart of Government over what amounts to the job specification for
:18:16. > :18:19.permanent secretaries, a job brief which suggests which many have long
:18:20. > :18:22.suspected that their role is not primarily to serve the Government of
:18:23. > :18:26.the day in an impartial way, but rather as it states, to balance the
:18:27. > :18:30.needs of the politicians with the long-term aims of their particular
:18:31. > :18:38.department. Here is our political editor.
:18:39. > :18:45.You just say everything the Civil Service programmes you to say, are
:18:46. > :18:49.you a man or mouth? Very amutesing. It must be hard for a political
:18:50. > :18:53.adviser to understand this, I'm merely a civil servant, I do what
:18:54. > :19:00.I'm instructed by my master. This was fiction in the 1980s, but is it
:19:01. > :19:08.fact now. Does life imitate art, are today's Sir Humphreys dancing to the
:19:09. > :19:11.tune. The minister in charge of the Humphrey its, Francis Maude has
:19:12. > :19:20.circulated to cabinet colleagues, a document, seen by Newsnight, which
:19:21. > :19:26.he says breaches constitutional propriety, a Civil Service coup.
:19:27. > :19:29.What has sparked the row is a job description for permanent
:19:30. > :19:33.secretaries, or the most powerful officials in the land N it they talk
:19:34. > :19:36.about the needs of balancing the immediate demands of ministers with
:19:37. > :19:40.the long-term aims of the department. For insiders that is as
:19:41. > :19:44.close as civil servants have ever got to decribing themselves as
:19:45. > :19:49.important if not more than elected politicians. If that is the case,
:19:50. > :19:53.that is quite a challenge to our democracy. It is a handful of
:19:54. > :19:56.sentences that alarm politician, a Permanent Secretary, the document
:19:57. > :20:03.says, must have the X Factor, being able to tolerate high levels of
:20:04. > :20:15.ambiguity and uncertainty, and at seems irrational political demands.
:20:16. > :20:19.Then the snappily titled strategic interpretation, civil servants have
:20:20. > :20:25.a pivot point, managing expectations versus leading their department. A
:20:26. > :20:31.pivot between serving and leading, but politicis believe civil servants
:20:32. > :20:35.should always serve. There is much sensible stuff about supporting
:20:36. > :20:39.ministers, enbeginedering trust and so on, but in the most incendiary
:20:40. > :20:42.passage it says permanent secretaries should know how to
:20:43. > :20:46.balance ministers immediate needs with the long-term aims of their
:20:47. > :20:51.department. I think this is an extraordinary document. I mean we
:20:52. > :20:55.are used to being amuse bid the idea of Sir Humphrey pursuing objectives
:20:56. > :21:00.that have nothing to do and can be opposed by the Government of the
:21:01. > :21:09.day. But this is beyond a joke. It is real. We can't have a permanent
:21:10. > :21:14.Government deciding it has its own -- a permanent bureaucracy deciding
:21:15. > :21:18.it has its own priorities against an elected Government for obvious
:21:19. > :21:21.reasons. This does go to some of the problems we are seeing in a Civil
:21:22. > :21:29.Service which is sometimes resistant to change, we can see why. Lord
:21:30. > :21:32.Butler disagrees, over a 37-year Civil Service career, he was private
:21:33. > :21:37.secretary or Cabinet Secretary to five prime ministers. Ministers have
:21:38. > :21:41.a political agenda that civil servants can't get into. Although
:21:42. > :21:47.you are working closely together you have to keep some distance. Is there
:21:48. > :21:52.a single bit of the document you disagree with and wouldn't have put
:21:53. > :21:55.down in black and white? No, I think some of it could have been more
:21:56. > :21:59.straight forwardly expressed. No I think it does reflect the borders
:22:00. > :22:05.that permanent secretaries can't cross. But it is that attitude that
:22:06. > :22:10.has enraged cabinet ministers and in another letter, seen by this
:22:11. > :22:14.programme, the minister in charge of Civil Service reform, Francis Maude,
:22:15. > :22:18.writes to his colleagues and sharing the document asks for their help in
:22:19. > :22:21.writing the fresh job description. He says civil servants don't exist
:22:22. > :22:25.to serve the long-term interests of their department, as the document
:22:26. > :22:30.suggests, but instead they need to serve the Government of the day.
:22:31. > :22:33.Ever since Sir Humphrey was in short trousers there were tensions between
:22:34. > :22:37.mandarins and their masters, this is worse now as the coalition unleashes
:22:38. > :22:42.an aggressive programme of Whitehall reform. It is not possible minister.
:22:43. > :22:50.It is. It isn't. It is. It isn't. It is. It isn't. It is, it is, it is,
:22:51. > :22:53.it is. Tonight some think civil servants have been caught
:22:54. > :22:57.overstating their power. A permanent Government, but will Sir Humphrey
:22:58. > :23:04.always be so steady? I'm joined now by the two people you
:23:05. > :23:07.saw in that film, Lord Butler, and Nick Herbert, the former Government
:23:08. > :23:12.minister leading a cross-party project looking at the reform of the
:23:13. > :23:16.Civil Service. This is really the natural order of things, ministers
:23:17. > :23:21.come and go, and are of mixed ability, you need some continuity?
:23:22. > :23:25.Ministers might come and go and be of mixed ability. Some kind of
:23:26. > :23:29.permanent Civil Service, serving the Government of the day, clearly has a
:23:30. > :23:34.role. But the issue here is whether they should have their own agenda
:23:35. > :23:37.and whether it is legitimate for them to have a different view from
:23:38. > :23:42.that of ministers. It is one thing I think for the Civil Service to warn,
:23:43. > :23:46.counsel and advise, and privately disagree. But they can't actually
:23:47. > :23:49.say, as this document suggests that the leaders of the Civil Service
:23:50. > :23:53.can, that it is legitimate for them to have their own agenda that is
:23:54. > :23:56.separate from the elected Government of the day. You heard Lord Butler
:23:57. > :24:00.saying there was nothing in the original memo he would disagree with
:24:01. > :24:06.but he would have put it more plainly? I was astonished by that.
:24:07. > :24:09.The words speak for themselves, the Civil Service can decide when to
:24:10. > :24:18.serve the Government of the day, that should be beyond without. DOURT
:24:19. > :24:21.doubt. And you have to deal with irrational politicians' demands.
:24:22. > :24:26.Have you ever had to deal with that? Nick may be surprised to know I
:24:27. > :24:29.absolutely agree with him. The job of a Permanent Secretary is to
:24:30. > :24:34.loyally try to deliver the policies of the Government of the day. But of
:24:35. > :24:39.course the Permanent Secretary also has another responsibility. He has
:24:40. > :24:44.to be able to lead a department that can serve a different minister, or
:24:45. > :24:50.serve a different Government. So you can't think that politicians and
:24:51. > :24:56.civil servants are exactly the same. But when the minister decides on the
:24:57. > :25:01.policy it is whole hearted lie the duty of the -- whole heartedly the
:25:02. > :25:04.duty of the civil servants to deliver that policy. The original
:25:05. > :25:08.memo, essentially the job description we were talking about it
:25:09. > :25:13.is said is without constitutional propriety, that is a bit of a slap
:25:14. > :25:17.down? I don't think that is right. It is the permanent Civil Service,
:25:18. > :25:22.that has served the country very well. But the Civil Service doesn't
:25:23. > :25:28.have a policy of its own. Let me give you an example, a Department of
:25:29. > :25:34.Pensions may want to do something to reduce the cost of old age pensions
:25:35. > :25:37.in the long run. If the present minister doesn't want to do that,
:25:38. > :25:40.that is the duty of the Civil Service to do what the minister
:25:41. > :25:43.wants. Imposing long-term priorities, that is another of the
:25:44. > :25:47.things? I think if you have a memo that selects for future permanent
:25:48. > :25:50.secretaries on the basis that they are likely to be able to take a
:25:51. > :25:53.different view from the view of ministers, is to invite them to
:25:54. > :26:00.breach the Civil Service code itself. Article 14 of which says
:26:01. > :26:06.that civil servants should serve with complete impartiality. The
:26:07. > :26:10.Government of the day. When did the Civil Service stop being able to do
:26:11. > :26:14.that, and who do they answer to to have an agenda of their own. You
:26:15. > :26:19.can't have a permanent bureaucracy unanswerable to no-one. The
:26:20. > :26:23.legitimacy can only come from elected politician, and it is not
:26:24. > :26:26.just wrong it is potentially dangerous, if you card getting a
:26:27. > :26:31.cadre of people who think they have a right and role to pursue policies
:26:32. > :26:35.that are not democratically set. The danger is in the words as well
:26:36. > :26:40."long-term aims", you are not really allowed to have long-term aims? I
:26:41. > :26:47.entirely agree with Nick, that the people who rule. That is fantastic,
:26:48. > :26:53.I love the way you are able to say you entirely agree but disagree with
:26:54. > :26:57.him! I agree but things need to be done in the long-term. We need to
:26:58. > :27:01.produce departments that can serve equally loyally Governments of a
:27:02. > :27:05.different party. It looks like this job speck was written by a civil
:27:06. > :27:10.servant because it can mean anything to whoever is reading it? It gets it
:27:11. > :27:15.absolutely right that civil servants must whole heartedly support the
:27:16. > :27:20.elected Government. But they also do have a long-term policy of being
:27:21. > :27:23.able, a long-term duty of being able to lead a department that can
:27:24. > :27:27.support another minister or Government. You are not in favour of
:27:28. > :27:33.moving to a more American-style system, where actually the Civil
:27:34. > :27:38.Service is of a particular political hue along with the politicians in
:27:39. > :27:42.power? No, I'm not. But essentially with Civil Service reform it might
:27:43. > :27:45.end up moving towards this? There might be some who suggest that. At
:27:46. > :27:48.the moment I think the overwhelming view in this country is we should
:27:49. > :27:52.have an impartial Civil Service, that is required under the law. That
:27:53. > :27:55.requires them to be constantly impartial. It does not allow what
:27:56. > :28:00.this memo suggests, which is that they are some how able to balance
:28:01. > :28:05.their own views, who is to be the arbiter of those views. To whom are
:28:06. > :28:09.they to be accountable with those of the elected Government. It is in
:28:10. > :28:13.plain English. That is not what the memo says, it is for future
:28:14. > :28:19.permanent secretaries drawn up by the Civil Service themselves. Have
:28:20. > :28:23.you had an irrational demand by a minister posed to you that you have
:28:24. > :28:28.had to bat off? Not that I have had to bat off. Ministers sometimes have
:28:29. > :28:33.to make decisions for political reasons that a civil servant may not
:28:34. > :28:37.think are very sensible. It is still their duty to carry them out. Do you
:28:38. > :28:42.put your fingers behind your back and cross them? What do you do, do
:28:43. > :28:47.you say minister this is not tenable or do you go away and say to other
:28:48. > :28:50.civil servantses that you have to move on it because it is not
:28:51. > :28:54.tenable? Suppose the minister says we want to reduce immigration by
:28:55. > :28:59.100,000 over the next two years T may be the duty of the Environment
:29:00. > :29:03.Secretary to I is a, minister I don't think -- to say, minister I
:29:04. > :29:07.don't think we can do that it is not practicable. If the minister says do
:29:08. > :29:11.it? We will do our best. Can I move back a bit to talk about the top of
:29:12. > :29:17.the programme and talk about Theresa May's announcement of both an
:29:18. > :29:22.independent review and investigation. You were around very
:29:23. > :29:31.much in the 1980s and a acceptor civil servant in the 1980s, did you
:29:32. > :29:35.have any idea of a Home Office cover-up of paedophile rings? I was
:29:36. > :29:38.principal secretary when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the
:29:39. > :29:42.relevant time, I never heard anything about it. Is it conceivable
:29:43. > :29:49.as Lord Tebbit says that there was a cover-up? All I know is what I read
:29:50. > :29:54.in the papers. It says there is 114 files, it is difficult to imagine
:29:55. > :29:58.there could be a cover-up with all that without people knowing about
:29:59. > :30:01.it. At the time were you aware of a paedophile-ring or rumours of child
:30:02. > :30:08.abuse within the corridors of power? No. Not at all? No. International
:30:09. > :30:13.aid is one of the Government's key commitment, but now the Serious
:30:14. > :30:19.Fraud Office is accused of turning a blind eye to alleged corruption
:30:20. > :30:29.involving millions of pounds for aid for Africa. An and Newsnight
:30:30. > :30:34.investigation has found that a department has referred itself to
:30:35. > :30:37.investigation. Tens of millions were veg invested in companies linked to
:30:38. > :30:42.some of Africa's most corrupt politicians. The former aid
:30:43. > :30:49.secretary, Andrew Mitchell is accuses of making misleading
:30:50. > :30:54.statements on the matter. One of Africa's most corrupt
:30:55. > :30:58.politicians are serving a 13-year prison sentence. There is evidence
:30:59. > :31:03.that millions of pounds in British Government aid may have been used to
:31:04. > :31:09.lawneder money he looted. The aid department turned a blind eye. The
:31:10. > :31:13.public money, intended for development aid, being invested in
:31:14. > :31:17.companies that are alleged to be money laundering fronts for one of
:31:18. > :31:25.the biggest crooks in Nigeria. If you don't prosecute that what will
:31:26. > :31:30.you. The department under fire, founded in the 1940s, was previously
:31:31. > :31:34.a small branch of Britain's aid effort, investing in the private
:31:35. > :31:40.sector and known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Times have
:31:41. > :31:46.changed. It is now plain CDC and booming on the back of private
:31:47. > :31:49.equity funds. With assets of ?3 billion in public money, Andrew
:31:50. > :31:54.Mitchell says it is the future of aid policy. He says the shift of the
:31:55. > :32:00.market is addressing what he calls a deficiency in the Civil Service's
:32:01. > :32:05.DNA. Critics say it is creating a climate where corruption can
:32:06. > :32:14.flourish. The investment in this case, ?23 million, went from CDC to
:32:15. > :32:19.the American private equity fund Emerging capital Partners, ECB, they
:32:20. > :32:27.put it into a fund which invests in a range of African companies, some
:32:28. > :32:31.allegedly linked to James Ebore, the rut politician. The claim is that by
:32:32. > :32:36.mixing his money with development funds from Britain was able to clean
:32:37. > :32:47.up to lawneder millions he looted from the Nigerian state.
:32:48. > :32:56.We heard from an anglo-African businessman of money laundering
:32:57. > :33:01.going into companies by the corrupt politician. The agency responsible
:33:02. > :33:11.for CDC insisted he was wrong. It has now emerged, behind the scenes,
:33:12. > :33:43.that that DYFID weren't so sure. They publicly continued to deny.
:33:44. > :33:46.This view is now backed up by the parliamentary ombudsman. In a report
:33:47. > :33:52.on corruption, he says that the Metropolitan Police actually told
:33:53. > :33:56.DIFID's anticorruption unit there was evidence going back years,
:33:57. > :34:01.linking the bent Nigerian politician to three of his alleged front men.
:34:02. > :34:03.Yet they still maintain the investments were
:34:04. > :34:10.Yet they still maintain the about. They should have allowed a
:34:11. > :34:14.proper and thorough investigation of the allegation, not just simply
:34:15. > :34:18.refer the allegations to the fund manager and accept the fund
:34:19. > :34:22.manager's denials at face value. The people you were making allegations
:34:23. > :34:26.against, they chose to take their word for it? Not only did they
:34:27. > :34:31.choose to take their word for it, but they took their word for it when
:34:32. > :34:41.there was independently available evidence to the contrary. The former
:34:42. > :34:48.development secretary, Andrew Mitchell assured Caroline Lucas that
:34:49. > :34:54.DFID had no evidence of wrongdoing. He makes a big point that he's
:34:55. > :34:56.writing in extreme depth and he underlines things so he has gone
:34:57. > :35:01.through the letter and hand underlined it. And finally his point
:35:02. > :35:04.is he hopes very much this is the end of the affair and essentially
:35:05. > :35:10.you will stop bothering me about it. To give those kinds of assurances
:35:11. > :35:14.means he wasn't taking the issue seriously or he wasn't in possession
:35:15. > :35:18.of all the facts. Either of those two conclusions is not comforting
:35:19. > :35:24.when talking about the Secretary of State in charge of a good deal of
:35:25. > :35:31.tax-payers' money. Since the year 2000, Emerging Capital partners... .
:35:32. > :35:36.We now know Britain's aid was invested blind. The emerging fund
:35:37. > :35:40.merge from ECP didn't have to say what checks it had made before
:35:41. > :35:45.putting money into companies allegedly linked to James Ebore. It
:35:46. > :35:50.seems astonishing that tax-payers' money is being used in a way that
:35:51. > :35:55.has no oversight. The man who raised the alarm says he's shocked
:35:56. > :36:02.supervision was so loose. It appears that at quite an early stage into
:36:03. > :36:06.the investigations, DFID and CDC decided to ignore the serious red
:36:07. > :36:11.flags about the way those investments were being made. Either
:36:12. > :36:19.to protect their reputation or to protect their finances.
:36:20. > :36:23.At the start of this year, five years after these concerns were
:36:24. > :36:28.first raised about British aid money and the private equity fund ECP, the
:36:29. > :36:35.Serious Fraud Office was finally called in. This month the SFO made
:36:36. > :36:40.its contribution to this alphabet soup of a saga by giving its
:36:41. > :36:43.response. There are, they concede, grounds for concern, there may be
:36:44. > :36:49.evidence of malpractice. What are they going to do about it? They will
:36:50. > :36:53.pass the case on it the Americans. Now they will ask the US authorities
:36:54. > :36:58.to investigate. We seem to be in some kind of Kafka-esque story,
:36:59. > :37:03.where nobody will take responsibility and the buck is
:37:04. > :37:10.constantly passed. In an e-mail to the NGO Corner House, they say ECP
:37:11. > :37:17.is US-registered and it does not appear that CDC have lost out
:37:18. > :37:23.financially by engaging with ECP. That is unbelievable, it is like me
:37:24. > :37:26.arguing that, or the police saying they couldn't prosecute me if I
:37:27. > :37:34.tried to murder you because I failed to do so. And you survived and were
:37:35. > :37:38.thriving afterwards. In Nigeria, the cost of corruption is paid by the
:37:39. > :37:45.poor. The people who ought to be benefitting from Britain's aid
:37:46. > :37:51.programme. The critics we have spoken to are ardent supporters of
:37:52. > :37:55.overseas aid, but despair at what they see is the department to
:37:56. > :37:59.account for its mistakes or correct them.
:38:00. > :38:02.CDC, the aid department's private sector arm says in a statement it
:38:03. > :38:07.remains unclear whether the allegations are true or not. They
:38:08. > :38:12.are proud of their systems but no vetting system is perfect. ECP said
:38:13. > :38:16.in their statement that there is still no evidence to support
:38:17. > :38:21.allegations of improper funding, DFID told us they have implemented
:38:22. > :38:26.new procedures and are happy to look at any new information. Andrew
:38:27. > :38:31.Mitchell said he had nothing to add. Should David Cameron have made a
:38:32. > :38:37.joke that referred to John Bercow as one of the seven dwarves, or is
:38:38. > :38:41.height unacceptable as racism. John Bercow said he was never bothered
:38:42. > :38:47.about being short, but in an interview this weekend he questioned
:38:48. > :38:52.why it was acceptable to question someone about their height when
:38:53. > :39:00.jokes about race or sexuality was wrong. Leave the chamber, get out we
:39:01. > :39:03.will manage without you. You are adding nothing, you are subtracting
:39:04. > :39:08.a lot, it is rude, stupid and pompus and it needs to stop. You are
:39:09. > :39:18.yelling across the chamber, be quiet. Quiet. Calm yourself, take up
:39:19. > :39:21.yoga. John Bercow is the referee of the Commons, and not afraid to
:39:22. > :39:27.threaten a red card from time to time. But after being on the
:39:28. > :39:31.receiving end of some of unkind remarks about his statisticture, he
:39:32. > :39:37.says it is wrong for people to play the man not the ball. Where as
:39:38. > :39:40.nobody these days would regard it acceptable to criticise someone on
:39:41. > :39:44.grounds of race, or creed or disability or sexual orientation,
:39:45. > :39:50.some how it seems acceptable to comment on someone's height or lack
:39:51. > :40:03.of it. Mr Bercow was an athlete in his youth, an outstanding tennis
:40:04. > :40:10.player, a perspective Greg Rusezski. He kinds the jibes schoolboyish.
:40:11. > :40:12.When I saw the comments I thought typical Bercow, trying to get
:40:13. > :40:18.publicity and make himself a victim. It is total rubbish. What a dreadful
:40:19. > :40:22.speaker he is. You have to bear in mind that the smallness of a
:40:23. > :40:26.politician or public figure can be interesting. If you have President
:40:27. > :40:31.Sarkozy of France. He was a tiny little fellow. And he had special
:40:32. > :40:35.high heels, he was some how a more interesting figure because of his
:40:36. > :40:40.very smallness. Speaker Bercow is a short chap, and to see him
:40:41. > :40:47.surrounded by the vast chair makes him a more theatrical personality
:40:48. > :40:51.lend him political power. Let's leave personalities out of
:40:52. > :40:55.this for a moment, and feature interesting facts about height. It
:40:56. > :41:00.seems men of five foot four or less can live for up to two years longer
:41:01. > :41:04.than taller contemporaries. But taller people may be more
:41:05. > :41:09.intelligent, thanks to mum and dad. Apparently clever people tend to
:41:10. > :41:14.seek tall partners, and they may earn more. Perhaps because some
:41:15. > :41:19.bosses link height to status. Height traditionally has been seen as a
:41:20. > :41:24.masculine trait, to be a tall man is to be seen traditionally as a more
:41:25. > :41:27.masculine man. I think perhaps by drawing attention to someone's short
:41:28. > :41:32.stature, in a map, particularly, that would be seen as an insult.
:41:33. > :41:39.There is no comfort in a bus or train, his head catches in the
:41:40. > :41:46.luggage rack. It is not all the upside, as Ted Evans can tell you,
:41:47. > :41:49.England's tallest man at seven-and-a-half foot. Great height
:41:50. > :41:56.can lead to cruel or thoughtless remarks. After extensive research at
:41:57. > :42:00.the next set of desks, we found Hugh Pim, six foot seven of him. Most
:42:01. > :42:04.people if they spot me say do you want a game at centre half big man,
:42:05. > :42:09.or what is the weather like up there. It is the height, and I do
:42:10. > :42:13.feel, and other tall people feel the same, that it is a bit of a liberty
:42:14. > :42:16.isn't it walking up and making a comment about somebody being tall
:42:17. > :42:19.when they wouldn't necessarily, in fact rarely if ever would make
:42:20. > :42:23.comments about people's appearance in other areas. But being tall it
:42:24. > :42:31.seems to be fair game. I'm not sure it is fair game. Order, order.
:42:32. > :42:35.Order. Mr Bercow's view that mocking people about their stature is
:42:36. > :42:43.comparable to racism or homophobia is not backed by the Equality and
:42:44. > :42:46.Human Rights Commission. Long story short, height is not a protected
:42:47. > :42:52.characteristic under the law. That is the beginning and the end of the
:42:53. > :42:57.matter. Joining me now to discuss heightism are two men at five foot
:42:58. > :43:03.four are both a clear two inches shorter than the speaker. We have
:43:04. > :43:11.the founder of the website Support for the Short. And our studio guest.
:43:12. > :43:18.Is the website about trying to stop humour about the question of height?
:43:19. > :43:22.It is making the issue of heightism known. It is not something
:43:23. > :43:26.recognised. I was listening very carefully to-to-what they were
:43:27. > :43:31.saying before I came on. We want to educate people, and show people,
:43:32. > :43:36.especially short people that heightism exists. That people who
:43:37. > :43:40.are short are victims of discrimination. I think it is high
:43:41. > :43:43.time that short people started unifying and acting as a group,
:43:44. > :43:49.rather than just a bunch of individuals. So a bit of pressure
:43:50. > :43:53.group fresh, and you as a comedian use your stature for comedy? That is
:43:54. > :44:00.because people think it is funny in many ways. I don't know whether it
:44:01. > :44:06.is just a new "ism". We're not an oppressed bunch. We have never been
:44:07. > :44:10.stopped from getting on a bus or prevented voting. The only thing not
:44:11. > :44:16.allowed on is a rollercoaster, that is fine because of the height
:44:17. > :44:20.measurements. An "ism", you are talking about genetics, you are
:44:21. > :44:25.genetically five foot four, and black, brown and whatever, why is it
:44:26. > :44:31.different from racism. I think there is a debate to be had. Do we then
:44:32. > :44:34.stop making jokes about people with big noses, sticky out ears. Do we go
:44:35. > :44:39.all the way down the line. I don't know that we do, don't we start
:44:40. > :44:45.living in a duller world. Would it be if we didn't talk about people's
:44:46. > :44:50.attributes, be it height or ears or whatever? We're trying to get this
:44:51. > :44:55.away from the individualistic side of T we are looking at it as a
:44:56. > :44:59.collective trait. When you call somebody a derockry name or
:45:00. > :45:05.disparaging name based on their height, it should be viewed on the
:45:06. > :45:09.way other groups see disparaging words affecting them. Is it
:45:10. > :45:14.discussions, jokes about height actually undermine your confidence?
:45:15. > :45:19.Of course it never helps your confidence to be a member of a group
:45:20. > :45:25.that can be easily and wantonly disparaged at a moment's notice. It
:45:26. > :45:29.is always difficult to combat these things, if you happen to be one of
:45:30. > :45:34.the people that want to combat these things, you will find there is
:45:35. > :45:39.tremendous resistance against you. Can humour be a weapon for you? And
:45:40. > :45:42.that five foot four comedian is not helping matters any. You are not
:45:43. > :45:50.helping matters any? I don't think there is a problem to be helped. I
:45:51. > :45:55.think it is, I don't find it, that height is a very different thing to
:45:56. > :46:01.discriminate against. We are not oppressed. I find the line odd. You
:46:02. > :46:05.never feel you are being patronised because of your height? I had a
:46:06. > :46:11.friend at school the same height as me, and in later years went shopping
:46:12. > :46:15.in a well-known supermarket and fell into a freezer chest, I couldn't
:46:16. > :46:20.help but laugh at that. It would be sad if we didn't. Is it different
:46:21. > :46:27.for men who are short stature or women? I don't know that it is. If
:46:28. > :46:33.it is used as a weapon against you, then that is a fair point. But I
:46:34. > :46:38.think in my experience it rarely is. It is not, I don't get abused
:46:39. > :46:41.because of it. Thank you very much. That's all we have time for. Good
:46:42. > :46:44.night.