:00:00. > :00:08.Tonight the Culture Secretary insists to Newsnight his role has
:00:09. > :00:11.not been compromised by what the papers knew about his
:00:12. > :00:15.Is this a story about bona fide privacy -
:00:16. > :00:22.What happens to the economy if we leave the EU?
:00:23. > :00:24.The International Monetary Fund predicts 'severe global damage'.
:00:25. > :00:29.This is the clearest independent warning of the taste of things
:00:30. > :00:35.I think we're much better off if we stay in the EU.
:00:36. > :00:40.That will make Britain stronger, safer and better off.
:00:41. > :00:45.Ken Clarke and Daniel Hannan are here to debate.
:00:46. > :00:53.And the survivors of Jimmy Savile's abuse tell their story.
:00:54. > :00:57.I would get so depressed, I had anorexia as well.
:00:58. > :00:59.I had absolutely no confidence in myself.
:01:00. > :01:16.We'll ask a survivor, a police investigator and a prosecutor.
:01:17. > :01:22.In a moment we'll be bringing you the latest on a story
:01:23. > :01:25.that is begining to emerge as we go on air -
:01:26. > :01:27.a statement given to Newsnight from the Culture
:01:28. > :01:29.Secretary John Whittingdale about a possible conflict
:01:30. > :01:33.The warning from the International Monetary Fund today
:01:34. > :01:38.An exit from the EU, they said, could cause severe regional
:01:39. > :01:41.and global damage - against the backdrop of a slashed
:01:42. > :01:44.forecast for global growth for the fourth time in one year.
:01:45. > :01:47.Forget for one second questions of whether the IMF -
:01:48. > :01:50.which contains firm friends of George Osborne and of the EU -
:01:51. > :01:53.should be taking a view on British domestic politics.
:01:54. > :01:57.Forget even that the quote comes from the former economic advisor
:01:58. > :02:00.to Barack Obama, who has already made his own position
:02:01. > :02:04.Tonight, those on the Leave side find themselves having to take
:02:05. > :02:06.on a reputable eeconomic body that is forecasting doom for this
:02:07. > :02:08.country outside of the European Union.
:02:09. > :02:12.Is this the kind of statement that makes up a voter's mind?
:02:13. > :02:14.We'll ask Ken Clarke and Dan Hannan in a moment.
:02:15. > :02:31.The EU referendum result has been declared and the UK
:02:32. > :02:42.Will it be Brexit with breakfast, and if so, what will that mean?
:02:43. > :02:46.Plenty are serving us up their opinions. Today the International
:02:47. > :02:50.monetary fund voted that if the UK votes to leave the EU that could
:02:51. > :02:54.have dire global consequences for the world economy. In its latest
:02:55. > :02:58.Outlook published to date they warned that the planned referendum
:02:59. > :03:05.on European Union membership has already created uncertainty for
:03:06. > :03:08.investors. A Brexit could do severe regional and global damage by
:03:09. > :03:14.disrupting established trading relationships. We already see the
:03:15. > :03:20.uncertainty of the referendum result playing on the UK economy and a vote
:03:21. > :03:23.to leave would set off a process of two years, a lengthy divorce, with a
:03:24. > :03:30.very uncertain settlement at the end. As anyone who has been through
:03:31. > :03:34.that process knows, it is not a positive event. For those
:03:35. > :03:40.campaigning to leave the EU, both the timing and the substance of this
:03:41. > :03:43.intervention is suspect. I think this is a highly political
:03:44. > :03:46.intervention. I don't believe it is the result of a lot of people with
:03:47. > :03:51.computers crunching the numbers aren't coming to some objective
:03:52. > :03:55.conclusion. I think it reflects the opinions of the EU, of the Eurozone
:03:56. > :04:03.in particular and I think it's highly convenient for the British
:04:04. > :04:05.government, who have not exactly discouraged this. Far from
:04:06. > :04:07.discouraging this assessment, the Chancellor was very keen to
:04:08. > :04:14.reinforce the anti-Brexit message of the IMF. They say that if we did
:04:15. > :04:18.leave the EU there would be an impact on stability and long-term
:04:19. > :04:21.cost economies of this is the clearest independent warning of the
:04:22. > :04:27.taste of things to come if we leave. I think we are much better off if we
:04:28. > :04:31.stay in the EU, that will make Britain stronger, safer and better
:04:32. > :04:35.off. He has not always been so keen to accept the judgment of the IM
:04:36. > :04:40.Ofcom in 2012 they gave dire warnings about the UK economy,
:04:41. > :04:44.saying the Chancellor was playing with fire unless he relaxed
:04:45. > :04:47.austerity. George Osborne was furious but one year later the IMF
:04:48. > :05:07.admitted they got the assessment wrong. We got it
:05:08. > :05:09.wrong, we acknowledged it, we were not the only ones to get it wrong.
:05:10. > :05:12.Any democratic vote suggests a level of uncertainty and the poll suggests
:05:13. > :05:15.the race is tight. Beyond that is there any reason to think that life
:05:16. > :05:17.outside the EU word in the long-term he was then inside? People. The
:05:18. > :05:21.buying German cars in this country and we will still buy cars from
:05:22. > :05:25.outside Europe. Welfare to be a decision to leave the EU, we would
:05:26. > :05:30.have a period, perhaps two years, in which nothing changed while
:05:31. > :05:37.negotiations continued, so I think this is way over the top, what the
:05:38. > :05:42.IMF has said. The IMF is walking a thin line between giving an economic
:05:43. > :05:45.opinion and intervening in a domestic political question. Listen
:05:46. > :05:51.how President and Chief Economist gets when asked if Brexit is too big
:05:52. > :05:59.a risk to take. Well, I think it is a risk. Ah, I think British people
:06:00. > :06:04.have to consider very carefully what the balance is of risks, political
:06:05. > :06:08.considerations and political preferences involved as well but in
:06:09. > :06:13.terms of the bill in economics, we would worry about the outcome. With
:06:14. > :06:17.ten weeks to go, there will be plenty more arguments about where
:06:18. > :06:21.the balance of risk lies and some could get quite heated, like this
:06:22. > :06:27.exchange in the European Parliament today it in a passionate Belgian
:06:28. > :06:30.European integrationist and a pro-Brexit British MEP. Sometimes
:06:31. > :06:34.you don't need the simultaneous translation!
:06:35. > :06:36.Joining me now, MEP Dan Hannan of the Vote Leave campaign,
:06:37. > :06:38.and former chancellor Ken Clarke for the Remainers.
:06:39. > :06:48.Very nice to have you both here. Severe global damage, I guess, Dan,
:06:49. > :06:52.is not a phrase they would use lightly? They have been consistently
:06:53. > :06:57.wrong and they are wrong about this. They've been wrong in a consistent
:06:58. > :07:01.way. They have consistently underestimated the strength of the
:07:02. > :07:05.UK economy and consistently underestimated the severity of the
:07:06. > :07:10.Euro crisis. I think what you said at the beginning of about them being
:07:11. > :07:14.mates, I'm pretty sure that it was an Newsnight that I saw George
:07:15. > :07:18.Osborne half promising Christine Lagarde the job of managing director
:07:19. > :07:22.of the IMF. She made it clear that her priority was to keep the Euro
:07:23. > :07:31.together. The IMF has become a sort of adjunct of the EU. I can see why
:07:32. > :07:35.they want Britain to be continuing part of those bailouts, we are one
:07:36. > :07:39.of the countries with the resources to keep rescuing others. Yet the
:07:40. > :07:45.question we face and the one we will face in June is do we need to make
:07:46. > :07:51.the use am's problems our problems or can we leave them to the rest of
:07:52. > :07:58.the world? Kenneth Clarke, but has been said that it is highly
:07:59. > :08:03.convenient politically to say this. Norman is no friend of mine but how
:08:04. > :08:10.he can dismiss them like that, I don't know. I am joined Fiji 20,
:08:11. > :08:16.President Obama and most of the people in the City, most business
:08:17. > :08:21.leaders, the CBI, all of which Eurosceptics have a tendency to wave
:08:22. > :08:25.away as scaremongering, it will be all right. The two people on tonight
:08:26. > :08:31.two of the more respectable advocates coming yet they have no
:08:32. > :08:34.clear idea of what will happen if we leave and this uncertainty is
:08:35. > :08:38.damaging to economic confidence. And they believe that over two years
:08:39. > :08:43.they will be able to negotiate a holding pattern of trading with the
:08:44. > :08:47.outside world and it will be right. Daniel Hannan, do you concede that
:08:48. > :08:52.they will be uncertainty and that will have a lasting effect on the
:08:53. > :08:55.British economy? I think it's important to understand what happens
:08:56. > :08:59.the day after we vote to leave. First, we carry on with the current
:09:00. > :09:04.arrangement while we discuss it. Then on the day that the exit
:09:05. > :09:07.happens, two or three years later, everything remains in place and to
:09:08. > :09:14.one side or the other changes it. We've adopted all of the EU's
:09:15. > :09:17.regulations on standardisation, there are no tariffs, all the things
:09:18. > :09:23.like reciprocal health care would carry on until one side or the other
:09:24. > :09:26.wanted to change. There would be some gradual movement. We would
:09:27. > :09:31.embrace a different trajectory, although the person who got this
:09:32. > :09:35.spot on at the launch of the Remain campaign was Lord rose when he said
:09:36. > :09:41.it would not be a step change, it would be a gentle process, after
:09:42. > :09:46.five change, - Mac five years, magenta, after ten a bit of change.
:09:47. > :09:51.The way he describes it sounds like a yacht in a bath tub. The whole
:09:52. > :09:55.point of negotiation will be the winning side of the Eurosceptics
:09:56. > :09:58.when they will say they want to change things. They've made it clear
:09:59. > :10:03.they want to give out free movement of Labour and give up being the
:10:04. > :10:07.rules of the trading zone. That means huge uncertainty. Even the
:10:08. > :10:15.risk of Brexit is affecting the economy now. The British economy is
:10:16. > :10:21.slowing down. Our economy, steady on, Dan, investments are on hold,
:10:22. > :10:26.there are no major investments going ahead... The pound is strong... The
:10:27. > :10:30.pound has weakened quite a lot because of the uncertainty and the
:10:31. > :10:36.governor of the Bank of England got shot down by Eurosceptics when he
:10:37. > :10:41.calmed things by saying that he did have plans in place Brexit, taking
:10:42. > :10:45.the lead in the opinion polls, led to a flight of capital out of the
:10:46. > :10:50.country. There is uncertainty. It's no good saying that it is certain
:10:51. > :10:55.that for two years nothing will happen. That is not what the Leave
:10:56. > :11:00.campaigners are saying in general. It is not about what you say, it is
:11:01. > :11:05.how the markets react and if there is a spooking, that will mean a lack
:11:06. > :11:09.of investment coming into this country already. You can't say that
:11:10. > :11:15.for two years nothing will change. Was that addressed to me, Emily? The
:11:16. > :11:20.whole point of your campaign is that you want to change things and then
:11:21. > :11:25.you say that nothing will change! Since the referendum was announced
:11:26. > :11:29.in January 2013 this country has received more inward investment than
:11:30. > :11:34.any other country in the EU. This country has created more jobs than
:11:35. > :11:39.any other country, incredibly, more than all the other members of the EU
:11:40. > :11:44.but together. Never mind speculation, as a matter of
:11:45. > :11:49.observable fact, the possibility of leaving the EU has had no deterrent
:11:50. > :11:53.effect on inward investment. I remember Ken sailing exactly these
:11:54. > :11:57.things 15 years ago about keeping the pound .- saying these things. He
:11:58. > :12:03.said it would scare away investment and that was a run on the pound, not
:12:04. > :12:07.only was he wrong, the things that he predicted... Let's read out what
:12:08. > :12:13.you said! We are running out of time. I'm happy to debate it, what I
:12:14. > :12:18.said 15 years ago, although that is not what we are talking about now.
:12:19. > :12:22.We've strongly attracted inward investment because we have one of
:12:23. > :12:26.the least regulated countries in the Western world and we are in the
:12:27. > :12:31.youth appeal union. The flow of inward investment is on hold at the
:12:32. > :12:35.moment -- we are in the European Union. No foreign investor will
:12:36. > :12:38.invest here until he knows what our trading and political relationships
:12:39. > :12:42.are with the outside world in a few weeks' time. That's where the
:12:43. > :12:46.Governor of the Bank of England, no doubt also part of the political
:12:47. > :12:52.conspiracy, had to say what he would do in case of a flight of capital. I
:12:53. > :12:54.appreciate it is much harder down the line, down, we've run out of
:12:55. > :12:57.time, thank you for joining us. Tonight John Whittingdale confirmed
:12:58. > :12:59.to this programme he had had a relationship with a woman
:13:00. > :13:02.who turned out, unbeknownst to him, to be a sex worker, a fact
:13:03. > :13:05.he discovered from a reporter. The details of that
:13:06. > :13:07.relationship went unpublished - Maybe the newspapers never
:13:08. > :13:11.considered a story about the private lives of two consenting
:13:12. > :13:12.adults worth running. Or maybe there were more political
:13:13. > :13:15.reasons behind the decision But John Whittingdale -
:13:16. > :13:21.who was at the time - head of the Culture Select Committee
:13:22. > :13:24.- now sits at the very top of a department whose job
:13:25. > :13:26.is to regulate newspapers. Indeed, he is currently overseeing
:13:27. > :13:29.a whole new regulatory framework under consideration in the wake
:13:30. > :13:31.of the Leveson inquiry. So has his position
:13:32. > :13:34.been compromised? And should he have told his
:13:35. > :13:50.bosses in Downing Street Tonight an extraordinary statement
:13:51. > :13:54.from the culture secretary John Whittingdale confirming a story that
:13:55. > :13:58.for both the UK newspapers did not run. But he did have a relationship
:13:59. > :14:04.with the woman who turned out to be a dominatrix. Both he and Downing
:14:05. > :14:09.Street said it is no 1's business other than his own. John
:14:10. > :14:13.Whittingdale told Newsnight in a statement, between August 2013 and
:14:14. > :14:18.February 2014 I had a relationship with someone I first met through
:14:19. > :14:24.match.com. She was a similar age and live close to me. At no time did she
:14:25. > :14:27.give me any indication of a real occupation and I only discovered
:14:28. > :14:31.this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story
:14:32. > :14:38.about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the
:14:39. > :14:42.relationship. This is an old story which was a bit embarrassing at the
:14:43. > :14:47.time. The offence occurred long before I took up my present position
:14:48. > :14:52.and it has never had any influence on the decisions I have made. As
:14:53. > :14:57.culture secretary. It is over three years since Lord Justice Levenson
:14:58. > :14:59.concluded that UK newspapers needed a tougher regulator. Culture
:15:00. > :15:05.Secretary John Whittingdale has made it perfectly plain he is not minded
:15:06. > :15:10.to give it all the teeth. George Robson wanted but everything has got
:15:11. > :15:15.a whole lot murkier but allegations both on the intranet and today in
:15:16. > :15:21.Private eye that some of newspapers have got something on the Cabinet
:15:22. > :15:26.minister. The story first surfaced that John Whittingdale had a
:15:27. > :15:31.relationship with a woman who was a prostitute. His office told
:15:32. > :15:39.Newsnight he had no idea that his girlfriend at the time was a sex
:15:40. > :15:43.worker. This is the street were the dungeon lies but this is not the
:15:44. > :15:48.story about an MP who became a Cabinet minister and a dominatrix.
:15:49. > :15:55.It is a story about why the newspapers did not run that story.
:15:56. > :15:58.And why that might be. James Cusick was reporter on the Independent
:15:59. > :16:04.newspaper. He looked up the story for five months. There are details
:16:05. > :16:09.of his private life basically which I think the public have a right to
:16:10. > :16:13.know about, if this individual is making these decisions that will
:16:14. > :16:16.affect the way people look at newspapers, the way newspapers
:16:17. > :16:22.behave, the way the BBC behaves. You have a right to know about the
:16:23. > :16:28.private life of this man if there is something in it he is trying to hold
:16:29. > :16:32.back. In 2013 Mr Whittingdale and his girlfriend went to the MTV
:16:33. > :16:38.awards in Amsterdam. The trip was paid for by MTV. He did not declare
:16:39. > :16:42.this trip with a parliamentary registry of interest because the
:16:43. > :16:49.cost of the trip his office said, did not meet the reported threshold.
:16:50. > :16:54.He did declare a similar trip to MTV awards that he made with his then
:16:55. > :16:57.wife in 2006. Newsnight understands that for newspaper groups
:16:58. > :17:02.investigated the relationship between the MP and the dominatrix,
:17:03. > :17:09.the people as part of the Mirror Group, the Mail on Sunday, the son,
:17:10. > :17:12.and the Independent. All four newspapers spent time on the story
:17:13. > :17:20.and all four of them did not run the story. Some commentators especially
:17:21. > :17:23.amongst the hacked off group called foul saying the newspapers are
:17:24. > :17:27.hypocrites. This may be unfair to editors who now more than ever are
:17:28. > :17:31.concerned about invading privacy. Whittingdale after all was a single
:17:32. > :17:36.man, having a relationship with a woman, a consenting adult. Tonight
:17:37. > :17:41.Number Ten told Newsnight was John Whittingdale is a single man and his
:17:42. > :17:46.private life is his own affair. But tellingly Number Ten also said it
:17:47. > :17:51.was not aware of Whittingdale's relationship before he was appointed
:17:52. > :17:55.culture secretary. To be fair to Whittingdale, he has always been an
:17:56. > :17:59.advocate of light regulation of newspapers so there's no evidence
:18:00. > :18:04.that he has anything hypocritical. The question is how much confidence
:18:05. > :18:08.can the public have in John Whittingdale, secretary of state for
:18:09. > :18:11.culture, the man in charge of the issue of whether newspapers should
:18:12. > :18:17.be regulated or not, if they go public, no those same newspapers
:18:18. > :18:22.have got something on the man from -- the man John Whittingdale. The
:18:23. > :18:26.issue highlight by Private eye is fairness. The satirical magazine
:18:27. > :18:31.highlights two cases, of the Tory MP Brooks Newmark and Labour peer Lord
:18:32. > :18:37.Sewel, both had their sexual shenanigans splashed across the
:18:38. > :18:41.papers. Max Mosley, for his shaming by the tabloid press after sexual
:18:42. > :18:43.antics were laid bare and he got a bit of a kicking from John
:18:44. > :18:49.Whittingdale as well. It is quite funny, when I appeared
:18:50. > :18:54.in front of his committee back in 2009, he said regarding my story
:18:55. > :18:59.with News of the World, you must have realised it was a time bomb
:19:00. > :19:04.that was going to go off. He had similar interests, and I would've
:19:05. > :19:09.asked if you're not in the same position. In my case it had nothing
:19:10. > :19:15.to do with what I was known for, working in the motor racing world.
:19:16. > :19:18.In his world of course, he's involved with the press. When he
:19:19. > :19:26.said that to me unfortunately I did not know what he was up to. Then the
:19:27. > :19:30.man arguing for full disclosure on the mystery celebrity who had a
:19:31. > :19:36.threesome. The Daily Mail asked, whatever happened to the public
:19:37. > :19:38.right to know. Tonight that seems a good question, not just in Fleet
:19:39. > :19:41.Street but also in Westminster. It's worth making clear that
:19:42. > :19:44.all the newspapers who decided not to run the Whittingdale story say
:19:45. > :19:47.they dropped it because they decided It's also worth pointing out that
:19:48. > :19:51.many of those criticising Whittingdale today have their own
:19:52. > :19:55.grievances against him. Some allies of Whittingdale point
:19:56. > :19:58.to the irony of privacy campaigners castigating newspapers for failing
:19:59. > :20:01.to invade the privacy One of those critics
:20:02. > :20:21.is the Shadow Leader Tonight he said that the culture
:20:22. > :20:25.secretary was entitled to a private life but should have removed himself
:20:26. > :20:28.from regulation of the press. Joining me now to discuss
:20:29. > :20:31.this are Brian Cathcart, founder of Hacked Off,
:20:32. > :20:33.and Roy Greenslade, professor of journalist at City University
:20:34. > :20:42.and a former editor of the Mirror. Does this compromise his position as
:20:43. > :20:47.culture secretary? It was, the public cannot have faith that this
:20:48. > :20:50.man has been at Ding and remember he made important decisions in relation
:20:51. > :20:55.to the press, decisions that they welcome wholeheartedly and
:20:56. > :21:01.enthusiastically. The public cannot have faith in his judgment, in his
:21:02. > :21:07.independence, in making decisions about the media any more. So you as
:21:08. > :21:12.part of the body that would like to see more privacy is advocating that
:21:13. > :21:17.this story should be in the public view. It is not a story about John
:21:18. > :21:25.Whittingdale and his private life. It is a story about why the press
:21:26. > :21:30.did not cover it. To suggest in the very week when we see newspapers
:21:31. > :21:33.baying for the right to cover a story about a celebrity and private
:21:34. > :21:37.which are judge told them they have no right to cover, in that same week
:21:38. > :21:44.that they would be too scrupulous, too high-minded to report a story
:21:45. > :21:48.about a Cabinet minister which any judge in the country would tell them
:21:49. > :21:53.they have a right to. It is absurd for top what do you think the papers
:21:54. > :22:00.did not pick this up, was there a sense of high-mindedness, or public
:22:01. > :22:04.interest? You have got to think when it happened, it was not long after
:22:05. > :22:09.the Leveson Inquiry. They would all be careful about whether or not they
:22:10. > :22:12.had a public interest justification. They would all have taken separate
:22:13. > :22:17.legal advice, they would all have looked at the code of practice. I
:22:18. > :22:22.think it is a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing
:22:23. > :22:25.for once. By deciding that this was a story about a man who was
:22:26. > :22:31.unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who had not told him
:22:32. > :22:36.she was a sex worker, when he did know, he ended the relationship. I
:22:37. > :22:44.cannot see that there was a genuine story there and clearly, with the
:22:45. > :22:49.sun, the people, the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same. Do feel John
:22:50. > :22:55.Whittingdale did the right thing, he did not tell his bosses at Number
:22:56. > :22:59.Ten and he accepted the position of culture secretary? That is a
:23:00. > :23:02.separate matter. It might be wise to have done that. Although he probably
:23:03. > :23:08.thought this is a relationship which is over and done with. He was then
:23:09. > :23:11.just chairman of the select committee, he did not have much
:23:12. > :23:16.power in that position. When he came to power it was no longer a matter
:23:17. > :23:30.of amazing interest because it was over. That is surely naive. The man
:23:31. > :23:35.had just become a minister. Let me put it to you, do you think he is
:23:36. > :23:39.now compromised, can he oversee regulation of the newspapers and
:23:40. > :23:44.implementation of whatever is post the Leveson Inquiry? Of course you
:23:45. > :23:49.can. It does not compromise them one bit. It is pure speculation that the
:23:50. > :23:55.newspapers have conspired to keep up this story. This is a competitive
:23:56. > :24:01.industry. It was once pure speculation that newspapers hacked
:24:02. > :24:05.phones. It is a murky world as John Swinney has said. The idea that
:24:06. > :24:09.these newspapers are too scrupulous, when he becomes culture secretary,
:24:10. > :24:16.to tackle him on this, is just naive. These newspapers wanted power
:24:17. > :24:23.over a minister and they had power over a minister. We do not know the,
:24:24. > :24:26.how that plays out, but we know this is a minister made three vital
:24:27. > :24:31.decisions, all of which were incredibly helpful to the press. And
:24:32. > :24:36.not terribly in the interests of the public. Do you think that is just to
:24:37. > :24:43.convince -- the conspiracy theory? It is. It is quite straightforward.
:24:44. > :24:48.Newspapers have decided that they will try to get the story,
:24:49. > :24:51.investigated the story and discovered there is not a story that
:24:52. > :24:58.they can justify publishing. That is not true. There are at least five
:24:59. > :25:05.public interest justifications for publishing the story. What do you
:25:06. > :25:08.think should happen now? John Whittingdale should get out of the
:25:09. > :25:13.weight of the legislation passed by Parliament. Passed by all parties in
:25:14. > :25:17.parliament. -- out of the way. He is blocking this legislation which will
:25:18. > :25:25.give everyone in this country access to justice in libel cases.
:25:26. > :25:30.It is quite simple. He has not put that forward. That is not his
:25:31. > :25:33.decision alone. It is the decision of the Cabinet and the Prime
:25:34. > :25:37.Minister. I cannot think for one moment that John Whittingdale holds
:25:38. > :25:39.the fate of UK newspapers in his hands alone. That is just not on.
:25:40. > :25:43.Thank you both very much. The row about disability
:25:44. > :25:45.benefits made the 48 hours after the last budget something
:25:46. > :25:47.of a political low point Plenty of name calling and a faintly
:25:48. > :25:53.unwilling policy U-turn. It threatened to overshadow just
:25:54. > :25:54.about everything else. But there were plenty of other
:25:55. > :25:57.announcements that day that are only One is the high speed move to turn
:25:58. > :26:02.local authority schools Labour holds its first debate
:26:03. > :26:07.on that tomorrow. And, as Chris Cook has been finding
:26:08. > :26:22.out, it is leaving many education Tell us what you found. Since the
:26:23. > :26:28.budget one thing is clear, when you meet people who are in a fisheries
:26:29. > :26:32.of this policy, those big academy chains, reforming school leaders and
:26:33. > :26:38.people who I would characterise as natural allies of the Education
:26:39. > :26:43.Secretary, what you see is enormous nervousness about where exactly
:26:44. > :26:46.these reforms will go. There are 850 or so academy sponsors in the
:26:47. > :26:51.country. The government has done research into the effectiveness of
:26:52. > :26:53.around 20 and of those we know there are around three that are more
:26:54. > :26:58.effective than the average school. We are hearing from academy chains
:26:59. > :27:01.on the ground that they are concerned that there is not the
:27:02. > :27:05.capacity in the school system to take on a large number of extra
:27:06. > :27:10.schools from the local authorities without problems for standards.
:27:11. > :27:12.John Mannix, chief executive of Plymouth Cast -
:27:13. > :27:15.a Catholic multi-academy trust of 35 schools across the west country.
:27:16. > :27:19.Sir David Carter is the National Schools Commissioner.
:27:20. > :27:21.Before that, he was the head of the Cabot Federation,
:27:22. > :27:30.There is concern that this is happening too fast. We have got to
:27:31. > :27:36.realise this is not something that has come from thin air. We have been
:27:37. > :27:41.working towards this since the last ten years. It started of course in
:27:42. > :27:44.the last Labour government, accelerated throughout the Coalition
:27:45. > :27:48.Government. We do have a lot of knowledge in the system that this is
:27:49. > :27:55.working. Chris mentioned in his piece about the government
:27:56. > :27:59.investigating 20. Regional schools Commissioner 's and National Schools
:28:00. > :28:02.Commissioner 's have a lot of knowledge about what is working. I
:28:03. > :28:07.do not underestimate the challenge but the price of getting it right is
:28:08. > :28:12.tantalising and I'm confident that we can deliver a full academy system
:28:13. > :28:16.that will give us a single dynamic form of education for this country
:28:17. > :28:24.and improve life chances of children in our schools. Ayew reassured? --
:28:25. > :28:31.Ayew reassured. I'm not in a position to judge the capacity of
:28:32. > :28:35.government to bring this about. I think the area of concern for me
:28:36. > :28:42.within the debate is that it has been polarised. We used to have this
:28:43. > :28:46.kind of local authority school, we have decided we do not like that and
:28:47. > :28:50.there is a new model of the academy school and that has got to be the
:28:51. > :28:54.way forward. And therefore everyone is trying to look at the evidence,
:28:55. > :29:00.look at some academies, to be appear to be right and depending on
:29:01. > :29:05.normally your view of this you would select your evidence accordingly.
:29:06. > :29:11.The reason I am a supporter of the academy programme is that I do not
:29:12. > :29:20.see the academies as a single model in opposition to the previous model.
:29:21. > :29:23.The beauty of it is academies is about new possibilities and
:29:24. > :29:30.flexibility, creativity. How quickly or slowly would you like it to
:29:31. > :29:35.happen? Again to say it, one of the things that is exciting about the
:29:36. > :29:40.programme is that it is being refined and developed and
:29:41. > :29:45.scrutinised and tweaks. So the good thing about it is for example in our
:29:46. > :29:51.own multi-academy trust, there are particular academy freedoms,
:29:52. > :29:56.changing terms and conditions of teachers, pay and conditions, the
:29:57. > :29:59.way things are operated at local government body level, we can change
:30:00. > :30:03.those things, we just do not think that they were broken and so we
:30:04. > :30:07.retain them. Love the chance to take everything that was good here on the
:30:08. > :30:11.previous system, retaining it but having flexibility to develop it
:30:12. > :30:17.further. Especially the multi-academy trust dimension, it
:30:18. > :30:18.brings the benefit that even over a short period of time, we are seeing
:30:19. > :30:28.that strongly. Sir David when you hear this
:30:29. > :30:33.considered view from someone who is a fan of academies but regrets that
:30:34. > :30:38.this one size fits all speed boat has been put on top of everything
:30:39. > :30:44.does it not make you think twice? Let me make a couple of points. I
:30:45. > :30:48.have come into this role from 32 years of being a head teacher and
:30:49. > :30:52.I've been ahead in local authority schools and academies and rummaging
:30:53. > :30:56.of academies. One challenge I want to address is shifting the debate
:30:57. > :31:00.whether from weather academies or local authorities are good or bad
:31:01. > :31:05.and thinking about the single education system we need. John has
:31:06. > :31:09.rightly talked about the power of a multi-academy trust. While I believe
:31:10. > :31:12.there is room in assistant for them to support other schools the power
:31:13. > :31:17.of the multi-academy trust and what it does for parents and children and
:31:18. > :31:23.staff is very powerful. This is how we will sustain it. Give me a second
:31:24. > :31:30.and I will talk briefly... Briefly because I want to bring Chris and
:31:31. > :31:33.again. Of course. Parents who want to educate their children understand
:31:34. > :31:37.the context in which this works. This is a policy about local
:31:38. > :31:41.schools. One quick illustration, this afternoon I was in Cornwall
:31:42. > :31:46.working with a group of 17 schools want to form a multi-academy trust,
:31:47. > :31:51.15 were primaries and several have less than 100 children in them.
:31:52. > :31:54.Sustainability for that model is important if it means that that
:31:55. > :31:58.multi-academy trust can make sure that the best trained teachers are
:31:59. > :32:04.making the children of those parents, that is a winner. Two
:32:05. > :32:10.speakers clearly on the same side and yet seeing a very different
:32:11. > :32:13.approach to how this should be done. There are also particular problems
:32:14. > :32:17.at school leaders are bringing out and one of these things is about the
:32:18. > :32:21.right of parents to effectively influence and hold schools
:32:22. > :32:25.accountable. We are moving to a world where 20 odd thousand state
:32:26. > :32:29.schools in England are going to have who gets a new roof decided in
:32:30. > :32:33.Whitehall, who runs your local school decided by original
:32:34. > :32:36.commission and there will be a panel of teachers who don't get to go to
:32:37. > :32:42.their board meetings and don't know when the art, don't get problem and
:32:43. > :32:51.it's from them. And in a silly opaque system. -- and enormously
:32:52. > :32:54.Paik system. -- I am sorry that we have run out of time. Thank you.
:32:55. > :32:57.There were wives who'd never heard their husbands speak of it,
:32:58. > :32:59.husbands who'd never heard their wives speak of it.
:33:00. > :33:04.Children who'd never heard their parents discuss it,
:33:05. > :33:07.and parents who went to their graves without ever
:33:08. > :33:08.knowing their own children had been victims.
:33:09. > :33:11.They are The Abused - and in one remarkable account -
:33:12. > :33:13.raw, honest, shattering - we hear from those whose
:33:14. > :33:15.lives were destroyed by Jimmy Savile - and others.
:33:16. > :33:17.How initial attempts to report it failed.
:33:18. > :33:22.And how a public outcry of support for him turned to a clamour of rage.
:33:23. > :33:24.How the police became overwhelmed when so many spoke out
:33:25. > :33:33.Here's a clip from the BBC documentary, which aired last night.
:33:34. > :33:51.I had absolutely no confidence in myself.
:33:52. > :34:08.The only person I ever told was my husband before we got married.
:34:09. > :34:11.Some of those speaking out for the first time.
:34:12. > :34:15.So what can this story tell us about the way we investigate abuse?
:34:16. > :34:17.And has enough changed since the dark days of the 70s?
:34:18. > :34:20.Dee Coles, who was a victim of abuse by Savile,
:34:21. > :34:25.Alison Levitt, QC, a former legal advisor to
:34:26. > :34:26.the Director of Public Prosecutions, is here.
:34:27. > :34:29.And Clive Driscoll, former Met policeman.
:34:30. > :34:39.A very warm welcome to you all. We saw you in the film last night. What
:34:40. > :34:43.came out most strongly for me was how many other relationships in your
:34:44. > :34:48.life are affected by about one moment, you spoke movingly of how
:34:49. > :34:56.you are not able to tell your best friend, your mum. I wonder how much
:34:57. > :34:59.impact you think that has had them, you with your man, your husbands
:35:00. > :35:08.Camille wives, it seems never ending. -- your mother, your
:35:09. > :35:14.husbands, your wives. I think it is a massive impact because in what
:35:15. > :35:19.comes down to minutes you lose so much, you lose trust and faith and
:35:20. > :35:23.hope. You lose that with yourself, and you lose that with the world,
:35:24. > :35:30.and everyone you meet in it. It is gone from that moment. And does that
:35:31. > :35:37.then play into this whole question of being believed? Does that become
:35:38. > :35:43.the most central thing to hear somebody say, yes, we believe what
:35:44. > :35:51.you went through? It was amazing for me to hear that. It was only in the
:35:52. > :35:58.film that I heard that. Other than speaking to our league, the
:35:59. > :36:03.director, I had made my statement to the police but that was incredibly
:36:04. > :36:07.painful. And as much as I know that Operation Yewtree was just forming
:36:08. > :36:10.and they were overworked and saying, I'm sorry, we can't get to you, that
:36:11. > :36:17.was the most painful part the process. Allison, one of the
:36:18. > :36:22.speakers in the film has this howl of grief when she goes through the
:36:23. > :36:30.court case years later, and half of her own story is rejected, even
:36:31. > :36:37.then. It comes down to this question of how you are trusted, even in
:36:38. > :36:41.court. I think it's very difficult to explain to victims that actually
:36:42. > :36:47.it is not that they have not been believed, it is that the standard of
:36:48. > :36:51.proof that is required from a jury is that the jury must be sure. It
:36:52. > :36:56.may like a question of semantics to say that not being sure is not the
:36:57. > :37:02.same is not believing, that does not help victims. We noticed that the
:37:03. > :37:08.victims who do best with the process are those who invest not so much in
:37:09. > :37:14.the outcome but more in the process of saying that I need to speak out,
:37:15. > :37:16.I need to have my voice heard, and after that, whether there is a
:37:17. > :37:23.conviction or not is less significant. What we saw was that
:37:24. > :37:27.actually it was about numbers in the end. When the numbers were
:37:28. > :37:35.overwhelming the authorities had to believe these witnesses. Absolutely.
:37:36. > :37:38.And cases where you think, is individual victims had known that
:37:39. > :37:49.there were others, they would have gone on. That was one of the things
:37:50. > :37:55.we realised looking at the Savile cases, it was not only with those,
:37:56. > :37:59.it was with the cases in Rotherham, because of the fear of a false
:38:00. > :38:03.allegation being made, and that is understandable, that the
:38:04. > :38:06.investigators were in effect applying a higher standard for
:38:07. > :38:13.victims of sexual offences than they would for victims of say, burglary
:38:14. > :38:17.or road traffic offences. Do you think that this has changed now, the
:38:18. > :38:22.way that investigators ask the questions and the very questions
:38:23. > :38:28.they ask? I think there has been quite a lot of progress made. It is
:38:29. > :38:33.a work in progress, we must learn from Mr Savile's case because
:38:34. > :38:36.mistakes were made, I think they have acknowledged that. I believe
:38:37. > :38:41.that the police are far better now in dealing with these cases but you
:38:42. > :38:44.can always get better, and we need to win the confidence, because
:38:45. > :38:50.really, it is witnesses that are the lifeblood of the police force. We
:38:51. > :38:55.need to be able to put good evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service
:38:56. > :38:59.to allow them to make these very important decisions that there is a
:39:00. > :39:02.realistic chance of success in court. And I believe that the police
:39:03. > :39:07.suddenly have got better at what they do. I also believe that we have
:39:08. > :39:11.to learn lessons from nearly every case we deal with, because the
:39:12. > :39:16.chances are that there is something you have missed, and that can make
:39:17. > :39:22.it better for the next investigation that is how it must be. Do you think
:39:23. > :39:26.you are getting better at these investigations? Operation Midland
:39:27. > :39:32.has now been dropped. Do you feel that was the right decision? The
:39:33. > :39:35.decision to discontinue the investigation, you would have to
:39:36. > :39:44.speak to someone within that. My view is, if the evidence is not
:39:45. > :39:48.going to reach the standard, that you had better not go into court,
:39:49. > :39:52.because there can't be anything worse for a victim than losing in
:39:53. > :39:58.court. If you need to stop and reassess the evidence you have got
:39:59. > :40:04.with a view to may be revisiting it if further evidence comes to light.
:40:05. > :40:09.I think that all three of us would agree that the fact that something
:40:10. > :40:12.took place a long time ago or the allegation relates to something a
:40:13. > :40:16.long time ago does not mean it should not be investigated. I think
:40:17. > :40:20.it's important that people who did this kind of thing should spend
:40:21. > :40:23.their entire lives looking over their shoulders knowing we might be
:40:24. > :40:26.coming for them because it is an important deterrent for those might
:40:27. > :40:32.be inclined to do it again in the future. There's also a deterrent for
:40:33. > :40:36.people coming forward if they feel that the system is not on their
:40:37. > :40:40.site, if it is too adversarial or they feel they will go through a
:40:41. > :40:46.similar sense of inflation in court. Has enough changed, does more need
:40:47. > :40:50.to change? I think the courts have made huge strides in the way victims
:40:51. > :40:54.are treated. Adaptations have been made to the way that evidence is
:40:55. > :41:00.given, from straightforward things like not having to be in the same
:41:01. > :41:04.room as the person that accusing, giving evidence from behind a
:41:05. > :41:09.screen, or through video link, that is quite standard, there are now
:41:10. > :41:13.more sophisticated systems so that in the case of vulnerable victims
:41:14. > :41:16.the judge can give directions to say, you must ask questions in a
:41:17. > :41:21.certain way and you can only do it for a certain time period. If there
:41:22. > :41:26.are multiple... One thing we learned from the grooming case of multiple
:41:27. > :41:32.defendants, is, do not allow the victim to be cross examined by a
:41:33. > :41:36.large number of advocates. Even before getting to court, just making
:41:37. > :41:43.a statement about a case that is years old, the statement to me
:41:44. > :41:51.seemed to be taken in the same way as a statement about something that
:41:52. > :41:56.happened last week. I'm trying to tell a story that is incredibly
:41:57. > :42:00.difficult, was it his left hand, was at his right hand, one point the
:42:01. > :42:06.woman taking the statement asked me why I did not push him away.
:42:07. > :42:14.That is all we have time for now, Evan is back tomorrow, in the
:42:15. > :42:19.meantime, we wish you good night. Ayr hello, the big temperature
:42:20. > :42:21.contrast of today goes on through the night so 67 degrees