:00:00. > :00:13.16`year`old is due back in court in September. Time now for the Week in
:00:14. > :00:16.Parliament. Hello and Welcome to The Week In
:00:17. > :00:18.Parliament. A dark cloud hung over Westminster. Has there been a
:00:19. > :00:22.cover`up of a politicians' paedophile ring? The investigation
:00:23. > :00:31.found that 114 potentially relevant files were not available. Most of
:00:32. > :00:34.these files were probably destroyed. There was talk that an MP was going
:00:35. > :00:37.to use the ancient right of parliamentary privilege to name
:00:38. > :00:40.names. But, is it a weapon that's past its sell`by date? What I would
:00:41. > :00:43.like to see is parliamentary privilege brought up to date and
:00:44. > :00:46.codified so that we had a very clear set of rules. Also: The Northern
:00:47. > :00:50.cities of England. All parties want them to become an economic
:00:51. > :00:54.powerhouse. Can it be done? It is about getting rid of the factors
:00:55. > :00:57.that hold the North back. We want to see the rest of the English regions
:00:58. > :01:00.and Scotland and Wales also improving and computing and getting
:01:01. > :01:05.investment and jobs. And we'll have the latest news from the campaign
:01:06. > :01:08.trail in the Scottish referendum. But first the political world has
:01:09. > :01:13.gone through a dark week, with suspicion lurking in parts of
:01:14. > :01:15.Westminster. There was talk of an establishment cover`up of child
:01:16. > :01:21.abuse that had involved politicians from a previous era. A dossier
:01:22. > :01:23.compiled in the early 1980s by the MP Geoffrey Dickens making specific
:01:24. > :01:29.accusations was nowhere to be found any longer. Also missing, it then
:01:30. > :01:34.transpired, were more than 100 files concerned with child abuse
:01:35. > :01:37.allegations. On Monday the Home Secretary spoke about the results of
:01:38. > :01:43.an investigation last year by the Home Office. The investigation found
:01:44. > :01:48.that 114 potentially relevant files were not available. These are
:01:49. > :01:54.presumed by the Home Office and the investigator destroyed, missing or
:01:55. > :01:57.not found. The investigator made clear that he found no evidence to
:01:58. > :02:01.suggest that the files have been removed or destroyed
:02:02. > :02:03.inappropriately. The investigation found no record of specific
:02:04. > :02:10.allegations by Mr Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public
:02:11. > :02:14.figures. She announced the setting up of an inquiry panel to look into
:02:15. > :02:18.how public bodies have handled child abuse claims. It will begin its work
:02:19. > :02:22.as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairmen and
:02:23. > :02:25.other members of the panel. Given the scope of its work it is not
:02:26. > :02:28.likely to report before the general election. Child victims were not
:02:29. > :02:35.listened to, were not heard, were not protected and too many
:02:36. > :02:38.institutions lets children down. Reforms to those individual
:02:39. > :02:45.institutions must not be delayed but isolated reforms are not enough. In
:02:46. > :02:48.the 1970s and the 1980s there was a confusion between sexual liberation
:02:49. > :02:52.and let `` sexual exploitation and that gave the cover of the abuse of
:02:53. > :02:55.some children to escape challenge. Much progress has been made but
:02:56. > :03:07.Victim Support child abuse are being blamed for their own exploitation.
:03:08. > :03:09.Most of the discussion we have had today has been around historical
:03:10. > :03:13.cases, is my right honourable friend confident that if such a bundle of
:03:14. > :03:16.documents was handed to her today it would be treated in a much better
:03:17. > :03:19.manner? I would hope that if a similar sort of bundle of documents
:03:20. > :03:22.was handed into the Home Office today they would ensure that those
:03:23. > :03:27.documents went to the police and that they were properly
:03:28. > :03:31.investigated. The missing files were next day raised with the top civil
:03:32. > :03:34.servant at the Home Office. Do you know who authorised the removal of
:03:35. > :03:39.the destruction of these files? No, I do not. This is the issue with the
:03:40. > :03:42.114. Most of these files were probably destroyed because the kind
:03:43. > :03:45.of topics that they covered would have been subject to the normal file
:03:46. > :03:48.destruction procedures that were in place at that time but they cannot
:03:49. > :03:59.be confirmed to have been destroyed because there is not a proper log of
:04:00. > :04:03.what was destroyed on what was not. Whoever deleted them must have been
:04:04. > :04:08.a registrar. Is there no possibility that someone else could have done?
:04:09. > :04:11.The one absolute in this is that I am not going to make absolute
:04:12. > :04:15.assurances because I simply cannot. We are talking about a long time
:04:16. > :04:26.ago. And the issue became top priority for Prime Minister's
:04:27. > :04:30.Questions. Does the Prime Minister agree that all enquiries including
:04:31. > :04:32.by the police and where he has setup must go where ever the evidence
:04:33. > :04:36.leads them in whatever institution the country, including our own, to
:04:37. > :04:39.get up what happens? Child abuse is a despicable crime and the victims
:04:40. > :04:42.live with the horror for the rest of their lives and it is absolutely
:04:43. > :04:45.vital whether it is the two enquiries announced by the Home
:04:46. > :04:48.Secretary or the vital police enquiries that are being carried out
:04:49. > :04:51.that no stone is left unturned. The horror of the Jimmy Savile and Rolf
:04:52. > :04:55.Harris cases just show what people were able to get away with. It was
:04:56. > :04:59.almost as if on occasion they were committing crimes in plain sight and
:05:00. > :05:02.it took far too long to get to the bottom of what happened and for
:05:03. > :05:05.justice to be done. David Cameron. Throughout the week there was
:05:06. > :05:07.speculation that the Labour MP Simon Danczuk might use the cover of
:05:08. > :05:10.parliamentary privilege, which in effect gives a politician legal
:05:11. > :05:14.immunity, to name a person or persons who'd been the subject of
:05:15. > :05:17.the child abuse accusations. The use of Privilege has long been an
:05:18. > :05:20.invaluable means for MPs to right wrongs but there have been occasions
:05:21. > :05:23.when a person's reputation has been unfairly ruined because it turned
:05:24. > :05:28.out there was no supporting evidence. So, do the rules on
:05:29. > :05:34.parliamentary privilege need changing? I spoke to Richard Gordon
:05:35. > :05:37.QC of the Constitution Society who wants to see reform and to the
:05:38. > :05:41.Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament John Hemming. First I
:05:42. > :05:47.asked Mr Gordon for a quick definition of parliamentary
:05:48. > :05:51.privilege. Parliamentary privilege is the claim by Parliament to be
:05:52. > :05:56.able to debate freely and without interference from any other place,
:05:57. > :06:01.including the courts. What value is that? It is extremely important in a
:06:02. > :06:03.democratic society that Parliament should be able to conduct its
:06:04. > :06:06.functions effectively and MPs should be able to freely speak in the
:06:07. > :06:13.chamber without fear of interference by anyone else. It started off as a
:06:14. > :06:16.claim to freedom of interference by the king and the Crown but it has
:06:17. > :06:24.gradually become much more, a relationship with the courts. John
:06:25. > :06:28.Hemming, you are a serial user of parliamentary privilege and you have
:06:29. > :06:31.used it in a variety of ways, why do you use it so much? Why do I concern
:06:32. > :06:34.myself when things are going wrong in the judicial system? We have a
:06:35. > :06:37.constitutional structure and if things are going wrong in secret
:06:38. > :06:43.courts then I raise it in Parliament. I have spoken on a
:06:44. > :06:46.number of occasions about flaws in family courts decisions and that is
:06:47. > :06:52.potentially a contempt of court if said so outside Parliament. I have
:06:53. > :06:54.done an interview on Brazilian television which if it were
:06:55. > :07:01.broadcast in England would have been subject to the law. It is important
:07:02. > :07:05.to have the facility to talk about what is going wrong in the secret
:07:06. > :07:08.court. You famously brought up the name of Ryan Giggs in the Commons
:07:09. > :07:20.chamber and when you did that you were heavily criticised the
:07:21. > :07:23.following day. I was criticised but that instance was not contempt of
:07:24. > :07:26.court because 24 million people knew his name and if you followed spy
:07:27. > :07:29.catcher judgement where something being published in Australia means
:07:30. > :07:32.it is not confidential in England then if it is published in Scotland
:07:33. > :07:36.it is not confidential in England so that was not a good example. It was
:07:37. > :07:42.seen as a frivolous use of parliamentary privilege. To be
:07:43. > :07:45.honest the fact that they were trying to imprison 75,000 people for
:07:46. > :07:48.tweeting something highlights the absurdity and I was highlighting the
:07:49. > :07:53.absurdity of attempting to punish 75,000 people for making a joke. Do
:07:54. > :08:00.you want to see a fundamental change to parliamentary privilege? Some of
:08:01. > :08:03.what John has said illustrates why. The thing is that parliamentary
:08:04. > :08:06.privilege can be misused. To say something has gone wrong with the
:08:07. > :08:10.judicial system so I can broadcast it throughout the land could be seen
:08:11. > :08:14.by judges as an interference with the independence of the judiciary. I
:08:15. > :08:17.would like to see parliamentary privilege brought up to date and
:08:18. > :08:25.codified so that we had a very clear set of rules, rather than an act of
:08:26. > :08:29.Parliament that goes back to 1689. That is the sole basis in law about
:08:30. > :08:37.which we have rules about parliamentary privilege. When you
:08:38. > :08:40.say codified you mean a new act? Yes, as they have in Australia and
:08:41. > :08:43.many places where people know exactly what Parliament can and
:08:44. > :08:52.can't do and what it can and can't say. It is in reality flouting the
:08:53. > :08:55.law. What my colleague here is suggesting is that we should not be
:08:56. > :08:58.allowed to criticise judges in Parliament when in fact it is very
:08:59. > :09:01.clear that Parliament has a function for criticising judges and it has
:09:02. > :09:08.the power to remove judges under the 1701 settlement act. This goes
:09:09. > :09:12.beyond what John is talking about, the freedom of MPs to talk about
:09:13. > :09:14.matters they perceive to be in the national interest. It actually
:09:15. > :09:20.involves committees of Parliament and many things. Would you take
:09:21. > :09:24.privilege away from all the select committees? No, I would not. Having
:09:25. > :09:27.privilege on a Select Committee is important. It is a proceeding in
:09:28. > :09:31.Parliament and it is subject to parliamentary privilege. The real
:09:32. > :09:34.concern about committees is that some of them tend to go over the top
:09:35. > :09:50.and demand information that other laws prevent them from having. What
:09:51. > :09:53.limit would you set? Where would the boundary of parliamentary privilege
:09:54. > :09:57.be? The boundary would in my opinion come to this, if a witness in front
:09:58. > :10:00.of the committee had a good reason for not answering a question, they
:10:01. > :10:03.could put that good reason and have a considered and certainly not have
:10:04. > :10:06.it judged by a committee, however eminent, as being in some way a
:10:07. > :10:14.contempt of Parliament. What about the Rebekah Brooks incident several
:10:15. > :10:17.years ago? She said to the Select Committee that her newspapers had
:10:18. > :10:20.paid the police for information. That could not then be used at her
:10:21. > :10:29.trial because it was covered by parliamentary privilege. There is
:10:30. > :10:33.also the Pepper versus Hart issue which... Does that show it breaking
:10:34. > :10:36.down? We have a clear disagreement here. I think it is important for
:10:37. > :10:39.backbench politicians to be able to criticise judicial processes,
:10:40. > :10:43.subject to the sub judice motion so we have a principle that we do not
:10:44. > :10:46.criticise them before they are made and influenced the decision but you
:10:47. > :10:51.raise concerns as to how things have happened in the judicial system
:10:52. > :10:54.after the decision is made. It is an important part of how the system
:10:55. > :10:56.works and I would not want to see parliamentary privilege restricted
:10:57. > :11:04.so that judges have control over Parliament. Where we are in the
:11:05. > :11:07.present climate, with talk of a Westminster paedophile ring and an
:11:08. > :11:09.MP who is thought to be using parliamentary privilege, that
:11:10. > :11:13.creates a danger when names got out and they are guilty in the public
:11:14. > :11:16.mind without any evidence. That did happen on Twitter of course but it
:11:17. > :11:27.has not happened recently in Parliament. Will that lead to a
:11:28. > :11:30.change? The point to remember about Parliament is that we do not have
:11:31. > :11:33.complete freedom of speech. You are still subject to the rules of the
:11:34. > :11:36.house and the decisions of the standards and privileges committee
:11:37. > :11:42.say you do not have complete freedom of speech at all. I am tempted to
:11:43. > :11:46.say if it ain't broke, why fix it? It would be great if it was not
:11:47. > :11:50.broken but the answer is this, the act of Parliament is several hundred
:11:51. > :11:53.years old and we need a new one to cope with the modern climate. You
:11:54. > :11:56.have mentioned Twitter and John has mentioned what has gone wrong with
:11:57. > :11:59.judicial cases but the relationship between law and politics should not
:12:00. > :12:02.be governed by the mistrust of judges, it should be governed by
:12:03. > :12:06.judges and politicians working together harmoniously in the modern
:12:07. > :12:14.age. Thank you very much for joining us.
:12:15. > :12:19.Some thoughts on privilege. Now a look at some of the other stories
:12:20. > :12:21.around Parliament in the last seven days. Labour has accused the
:12:22. > :12:24.Government of deception over the introduction of Universal Credit,
:12:25. > :12:27.the new welfare system that's been hindered by IT problems. Labour say
:12:28. > :12:30.MPs have been given mixed messages about whether or not the Treasury
:12:31. > :12:34.has officially signed off the project. The Treasury have approved
:12:35. > :12:38.funding for the universal credit programme in 2013, 2014 and 2015 in
:12:39. > :12:45.line with the plan I announced in December last year. The same simple
:12:46. > :12:52.question has now been answered eight contradictory ways. Not everybody
:12:53. > :12:55.can be telling the truth. There has been so much beating about the bush
:12:56. > :12:58.that it feels as though this house has been misled by a government
:12:59. > :13:06.engaged in a deliberate act of deception. This is the best instance
:13:07. > :13:12.of a man in an ill fitting anorak dancing on the head of a pin. I
:13:13. > :13:15.think it is quite pathetic. The Birmingham schools inspected in the
:13:16. > :13:17.wake of claims that hardline governing bodies were promoting
:13:18. > :13:28.Islamic extremism, the Chief Inspector of Schools describes what
:13:29. > :13:32.was found. One of the real, real upsetting things about what we found
:13:33. > :13:34.in Birmingham and I found it personally upsetting talking to head
:13:35. > :13:37.teachers is that people were frightened about speaking. One head
:13:38. > :13:40.teacher had to be interviewed in a supermarket car park because she was
:13:41. > :13:50.so fearful. We text, we talk, we send e`mails. All that personal
:13:51. > :13:53.information will still be open to scrutiny from the police and
:13:54. > :13:55.security services but only after an emergency bill races through
:13:56. > :14:02.Parliament in the next week. There's broad support, but not everyone is
:14:03. > :14:05.happy. It is as a result of a last`minute deal between elites with
:14:06. > :14:07.little scrutiny by Parliament or civic society, and the rushed
:14:08. > :14:10.legislation might unravel. British people are not stupid and they are
:14:11. > :14:14.not ideological when it comes to this type of thing. Why can they not
:14:15. > :14:17.have time to discuss it with their elected representatives? The Home
:14:18. > :14:31.Secretary has rushed this through the house on the basis of emergency.
:14:32. > :14:35.The case was put to the ECJ sometime ago and it took some time to come to
:14:36. > :14:39.its conclusion on eighth April, so if there was an emergency it was a
:14:40. > :14:41.predictable one by April the 8th. This legislation we face the
:14:42. > :14:43.prospect of losing access to this data overnight with the consequence
:14:44. > :14:46.that police investigations will suddenly go dark and criminals will
:14:47. > :14:49.escape justice. Unlike the Commons, no`one person keeps order in this
:14:50. > :14:51.House. Members of the House of Lords wonder whether self`regulation
:14:52. > :15:02.actually works at daily Question Time. The jostling and bullying in
:15:03. > :15:07.order to ask the supplementary, people who do not like this do not
:15:08. > :15:11.take part. It is undignified. I am sure the leader would agree with me
:15:12. > :15:21.that question time in this house is both the best of this house and
:15:22. > :15:25.sometimes the worst. Most of the time, I think, most of the time, the
:15:26. > :15:36.House operates pretty well at giving way to people and giving people the
:15:37. > :15:40.chance. Lord Hill. The economic recovery is under way and are we all
:15:41. > :15:42.benefiting or is there an ever widening split between thriving
:15:43. > :15:45.South and the stagnating North? This week, Labour promised to vote
:15:46. > :15:51.devolved ?30 billion of spending power to the regions of England to
:15:52. > :15:53.boost growth away from London. The Conservative Chancellor George
:15:54. > :15:56.Osborne, whose constituency lies near Manchester, has said he would
:15:57. > :15:59.want to turn the northern cities into an economic powerhouse. Two MPs
:16:00. > :16:02.from either side of the Pennines came into our studio, Wigan's Lisa
:16:03. > :16:06.Nandy and Stockton's James Wharton. I first asked Lisa Nandy if I was
:16:07. > :16:10.right in saying she wanted to take economic power away from London. To
:16:11. > :16:26.be blunt, no, you're not right at all. This is not about taking away
:16:27. > :16:29.from one part of the country to give to another part, this is about
:16:30. > :16:32.recognising that we need to grow our economy and if you look at countries
:16:33. > :16:35.like Germany that have done this successfully, they have eight
:16:36. > :16:38.centres of regional growth that really rival Berlin in terms of how
:16:39. > :16:43.to grow the economy, create jobs and create output. This is about not
:16:44. > :16:55.taking away from London, but getting rid of the factors that hold the
:16:56. > :16:58.North back. You are a Member of Parliament in the north`east, there
:16:59. > :17:01.is a large and the London sentiment among people and councillors in the
:17:02. > :17:06.north`east? You do hear that but I do not know what that's should be
:17:07. > :17:10.about in the debate. `` what that should be about. It is about what we
:17:11. > :17:12.can do to grow the regions, spread prosperity, not talk about the
:17:13. > :17:15.unfairness of London being a central hub. The reality is London is a
:17:16. > :17:18.capital city, a great global financial centre. It is going to
:17:19. > :17:22.continue to be hopefully for many years to come. We want to see the
:17:23. > :17:24.rest of the English regions and Scotland and Wales also improving,
:17:25. > :17:27.competing, getting investment, creating jobs and securing the
:17:28. > :17:29.long`term growth we need. We have been here before, we have had
:17:30. > :17:35.regional assemblies talked about, directly elected mayors and each
:17:36. > :17:39.time the public rejects this. There have been substantial no votes in
:17:40. > :17:48.referendums. Why should this be any different? I campaigned against it
:17:49. > :17:50.in my home region. We are talking about yet another layer of elected
:17:51. > :17:53.representatives in regional assemblies, and people are not
:17:54. > :17:58.generally predisposed towards that. One of the things to be careful of
:17:59. > :18:01.is that we talk about this as if regions are set in stone. It has to
:18:02. > :18:07.be, the north`east region is the building block. I think that is a
:18:08. > :18:12.mistake. The Greater Manchester Council campaign against having a
:18:13. > :18:16.Manchester Mayor, quite strongly. James is right in that nobody thinks
:18:17. > :18:18.it is a good idea to be campaigning for more politicians especially at
:18:19. > :18:21.the moment. The debate about regional assemblies especially in
:18:22. > :18:23.the north`east is very similar, more layers of bureaucracy, additional
:18:24. > :18:27.politicians. Nobody is arguing in favour of that. What we are talking
:18:28. > :18:31.about is handing real power to the regions and James talked about...
:18:32. > :18:36.What does that mean? You talk about handling power, are you talking
:18:37. > :18:45.about devolution? It is devolution of funding and autonomy to make
:18:46. > :19:03.decisions. You can compete on a fairer playing field then, but this
:19:04. > :19:07.is about a lot about collaboration. If you look for example at one of
:19:08. > :19:09.the great challenges that we have in my region and in James's, which is
:19:10. > :19:12.around current transport infrastructure, our challenge is to
:19:13. > :19:15.connect up those cities in the North better. We have to negotiate that.
:19:16. > :19:18.You are out of the city, you're not out on the M62 belt of the
:19:19. > :19:22.conurbations. How can the north`east change its status? All this talk of
:19:23. > :19:25.an economic powerhouse does not seem to include the north`east. We have
:19:26. > :19:28.had a city deal recently, announced by Greg Clark. He is the cities
:19:29. > :19:35.minister, that is great news that he is the cities Minister, that is
:19:36. > :19:39.great news for Teeside. It is not just about these clearly defined
:19:40. > :19:41.areas, and to try and find a point difference, this clear agreement
:19:42. > :19:44.across the political divide, about the need to devolve, promote the
:19:45. > :19:47.economies of our regions. We have differences of opinion about how it
:19:48. > :19:54.should be done. One of the challenges is getting the right
:19:55. > :19:57.infrastructure of accountability. If you give people control about
:19:58. > :20:00.spending and money so they can adapt it to local priorities, you have to
:20:01. > :20:09.ensure there are the right mechanisms to hold them to account.
:20:10. > :20:12.From a former Conservative point of view, you would probably want more
:20:13. > :20:15.Conservatives in the north`east of England? Yes, I hope we will have
:20:16. > :20:19.more in the next election. George Osborne is talking about high`speed
:20:20. > :20:23.three, it is pie in the sky or is it serious? The point is that this is
:20:24. > :20:40.serious, we had have HS2 which I support and we are working on it. If
:20:41. > :20:42.you are given the authority to be able to negotiate that deal to
:20:43. > :20:45.politicians and leaders in the north`east and north`west, Yorkshire
:20:46. > :20:48.and Humber, it is possible that what they might have said was, firstly,
:20:49. > :20:51.we will start building here. And secondly, connect the great cities
:20:52. > :20:54.of the North. The reason for all of this is that we think communities
:20:55. > :20:57.are better placed to make decisions for themselves. The leader of
:20:58. > :21:01.Wakefield Council has said Yorkshire should be an independent state. That
:21:02. > :21:06.would solve everything, we would not go on having to discuss anything,
:21:07. > :21:13.has he got a point? There is a little town in my constituency that
:21:14. > :21:16.has had a parish poll and they are going back into Yorkshire because
:21:17. > :21:26.they are sick of being in the Stockton on Tees. Then you would be
:21:27. > :21:29.to have a dependence in Lancashire? Then you would have to argue about
:21:30. > :21:34.the capital, and I would be arguing for Wigan! Thank you for joining us.
:21:35. > :21:37.Moving on for the North of England, next up is Scotland. Two months to
:21:38. > :21:49.the referendum, here is the news of the week.
:21:50. > :21:54.It's a date, Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond have finally named the
:21:55. > :21:57.day for the two`hour debate. On August the 5th, they will be joined
:21:58. > :22:01.by an audience of 350 asking questions. The First Minister has
:22:02. > :22:18.vowed to continue his rough wooing of David Cameron for a further
:22:19. > :22:20.debate. The Channel 4 documentary Dispatches revealed business leader
:22:21. > :22:40.complaints of the aggressive tactics used by Scottish ministers as the
:22:41. > :22:42.independence debate intensifies. The SNP said the new president of the
:22:43. > :22:46.European Commission Jean`Claude Juncker is a man that can do
:22:47. > :22:49.business with them. He said he would respect the referendum. The prounion
:22:50. > :22:52.campaign has amassed a war chest twice the size of its nationalist
:22:53. > :22:54.rivals. They said the no campaign is property bankers. And an independent
:22:55. > :22:57.Scotland could get millions of pounds on an independent European
:22:58. > :23:05.Space Agency should independents happen. `` should independence
:23:06. > :23:22.happen in 2016, could we see the saltire flying on the moon?
:23:23. > :23:25.Voting is on September 18. Now, we have all been in the
:23:26. > :23:28.restaurant where the next table is having a terribly loud happy
:23:29. > :23:42.birthday celebration. It can be very annoying! The Commons has in the
:23:43. > :23:45.last couple of days gone into an outbreak of happy birthday. If you
:23:46. > :23:48.do not like birthday mentions, please look away now. My 65th
:23:49. > :23:51.birthday. Here, here! Retire! Can I come on my birthday, simply
:23:52. > :23:54.reflect... Minister! May I wish my honourable friend a happy birthday.
:23:55. > :24:09.And on this day, wish my sister happy birthday as well. And the Week
:24:10. > :24:10.in Parliament wishes them all a very happy birthday. Warm at the