14/07/2014 Daily Politics


14/07/2014

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Hello, welcome to the Daily Politics.

:00:36.:00:41.

Breaking news as we go on air. Lady Butler-Schloss has announced she

:00:42.:00:52.

will stand down over criticism of her appointment.

:00:53.:00:54.

David Cameron prepares to reshuffle the Conservatives in his cabinet

:00:55.:00:56.

with big hints that he'll try and get more women around the table and

:00:57.:01:00.

Women who want to be MPs should be given more training to boost

:01:01.:01:05.

We'll discuss the latest report that's aimed at

:01:06.:01:07.

Ministers want Britain to have its own commercial spaceport

:01:08.:01:21.

by 2018 for launching well-heeled tourists into the outer atmosphere.

:01:22.:01:31.

All that in the next hour and with us for the next half hour, two top

:01:32.:01:35.

Westminster journalists, Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and

:01:36.:01:37.

First to the breaking news. In the last minute, it has been announced

:01:38.:01:48.

but Baroness Butler-Sloss, the High Court judge it was appointed to

:01:49.:01:53.

chair the enquiry into historic child abuse cases has stepped aside.

:01:54.:01:59.

Can you give is more detail, James? When Lady Butler-Sloss was appointed

:02:00.:02:04.

into the job, she had all the right credentials in one way. The hugely

:02:05.:02:08.

respected judge of the top of her appeal. She led the way in family

:02:09.:02:12.

law and had done child abuse enquiries before and have the

:02:13.:02:15.

knowledge and expertise and background. But clearly some people

:02:16.:02:20.

forgot and did not realise was that her brother, the late attorney

:02:21.:02:24.

general, Michael Havens, was involved in paedophile prosecutions

:02:25.:02:28.

himself in the 1980s and Michael Haver 's had had a conversation with

:02:29.:02:33.

Geoffrey Dickens, the Tory MP at the heart of the allegations of which we

:02:34.:02:36.

don't know the detail, but at how much you should reveal to the

:02:37.:02:40.

public, and it also turned out that he had been involved -- she had been

:02:41.:02:44.

involved in certain cases and enquiries were some victims had felt

:02:45.:02:46.

she had not behaved in the way she would have -- they would have liked.

:02:47.:02:51.

There was a question over her. She has thought long and hard about this

:02:52.:02:54.

and had a conversation with the Home Secretary over the weekend and

:02:55.:03:02.

decided to stand down. The last two secondaries issued a statement in

:03:03.:03:04.

which he said there was a widespread perception, particularly amongst

:03:05.:03:06.

victims and survivors groups but I am not the right person to chair the

:03:07.:03:09.

enquiry and it has also been clear that I did not sufficiently consider

:03:10.:03:13.

whether my background and the fact my brother had been attorney general

:03:14.:03:17.

would cause difficulties and she said she must have confidence in the

:03:18.:03:20.

people who will give evidence in front of me and media attention

:03:21.:03:24.

should not divert attention from the enquiry, so having listened to the

:03:25.:03:31.

concerns of victims and survivors groups, I've come to the conclusion

:03:32.:03:35.

I should not chair the enquiry. Willie be seen by poor judgement by

:03:36.:03:41.

the government in the first instance -- will it be seen? It will be the

:03:42.:03:44.

Home Office, because this is a Home Office appointment. She does have

:03:45.:03:48.

all the right credentials on one hand. Lots of people have said that.

:03:49.:03:53.

Number ten and the Home Secretary making it clear that their view of

:03:54.:03:56.

her appointment has not changed. They still think she is the right

:03:57.:04:00.

person for the job. But they say that she has made the decision by

:04:01.:04:03.

herself because of the uproar since her appointment. Isabel, are you

:04:04.:04:08.

surprised? With hindsight it's easy to say she's made the right

:04:09.:04:13.

decision. But are you surprised? Not surprised by her standing down.

:04:14.:04:17.

Initially I thought she was a great appointment and the government were

:04:18.:04:20.

trying to play whack a mole with conspiracy theories, and the fatal

:04:21.:04:28.

error they made was appointing someone who appeared to be a figure

:04:29.:04:31.

in the establishment who fed the conspiracy theories. It also shows

:04:32.:04:35.

the sensitivities around the enquiry and the whole issue of child abuse,

:04:36.:04:40.

looking at public institutions where certainly over the past few days

:04:41.:04:44.

there have been some claiming there is hysteria around this. Do you

:04:45.:04:49.

think that feeds into what happens? There is some hysteria but there are

:04:50.:04:52.

also people coming forward who were not listened to and were abused.

:04:53.:04:58.

When the cases extend into Westminster and Whitehall and into

:04:59.:05:03.

the establishment, to pick a woman who has questions about previous

:05:04.:05:10.

cases, certainly her link to her brother and how he handled cases,

:05:11.:05:16.

you would never have picked the head of South Yorkshire police to do the

:05:17.:05:20.

Hillsborough enquiry, and she's also 81 next month, and there are rumours

:05:21.:05:31.

swirling around about her help. -- her health. What about reports that

:05:32.:05:33.

they were going to appointed co-chairman, and I have seen it

:05:34.:05:37.

denied that is the reason she stood down, that her role might be

:05:38.:05:41.

overtaken or hindered by a co-chairman will stop do you think

:05:42.:05:45.

that was part of it? I imagine that was one of the options considered to

:05:46.:05:50.

see if there was a way out. When the idea was first floated, some of the

:05:51.:05:53.

critics of her appointment said idea was first floated, some of the

:05:54.:05:55.

could not work with that as a possible option, or it could be a

:05:56.:06:00.

solution. Clearly, Downing Street is making it clear that they have no

:06:01.:06:05.

knowledge of this fact playing any role in the decision of Lady

:06:06.:06:09.

Butler-Sloss, and she herself makes no mention of it in her statement.

:06:10.:06:12.

But clearly, if you have to appoint a code share to counter apparent

:06:13.:06:19.

criticism of appointment, that might be a. -- two have a co-chairman.

:06:20.:06:26.

They were saying this is causing a row and it clearly won't work, so it

:06:27.:06:31.

can't go on. Just finally, they will presumably appoint someone else to

:06:32.:06:34.

replace quickly. Any who it might be? No, both the Home Office and

:06:35.:06:40.

Downing Street say they will try to appoint as soon as possible but are

:06:41.:06:43.

making it clear that it will be within days. We are not talking

:06:44.:06:48.

later today. They will take their time. Back to the drawing board.

:06:49.:06:53.

David Cameron's reshuffle of Conservative ministers.

:06:54.:06:55.

We expect this to get started tonight and be done by tomorrow.

:06:56.:06:58.

And expect old faces to make way for new ones.

:06:59.:07:03.

Owen Paterson, and Wales Secretary, David Jones, could all get the chop.

:07:04.:07:08.

Other old faces are also expected to go; Ken Clarke,

:07:09.:07:11.

In their place expect to see a younger set of ministers,

:07:12.:07:16.

Esther McVey, Liz Truss and Nicky Morgan are all expected to

:07:17.:07:21.

The papers are also suggesting that former Defence Secretary Liam Fox

:07:22.:07:28.

could make a surprise return to Government.

:07:29.:07:36.

There has been so much speculation about the reshuffle partly because

:07:37.:07:42.

it was delayed. We were expecting it while ago. Presumably you support

:07:43.:07:45.

the speculation that women will be the winners in this. Yes, because

:07:46.:07:49.

there are so many impressive female MPs. He isn't looking at his

:07:50.:08:04.

backbench thinking they are duffers. What about the idea that Anna

:08:05.:08:09.

Soubrey could be the first female defence secretary? She has got a

:08:10.:08:12.

small majority in could lose her seat and might be doing the

:08:13.:08:15.

calculation and whether she should campaign or will a high profile

:08:16.:08:18.

appointment help me, but that would be a radical step if he did give her

:08:19.:08:24.

that post. To some extent, we wouldn't be in this mess if Eton

:08:25.:08:31.

school admitted women, but he normally surrounds himself with

:08:32.:08:34.

these types which tend to be posh blokes. That he will want to answer

:08:35.:08:39.

in terms of the promotions, but sticking with the winning issue --

:08:40.:08:47.

woman issue, and he always maintained he wanted to have a third

:08:48.:08:51.

of cabinet or ministers as women, and he's yet to reach that, what

:08:52.:08:55.

about Esther McVey question not she's been in the Department of work

:08:56.:08:58.

and pensions there has been speculation over Iain Duncan Smith.

:08:59.:09:01.

Is there anything in that or is Westminster gossip? Friends of Iain

:09:02.:09:06.

Duncan Smith are saying he is staying right where he is but what

:09:07.:09:13.

they could do with Esther McVey is to promote her to Kenneth Clarke's

:09:14.:09:16.

old job as Minister without portfolio and she could become the

:09:17.:09:21.

Minister Patel attrition -- for television. She's an old TV

:09:22.:09:24.

presenter and she knows what she's doing. She doesn't just not look

:09:25.:09:28.

odd, and should be very good at that. What -- one calculation

:09:29.:09:33.

Cameron has to make is that he does not want to promote people to jobs

:09:34.:09:36.

that will take away from the fight to retain their seats. If you are in

:09:37.:09:40.

a marginal seat, you want to get out and about so you are more visible

:09:41.:09:45.

rather than disappearing into a department which doesn't win votes

:09:46.:09:48.

and then lose your seat next year. What about some of the other big

:09:49.:09:52.

moves in cabinet? Will Owen Paterson surviving his position that Kenneth

:09:53.:09:58.

Clarke and George Young will go? What about him? Kenneth Clarke has

:09:59.:10:03.

been written off so many times. Maybe he will survive. He's kind of

:10:04.:10:09.

the cuddly Freddy Krueger, he always comes back. He would probably laugh

:10:10.:10:13.

at the characterisation. That is one of his strengths for the

:10:14.:10:17.

Conservative party. You put him on television and he's pretty

:10:18.:10:20.

reasonable. With Owen Paterson you have to make a political calculation

:10:21.:10:24.

because Owen Paterson and Iain Duncan Smith who might both be under

:10:25.:10:29.

threat, they represent a right wing section of the Tory party that would

:10:30.:10:35.

not be represented if they went. Would he not be the answer to

:10:36.:10:37.

replace anyone they lose on the right? The other proposition put

:10:38.:10:43.

forward is that David Cameron would move George Osborne from future

:10:44.:10:50.

leadership, and that could be seen as a George Osborne reshuffle? I

:10:51.:10:54.

think most of them are George Osborne reshuffle. I know one MP who

:10:55.:10:59.

went into the office and he pointed at pictures of colleagues who had

:11:00.:11:03.

stuck by him who had been promoted, and if you get the seal of loyalty

:11:04.:11:07.

from George Osborne you can see your career shoot out. Watch out the

:11:08.:11:14.

Chief Whip. If Greg hands goes up, then George Osborne is tightening

:11:15.:11:17.

his grip ahead of the battle with Boris Johnson. This is not a Liberal

:11:18.:11:23.

Democrat reshuffle. That will happen in the autumn, we understand. And he

:11:24.:11:29.

will supposedly moving Joe Swinson into some sort of Cabinet position.

:11:30.:11:34.

Is that what you heard? Clegg has always had men in the Cabinet and he

:11:35.:11:38.

has the lowest proportion of female MPs. Seven out of 57, one in eight.

:11:39.:11:44.

Never mind David Cameron's problem. I think he wants to do it separately

:11:45.:11:49.

to put some distance into it. The truth of the Tory party is because

:11:50.:11:53.

they only have 48 women in just over 300 MPs, there are about 40% of

:11:54.:11:59.

women MPs are ministers, which is a high proportion of Tory women who

:12:00.:12:02.

are already ministers. His problem is he has very few women. The only

:12:03.:12:07.

way to make the big leap forward is to have women only short lists and

:12:08.:12:10.

the Conservative party will not do that. He has resisted that until

:12:11.:12:16.

now. Looking at another role that could be occupied, what about

:12:17.:12:19.

European commission? We talked about Andrew Lansley taking that position.

:12:20.:12:24.

Michael Howard. What about a woman? Apparently Jean Claude Juncker would

:12:25.:12:28.

look kindly at a female Commissioner? David Cameron now

:12:29.:12:33.

through the bash needs to befriend Jean Claude Juncker -- now needs to

:12:34.:12:40.

befriend him. They have only been in government for four years and don't

:12:41.:12:44.

have that many senior women. What about the Labour Party? They will do

:12:45.:12:46.

it just before the party Conference. As you may have seen last night

:12:47.:12:48.

Germany won the football World Cup. And no-one was more pleased than

:12:49.:12:55.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Here she is celebrating with

:12:56.:12:57.

the team afterwards. She jumped for joy when they scored

:12:58.:13:03.

the goal. How many World Cup matches

:13:04.:13:06.

did Angela Merkel attend? Later in the show, we will

:13:07.:13:10.

give you the correct answer. As we've just been discussing

:13:11.:13:16.

David Cameron is trying to increase the number of women

:13:17.:13:19.

on his front bench, but what At present, there are 147 women in

:13:20.:13:21.

the House of Commons out of a total This lunchtime a report is being

:13:22.:13:27.

launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group for women

:13:28.:13:35.

in Parliament and they've come up They want to see a clampdown

:13:36.:13:37.

on unprofessional and rowdy behaviour in the Commons

:13:38.:13:43.

suggesting that offending MPs should MPs' passes should be redesigned to

:13:44.:13:45.

stop women parliamentarians from being mistaken for staff

:13:46.:13:53.

and there should be training to help improve parliamentary

:13:54.:13:56.

candidates' confidence. The report criticises

:13:57.:14:02.

the masculine atmosphere of Parliament and suggests a gender

:14:03.:14:03.

audit of artwork currently on display in the Palace of Westminster

:14:04.:14:06.

arguing that the environment can be Finally the MPs want the

:14:07.:14:08.

Culture Media and Sport Select Committee to review sexism in both

:14:09.:14:25.

the traditional and social media. With me now is the chair of the

:14:26.:14:28.

all-party parliamentary group for Would you describe Parliament as a

:14:29.:14:42.

masculine place to work? I think it is. Parliament was built by men for

:14:43.:14:46.

men, and even though there have been a number of changes including

:14:47.:14:50.

working hours and on nurseries, I think, with every more times we get

:14:51.:14:58.

female politicians into parliament it starts changing the culture and

:14:59.:15:02.

nature of the environment. We are still on 22%, but I want to increase

:15:03.:15:06.

further. As part of the report, I wanted to be a call out to women

:15:07.:15:10.

across the country to say that we need you to contribute to life

:15:11.:15:16.

changing issues and making a difference to communities and people

:15:17.:15:20.

's lives to the country as a whole. We need a whole range of women from

:15:21.:15:26.

backgrounds -- a range of backgrounds to start making a

:15:27.:15:28.

contribution. The only way to do that is to have all women short

:15:29.:15:32.

lists in the Conservative party and the Conservatives have never done

:15:33.:15:39.

that. What the Conservative party have done is a lot of training on

:15:40.:15:47.

the selection committees in having no male only short lists, which is

:15:48.:15:52.

important. And as long as we are making progress. The thing about

:15:53.:15:56.

women only short lists is that Labour thought it would be a short,

:15:57.:16:02.

sharp measure. Next time round they found the numbers went down again.

:16:03.:16:07.

They had to start again to make sure the numbers kept going up. Do you

:16:08.:16:27.

think commissioning a gender audit of artwork in Westminster will

:16:28.:16:30.

revolutionise the feel of the Houses of Parliament? Not that stuff on its

:16:31.:16:36.

own. There's a whole range of recommendations. But what it is is a

:16:37.:16:44.

very male environment, and lots of women and politicians through time

:16:45.:16:47.

have made a massive contribution to this country, so let's portray some

:16:48.:16:51.

of that is part of the environment. How important do you think the look

:16:52.:16:56.

and feel in the environment is? We will talk about the numbers, but

:16:57.:17:00.

looking around the place does it look like an old-style male drinking

:17:01.:17:06.

club, and does it make a difference? The recommendation about artwork is

:17:07.:17:09.

eye-catching and important. I really agree. And I saw female political

:17:10.:17:19.

journalist bylines in newspapers, it was good for me. When you see other

:17:20.:17:24.

women doing things it means you see a role model and it encourages you.

:17:25.:17:28.

Personally, I don't think Parliament is that masculine. Maybe I am quite

:17:29.:17:33.

manly, I don't know. We would never say that, Isabel. I don't find the

:17:34.:17:38.

atmosphere particularly masculine. It's aggressive, and women can be.

:17:39.:17:45.

What do you say that women should man up in that sense, that it is

:17:46.:17:50.

about being assertive themselves rather than feminising Parliament? I

:17:51.:17:54.

then want to give the impression that women cannot hack it in

:17:55.:17:56.

Parliament. They absolutely can. They can do as well as anyone, but

:17:57.:18:00.

we're trying to encourage a range of women to come forward who are put

:18:01.:18:06.

off by that sort of aggressive approach in Parliament, and that is

:18:07.:18:09.

one of the things we want to change, the culture of the chamber which is

:18:10.:18:13.

not acceptable in the boardroom or classroom, so why allow it to happen

:18:14.:18:18.

in Parliament? I know a few aggressive women in Parliament. They

:18:19.:18:23.

are not shrinking violets. But it is very male dominated. As you said, it

:18:24.:18:28.

came up through generations of guys, not just the artwork, look at

:18:29.:18:32.

the statues, through St Stephens corridor they are all men, apart

:18:33.:18:37.

from Margaret Thatcher in the members lobby which most people

:18:38.:18:40.

cannot see. Other than that I cannot think of another female statue.

:18:41.:18:47.

Queen is a -- Queen Elizabeth, there is a painting of her. It's quite a

:18:48.:18:51.

long time ago. It is not very modern looking and it's a traditional old

:18:52.:18:55.

building, so would it make a difference to modernise the

:18:56.:19:00.

insides? Would it feel less like a traditional old man's club. I would

:19:01.:19:04.

like to start again and move it somewhere else, where you can get

:19:05.:19:08.

everybody in the chamber. Just reduce the number of MPs. It is part

:19:09.:19:14.

of heritage. You still get a pink ribbon on your coat hanger to hang

:19:15.:19:20.

up your sword in the cloakroom. Some people love that though, don't they?

:19:21.:19:26.

The rowdy behaviour, as we talk about so often, would you like to

:19:27.:19:30.

see sanctions brought in for people who are considered to be more rowdy

:19:31.:19:41.

and aggressive during PMQ 's? Definitely. It seems crazy. The

:19:42.:19:45.

public are scathing of our behaviour in the chamber. They only see Prime

:19:46.:19:50.

Minister 's questions and programmes like this, so there are many debates

:19:51.:19:54.

that are well balanced, but because that is the most visual, it's what

:19:55.:20:00.

people notice, and they are scathing of our behaviour. We would not

:20:01.:20:03.

tolerate it in a classroom or boardroom, so why do we allow

:20:04.:20:07.

Parliament to be like that? We want the Parliament to be the best in the

:20:08.:20:11.

world, so we need to be more respectful and behave more

:20:12.:20:15.

professionally. You watch Villa hurly-burly. If you're just standing

:20:16.:20:19.

reading a speech, like giving the weather forecast, I won't watch --

:20:20.:20:23.

you watch it for the hurly-burly. I don't want to take away the

:20:24.:20:28.

compassion and challenge in the debate. But you can do that in the

:20:29.:20:31.

way you speak, it's not about shouting abuse and insults. How

:20:32.:20:38.

would you do it? You would have to start with the speaker belittling

:20:39.:20:43.

MPs, and he's very good at telling MPs often then mocking other ones,

:20:44.:20:45.

so he MPs often then mocking other ones,

:20:46.:20:48.

doesn't set a good example. But would it be a good idea to punish

:20:49.:20:53.

people in that sense? Some MPs will say he has done quite a lot for

:20:54.:20:57.

giving backbenchers more of a roll and letting them speak. -- more of a

:20:58.:21:02.

speaking role. There is no doubt he is unpopular in some quarters with

:21:03.:21:08.

the way he interrupts. I don't know about sanctions. I personally can't

:21:09.:21:12.

think of anything worse than a passionless prime ministers

:21:13.:21:14.

questions because people get worked up because they like the issues

:21:15.:21:18.

being debated. You are encouraged to act like a gang and it is tribal. We

:21:19.:21:22.

talk about gangs in the street but we behave like gangs in the chamber.

:21:23.:21:27.

It is that bit which is unacceptable, and by all means keep

:21:28.:21:31.

the passion in the debate, and you could do sanctions like yellow in

:21:32.:21:34.

the red cards in football. The Walk of Shame(!) Would it make

:21:35.:21:48.

much difference? It has to be defined in terms of what is

:21:49.:21:52.

acceptable. We do it in other business. I was going to say... We

:21:53.:21:57.

have to stop it and be more professional. We want to rebuild

:21:58.:22:02.

trust. Thank you. How much competition should the

:22:03.:22:07.

Royal Mail face in its postal delivery business? The company has

:22:08.:22:11.

complained to the regulator about a rival firm's growing presence in

:22:12.:22:15.

door-to-door deliveries which Royal Mail says is threatening its own

:22:16.:22:22.

universal service. Sending a letter used to be a

:22:23.:22:27.

straightforward affair. It went in the letterbox, Royal Mail collected

:22:28.:22:31.

it, it worked out where it was going and then delivered it. Not so much

:22:32.:22:37.

anymore. In fact, the postal service has changed so much that over half

:22:38.:22:44.

of the mail in the UK is collected and sorted by its private sector

:22:45.:22:48.

competitors. When it comes to business mail, the new kids on the

:22:49.:22:55.

block have 70% of the market. But still pay Royal Mail to do the final

:22:56.:22:58.

bit of the job - putting letters through your front door. Most of it

:22:59.:23:03.

seems to be coming from various competitors. I notice very few

:23:04.:23:15.

stamps or Royal Mail logos. But across town, another revolution in

:23:16.:23:22.

the way the mail works is under way. In South West London in April 2012,

:23:23.:23:30.

for the first time in the Royal Mail's history, TNT Post delivered

:23:31.:23:35.

mail through people's doors. They are now active in a third of London

:23:36.:23:39.

and in the places that they are, some 15% of all the letters

:23:40.:23:44.

delivered come from a TNT employee rather than the traditional Royal

:23:45.:23:48.

Mail postman. However, there have been some high-profile cases of mail

:23:49.:23:53.

going missing. Back in April, BBC London reported on how one North

:23:54.:23:57.

London resident found over 200 letters dumped in a bush. This bag

:23:58.:24:03.

of TNT Post was discovered by the Conservative MP for Hendon after it

:24:04.:24:08.

was dumped in a river. Myself and some supporters were cleaning up the

:24:09.:24:12.

river after we noticed a lot of cans and mattresses. We came across a

:24:13.:24:17.

black sack which, when we pulled it out, opened up to reveal lots of

:24:18.:24:23.

council tax bills and other official documents, which had not been

:24:24.:24:33.

delivered. TNT Post point out most of their mail is delivered without a

:24:34.:24:37.

hitch. The newcomers are only delivering to the most profitable

:24:38.:24:41.

parts of the country, mostly so far in London. That gives them an unfair

:24:42.:24:48.

advantage. The universal service offering is prescribed in law, so

:24:49.:24:52.

from our perspective we have to deliver to every address in the UK

:24:53.:24:58.

six days a week. If we don't have the volumes of mail that allow us to

:24:59.:25:05.

cross subsidise, so business mail cross subsidising social mail, we

:25:06.:25:10.

will get to a tipping point where the economics of the universal

:25:11.:25:13.

service offering don't make sense. The Royal Mail asked Ofcom to look

:25:14.:25:19.

at this issue. A review is promised but not until next year. In the

:25:20.:25:23.

meantime, if you don't already, you might well find a TNT Postman

:25:24.:25:32.

delivering at your door. I have been joined by the Deputy

:25:33.:25:42.

General Secretary of the communication service workers union.

:25:43.:25:51.

It is allowing competition that there threaten profitability. Is it

:25:52.:25:56.

trying to destroy the Royal Mail? Not at all. The Government got the

:25:57.:26:11.

sale of Royal Mail under way safely. Of course, part of the legislation

:26:12.:26:14.

that we put through Parliament was to give the regulator powers to make

:26:15.:26:19.

sure that competition is fair and there is a level playing field and

:26:20.:26:25.

the problem that this is causing and the Chief Executive has been to see

:26:26.:26:30.

parliamentarians across-the-board to explain that the very profitable

:26:31.:26:36.

postcodes help Royal Mail deliver in the rural communities, like my

:26:37.:26:41.

constituency and further afield. If you have a competitor who picks off

:26:42.:26:46.

the profitable postcodes you can then get into a situation where that

:26:47.:26:51.

business goes away, it erodes away and puts Royal Mail in a difficult

:26:52.:26:55.

situation. That is why the regulator has the power to look at this - and

:26:56.:27:00.

it is they review this very quickly. From other geographies around the

:27:01.:27:03.

world, once the business goes away, it is hard to try and bring it back.

:27:04.:27:09.

You admit there is a threat to the way been set up, to Royal Mail being

:27:10.:27:15.

able to fulfil in the long-term its universal obligation while, at the

:27:16.:27:18.

same time, it is being hampered by competition? No. Competition has to

:27:19.:27:23.

be fair and it is right that the regulator... You are worried about

:27:24.:27:27.

it being fair? It is right - they are reviewing this. They are looking

:27:28.:27:31.

at this very carefully. It is important they look at it carefully

:27:32.:27:35.

and quickly. Ofcom has said there is no material threat to the Royal Mail

:27:36.:27:39.

fulfilling that regulation, so it is a storm in a teacup? Ofcom have

:27:40.:27:44.

abandoned their primary role, which is to protect the universal service.

:27:45.:27:49.

This is not real competition. This is cherry-picking competition. If

:27:50.:27:54.

you want to see that very visually, TNT stated ambition is to deliver to

:27:55.:27:58.

42% of addresses, but they have chosen only 8% of the UK geography

:27:59.:28:03.

to do that. What you have got is them delivering to all the high

:28:04.:28:09.

density areas - and that undermines the very economics. So your

:28:10.:28:14.

constituents will suffer if this is allowed to carry on. Can I make this

:28:15.:28:20.

point? Politicians are making the mistake of saying this is new jobs.

:28:21.:28:24.

It's not. It is replacing existing Royal Mail jobs with underpaid jobs,

:28:25.:28:29.

poverty-paid jobs against market-leading jobs. It is wrong.

:28:30.:28:33.

Why then is Ofcom saying their current evidence clearly shows that

:28:34.:28:37.

the service is not currently under threat from competition? That TNT

:28:38.:28:43.

Post deliver less than 1% of mail in the UK. Ofcom have got it wrong.

:28:44.:28:49.

They have got those numbers wrong? They have already allowed the

:28:50.:28:54.

competitors to take up to 50% of Royal Mail's access mail, so

:28:55.:28:58.

competitors can sort and collect 50% of the mail in total. If they

:28:59.:29:03.

switched that mail, to their direct delivery, this is a disaster waiting

:29:04.:29:07.

to happen. They have to act now. If they are wrong, what is wrong with

:29:08.:29:11.

them reviewing it? We are not saying to them, or telling them what they

:29:12.:29:15.

have to do, we are saying intervene now and review it. It sounds like

:29:16.:29:21.

Ofcom are failing to get a grip of the situation. The whole point is to

:29:22.:29:25.

allow new entrants into the market but they have to have conditions

:29:26.:29:29.

that mean it would be fair? That is the point being made. If Ofcom are

:29:30.:29:36.

right, a review will prove them to be right. If they are wrong, and

:29:37.:29:41.

this business does go away, it is very difficult to bring it back. You

:29:42.:29:46.

create a very difficult situation for Royal Mail, which is why I think

:29:47.:29:49.

Ofcom get on with the review. Is the universal service under threat? It

:29:50.:29:51.

will be You will allow a private company to come in and cherry-pick

:29:52.:29:56.

and Royal Mail is left with the uneconomic route. You won't be able

:29:57.:30:01.

to keep down the price of a if you allow somebody to cream off the

:30:02.:30:07.

profit. A few years down the line, there will certainly be that

:30:08.:30:11.

problem, we will see stamp prices go up and services go down. They have

:30:12.:30:16.

gone up over time... That was to fatten it up for privatisation. Is

:30:17.:30:21.

this all sour grapes, from the union, who oppose the sell-off in

:30:22.:30:22.

the first place? through competition, and if you

:30:23.:30:34.

hobble a service, it makes it hard to improve across the board. It

:30:35.:30:37.

should be the people start at the same level. If you are going to

:30:38.:30:42.

create a level playing field and TNT want to deliver post, they should

:30:43.:30:50.

deliver to the whole country. This is not real competition. What

:30:51.:30:54.

competition would you accept? What we are saying is, Shell is whether

:30:55.:30:59.

consumers benefit. That the moment, the idea that you have a Royal mail

:31:00.:31:03.

postman going up the garden path and five minutes later he is followed by

:31:04.:31:10.

a TNT Post -- show us where the consumers benefit. It's a natural

:31:11.:31:13.

monopoly, and we have to be honest about it. You cannot have both in

:31:14.:31:17.

the Royal Mail service. What do you say to that? I don't think it is a

:31:18.:31:22.

natural monopoly where you have one set line with trains on the railway.

:31:23.:31:31.

It is more like buses. If you look London, where you regulate the

:31:32.:31:34.

buses, it's the best service in the country, and if you go around the

:31:35.:31:39.

country you pay more for a worse service because all the bus

:31:40.:31:42.

companies crowd into the profitable routes and you don't get elsewhere.

:31:43.:31:48.

The buses is the best comparison. If you regulated properly, as you do in

:31:49.:31:51.

London, it works, and if you don't, like the rest of the country, it's

:31:52.:31:56.

not as good. So the sell-off will achieve inefficiency at one level

:31:57.:32:00.

and a fracturing of the service, and the price of the stamp is likely to

:32:01.:32:05.

go up? It doesn't seem to be what you set out to do. I don't agree

:32:06.:32:10.

with that. Firstly, the Royal Mail is costing the taxpayer millions. It

:32:11.:32:17.

was in profit. That was very recent. If you look beyond that it cost a

:32:18.:32:22.

lot of money. No dispute about that. If you are going to have competition

:32:23.:32:27.

and strong regulation, which we did see giving the power is going to

:32:28.:32:30.

offer comp, then you create a better market. Whether it is buses or

:32:31.:32:35.

anything else -- of com. It's regulated well, the market works

:32:36.:32:40.

efficiently. This is just the unions, the chief executive is

:32:41.:32:44.

saying that there are other issues here that need to be looked at

:32:45.:32:47.

because good competition can be healthy but if you have somebody

:32:48.:32:50.

picking of the profitable bits, it is unhealthy. We will leave it

:32:51.:32:51.

there. Thank you. It's just gone 12:30pm,

:32:52.:32:55.

and it's time now to say goodbye to The final version

:32:56.:32:58.

of the government's emergency communications bill is due to be

:32:59.:33:00.

published today. Last week David Cameron and

:33:01.:33:02.

Nick Clegg announced the Government would rush the bill through

:33:03.:33:05.

in record time to ensure that the police and security services

:33:06.:33:07.

can continue to access people's The law will replace previous data

:33:08.:33:10.

rules, which were struck down by the European Court of Justice

:33:11.:33:17.

earlier this year. Last week the Home Secretary was

:33:18.:33:21.

questioned by MPs about the emergency Bill. Here's

:33:22.:33:27.

a flavour of what was said then. This legislation will merely

:33:28.:33:37.

maintain the status quo. It will not tackle the wider problem of

:33:38.:33:39.

declining communications data capability to which we must return

:33:40.:33:43.

in the next parliament. But it will ensure, for now at least, that the

:33:44.:33:48.

police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the

:33:49.:33:51.

criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this

:33:52.:33:55.

legislation, we face the very prospect of losing access to this

:33:56.:33:59.

data overnight with the consequence that police investigations will

:34:00.:34:02.

suddenly go dark and criminals will escape justice. We cannot allow this

:34:03.:34:10.

to happen. We cannot keep doing sticking plaster legislation in a

:34:11.:34:13.

rush without the proper consideration of the privacy and

:34:14.:34:16.

security balance that modern Britain wants to see. We will scrutinise the

:34:17.:34:20.

detail of the bill as it goes through Parliament next week and we

:34:21.:34:25.

will support it, because we know that the police and intelligence

:34:26.:34:28.

agencies need the information to fight crime, protect children. There

:34:29.:34:36.

have been plenty of time to look at the 12 clauses relating to data

:34:37.:34:41.

retention, so if there is an emergency, is it now, not then? The

:34:42.:34:46.

only reason this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a

:34:47.:34:49.

single day in the Commons is because the government has spent three

:34:50.:34:52.

months making its mind up and the government has decided we are going

:34:53.:34:53.

on holiday in ten days time. I've been joined by Baroness Kramer

:34:54.:34:57.

the Lib Dem transport minister, Baroness Royall, Labour's shadow

:34:58.:35:00.

leader of the House of Lords and the Conservative peer Lord

:35:01.:35:02.

Holmes for the rest of the show. Welcome to all of you. Susan Kramer,

:35:03.:35:14.

first of all, why has it taken three months since the ruling to announce

:35:15.:35:18.

them emergency legislation quest not where the Lib Dems dragging their

:35:19.:35:22.

feet? It's been necessary to make sure we don't bring back more

:35:23.:35:25.

legislation that is struck down again. I also think it's been

:35:26.:35:30.

important that, along with what is basically maintaining the existing

:35:31.:35:35.

powers, there is now more oversight and it is more transparent as a

:35:36.:35:38.

process and there will be an oversight committee and the

:35:39.:35:41.

particular legislation dies in two years. They will look at the overall

:35:42.:35:50.

powers of investigation and there will be more civil liberties

:35:51.:35:55.

protection rather than keeping the powers in place. This has gone on

:35:56.:35:59.

behind-the-scenes. There has not been the chance for MPs to debated

:36:00.:36:03.

hence the comments by some backbenchers saying it has been

:36:04.:36:10.

stitched up by party leaders. It's essential legislation that needs to

:36:11.:36:14.

get through quickly. It does take a while to make sure you have it

:36:15.:36:17.

drafted so you don't end up back in court again. That is an important

:36:18.:36:22.

step that had to be taken. It has been brought in in a timely way, so

:36:23.:36:25.

the parties will recognise the need to do that. Of course, there has

:36:26.:36:30.

been a lot of discussion and there will be a very big viewing of all of

:36:31.:36:35.

these issues, which is the substantive part of this. You are

:36:36.:36:40.

shaking your head, but you back it anyway? We do because the safeguards

:36:41.:36:45.

are there but it hasn't been brought in in a timely way. Why is it

:36:46.:36:50.

emergency legislation? It didn't need to be three months ago, but

:36:51.:36:54.

nowadays. Four months ago Yvette Cooper was calling for a review of

:36:55.:36:58.

the whole of the legislation, a real public debate and at the time the

:36:59.:37:01.

government said no and now they have said yes, and that's important,

:37:02.:37:05.

because these things have to be out to the public and the public have to

:37:06.:37:09.

debate them and we have to think of the implications of new technology.

:37:10.:37:12.

People will think it is a stitch up and it was done behind closed

:37:13.:37:16.

doors, so why has there not been a more public debate about it? I don't

:37:17.:37:21.

think it's absolutely required at this time. The key point and the

:37:22.:37:26.

main worry is that this does not cover intercepted data, it is about

:37:27.:37:29.

the meta data, what calls were made and when and Joo-ho. That is

:37:30.:37:37.

critical not in serious crime or terrorist -- and to whom. If we

:37:38.:37:42.

consider the historical child abuse cases and how we can address those

:37:43.:37:45.

situations better going forward, this will be a cornerstone in the

:37:46.:37:49.

process. You see it as necessary data to be retained, but if it is so

:37:50.:37:54.

critical to solving crime cases, it's probably been deleted, some of

:37:55.:37:58.

it, between the ECJ ruling and today. The ruling did not require it

:37:59.:38:04.

to be deleted. But it might have done so. It left companies in a

:38:05.:38:10.

state of uncertainty so we needed to move promptly. But you had to move

:38:11.:38:13.

in such a way that you would put through legislation that was not

:38:14.:38:17.

going to get knocked over again. That's not helpful to anyone. I

:38:18.:38:20.

think it is important that it has come with the additional civil

:38:21.:38:23.

liberties protections and with this major review of the whole issue.

:38:24.:38:29.

There is an oversight body that will be critical and more transparency.

:38:30.:38:33.

The oversight body will do what? As I understand it, there would still

:38:34.:38:36.

be a case for legal intercept and the Home Secretary or Secretary of

:38:37.:38:41.

State for Northern Ireland can say not only can we log of the calls you

:38:42.:38:47.

made, we will be able to look at the content of yours and mine if we are

:38:48.:38:50.

deemed suspicious. But it is limited, as you describe. There are

:38:51.:38:56.

no powers that don't exist already but these additional measures mean

:38:57.:39:01.

that there is now an oversight committee which will look at this.

:39:02.:39:04.

That is what the public were also looking for, that it's not just the

:39:05.:39:09.

interested parties, there needed to be an oversight away from that.

:39:10.:39:14.

These are important Civil Liberties steps, but the most substantive

:39:15.:39:17.

thing is that all of this will be reviewed over the long term and of

:39:18.:39:21.

course there will be a great deal of public debate, and the legislation

:39:22.:39:27.

dies in two years. That is if the new parliament and public not

:39:28.:39:28.

convinced. It will new parliament and public not

:39:29.:39:33.

that is the important thing. But Parliament can put in a new set

:39:34.:39:38.

powers or legislation, but it is true that the Labour Party support

:39:39.:39:41.

this to the hilt. They always supported these powers because they

:39:42.:39:44.

agreed with the government and the Conservatives that it was vital to

:39:45.:39:47.

have this information in order to solve crimes, whether it was child

:39:48.:39:51.

abuse or terrorist cases. You are not saying you wouldn't go ahead

:39:52.:39:56.

with anything that would the public less safe? We do support the

:39:57.:39:59.

legislation but we made sure there were important safeguards. We do

:40:00.:40:04.

recognise since this came into force that there have been profound

:40:05.:40:08.

changes and everything needs looking at again. Also after the Edward

:40:09.:40:13.

Snowden debate. The public deserve the opportunity to think about these

:40:14.:40:16.

things and debate them, and that is necessary. The European Court of

:40:17.:40:21.

Justice ruling said that the regulations breached a fundamental

:40:22.:40:22.

rights to respect for private life, regulations breached a fundamental

:40:23.:40:26.

but are you worried that those companies who could face legal

:40:27.:40:27.

challenges from people who have said companies who could face legal

:40:28.:40:31.

you have held data and information illegally since

:40:32.:40:34.

you have held data and information companies will have got rid of it?

:40:35.:40:34.

There companies will have got rid of it?

:40:35.:40:39.

need to realise that it could be need to realise that it could

:40:40.:40:42.

potentially dangerous on activities going on in our country at the

:40:43.:40:46.

moment. You look at the conviction with the Soho killings in 2002, this

:40:47.:40:51.

data was absolutely critical to ensuring that case went to the right

:40:52.:40:57.

conclusion. So much has changed in our world in the last decade. We

:40:58.:41:01.

need this and we need the police and security services to have access.

:41:02.:41:07.

The work our security services do, dangerous work on a daily basis,

:41:08.:41:12.

unsung heroes by the nature of the work, we need to give them all the

:41:13.:41:17.

support, not trample all over human rights by any means, but to enable

:41:18.:41:23.

them to do a job to keep reddish citizens safe here and abroad. When

:41:24.:41:30.

will this be on the statute books? It goes through the Commons today,

:41:31.:41:36.

then the Lords after. Two days of debate in the Lords, and if there

:41:37.:41:41.

are any amendments passed... Do you think there will be? I don't know.

:41:42.:41:46.

That is the point of proper scrutiny on which we insisted in the Lords.

:41:47.:41:51.

But there is no real risk it went beyond the statute book before the

:41:52.:41:55.

summer recess? I think not, but it might not possibly be until next

:41:56.:41:59.

week. But it will be rapid, and it needs to be.

:42:00.:42:01.

Let?s go back to the news that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former

:42:02.:42:04.

High Court judge who was appointed to chair the inquiry into historic

:42:05.:42:06.

Downing Street has said "it was entirely her decision" and a

:42:07.:42:10.

new chair would be appointed within a few days.

:42:11.:42:16.

Speaking in the last few minutes, Labour MP Tom Watson, who raised the

:42:17.:42:23.

issue of child abuse in the Commons welcomed the decision. For someone

:42:24.:42:26.

who has such a large record in public service, she would know that

:42:27.:42:31.

any controversy around her as the chair of the enquiry would cause

:42:32.:42:35.

difficulties, particularly with vulnerable survivors who are nervous

:42:36.:42:38.

about speaking out all stop they need to be encouraged to do so and

:42:39.:42:42.

any question over the enquiry would have been difficult. I think it is

:42:43.:42:46.

testament to her own integrity that she has made the decision herself

:42:47.:42:51.

and gone quickly. Chris Holmes, do you agree with that or was it poor

:42:52.:42:54.

judgement on behalf of the government in appointing her and not

:42:55.:42:57.

seeing the problems the problems that could lie ahead? She is an

:42:58.:43:00.

honourable lady and she has done the honourable thing. She could have

:43:01.:43:06.

done a great job in sharing this. It became untenable when there was a

:43:07.:43:09.

question of the co-chairman. She has done the right thing. Has she done

:43:10.:43:15.

the right thing? It had to be very much her decision. The government

:43:16.:43:19.

continues to have great faith in her integrity and skills and feel she

:43:20.:43:22.

would have done a terrific job if she were the chair. But should they

:43:23.:43:27.

have seen the pitfall of her being an establishment figure and the

:43:28.:43:30.

connections with her brother as the former jerk -- attorney general

:43:31.:43:32.

question mark should it have been picked up? If you know Lady

:43:33.:43:39.

Butler-Sloss, you are conscious of how much skill and wisdom and

:43:40.:43:42.

integrity she has. It's going to be a tough job to share this, because

:43:43.:43:46.

the scope is so wide. You've got to be able to command the respect of a

:43:47.:43:52.

broad range of institutions that create confidence in the public. She

:43:53.:43:56.

could have done all of those things. I don't have a dispute with her

:43:57.:43:59.

appointment. She realised she had become the story, and the

:44:00.:44:04.

controversy surrounding might make it difficult for her to do her job,

:44:05.:44:09.

but is very much a decision. I hope we find a new chair of similar

:44:10.:44:13.

character very quickly. I think she is an extraordinary woman and it's a

:44:14.:44:16.

great testament to her integrity she did this. As she said in her

:44:17.:44:22.

statement, this is very much a victims and survivors focused

:44:23.:44:24.

investigation, therefore these people must have confidence in her.

:44:25.:44:29.

But I do think she was put in a very difficult position by the Home

:44:30.:44:31.

Secretary and difficult position by the Home

:44:32.:44:33.

Secretary it is a testament to her own integrity that she has decided

:44:34.:44:36.

to take this action. How difficult will it be to find summary of her

:44:37.:44:42.

calibre with that experience who is also not part of the establishment,

:44:43.:44:48.

as that seems to be the main criticism, to carry out what could

:44:49.:44:52.

be a long and involved enquiry? She is superbly qualified but there must

:44:53.:44:56.

be people who are likewise qualified out there who do not have this

:44:57.:44:59.

background that she has. Let's leave it there.

:45:00.:45:01.

On Friday the House of Lords will consider a bill - proposed by

:45:02.:45:04.

the former Labour Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer - which would allow

:45:05.:45:06.

doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients with less than six months

:45:07.:45:10.

to live medication to end their life - so-called 'assisted dying'.

:45:11.:45:15.

Last week the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said he had

:45:16.:45:18.

changed his mind, and that he now supports assisted because of the

:45:19.:45:22.

But the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby,

:45:23.:45:27.

has described the attempt to legalise assisted dying as

:45:28.:45:30.

"both mistaken and dangerous - quite literally, lethally so".

:45:31.:45:34.

Today in the Telegraph Boris Johnson has a more nuanced approach writing

:45:35.:45:38.

that he "would like the Falconer Bill apply not to all those

:45:39.:45:42.

who might well die in the next six months, but only to those whose

:45:43.:45:46.

lives are overwhelmingly likely to be very near the end" But a group

:45:47.:45:50.

of MPS and Peers including David Blunkett and Baroness Tanni

:45:51.:45:54.

Grey-Thompson have written in a letter in the Times today that "the

:45:55.:45:57.

mark of a healthy society is how it treats those who have

:45:58.:46:01.

We must not enact laws which will endanger the lives of

:46:02.:46:06.

Where do you stand on this? Is this something you would like to see,

:46:07.:46:18.

legislation, you will support Charlie Falconer's Bill? I do

:46:19.:46:22.

support this Bill. I very much support the need for a debate. Two

:46:23.:46:27.

weeks' ago, the Supreme Court said this issue should be debated in

:46:28.:46:30.

Parliament, therefore it is right and proper that it is debated in

:46:31.:46:36.

Parliament. I do respect those who take a different view to me and in

:46:37.:46:41.

my own group, in the House of Lords, there's a plethora of different

:46:42.:46:45.

views. The House of Lords is a great place to have this sort of debate.

:46:46.:46:49.

It will come into its own on Friday. You are head of the disability at

:46:50.:47:05.

the Disability Rights Commission? This is the most significant debate

:47:06.:47:10.

there has been in the Lords for a good number of years. You see that

:47:11.:47:14.

in the number of people who have signed up to speak. It is incredibly

:47:15.:47:20.

difficult. I believe the Bill, as currently structured, doesn't

:47:21.:47:25.

deliver what a number of people believe it will. My mailbag and

:47:26.:47:30.

other colleagues' mailbags have been dominated by this subject, as you

:47:31.:47:40.

can imagine, for weeks. The Bill is very tightly-drafted. Many people

:47:41.:47:44.

who have had desperate experiences in this area wouldn't have been

:47:45.:47:49.

covered by the Bill, thus does it go through and keep that title? Does

:47:50.:47:52.

that necessarily mean that later down the track it has to be

:47:53.:47:56.

broadened? Your point of view, at this juncture, is you would like to

:47:57.:48:00.

see a Bill that covers more people in the situations that you have

:48:01.:48:04.

described so they could take a decision or get others to do it for

:48:05.:48:09.

them in terms of a right-to-die? I think if you are on that side of the

:48:10.:48:12.

argument, you have to accept it needs to be broadened for it to be a

:48:13.:48:17.

coherent argument. Where are you? I don't think we are in a position to

:48:18.:48:22.

pass this legislation. There's probably a case for this being the

:48:23.:48:27.

start of a national debate around this potential to have a Royal

:48:28.:48:33.

Commission to get into this area. I don't believe the legislation should

:48:34.:48:37.

be passed. What do you think? I do support the Bill. It is a very good

:48:38.:48:46.

Bill. It is very narrowly-drawn. We need to make sure that they get the

:48:47.:48:51.

protection that they need. How do you do that? The voice that often

:48:52.:48:56.

isn't heard is the person that is suffering in the last months of

:48:57.:48:59.

their lives. I have been through this with a number of relatives. I

:49:00.:49:05.

know how limited palliative care is. I know what my own decision would be

:49:06.:49:09.

in many of the circumstances that they went through. I'm very

:49:10.:49:14.

supportive of this Bill. I will be up north for part of the day. Are

:49:15.:49:19.

you happy with the idea that there could be people in vulnerable

:49:20.:49:25.

situations who aren't making decisions with enough of a state of

:49:26.:49:26.

mind to do so, that decisions with enough of a state of

:49:27.:49:29.

taken advantage of, that actually they make that decision in distress,

:49:30.:49:34.

there isn't good enough palliative care and they needn't take that

:49:35.:49:39.

decision to end their life? I think that one must have respect for the

:49:40.:49:44.

capacity of people. There are safeguards in this Bill. It deals

:49:45.:49:50.

with people who have been identified as having six months left to live.

:49:51.:49:57.

So, they are in the final stages of their lives. You need two doctors to

:49:58.:50:02.

be engaged in this process. The Bill does draft in - it could be done in

:50:03.:50:07.

a way that is very sensitive to that issue. I also think we have to be

:50:08.:50:11.

very sensitive to the suffering of the individuals who go through these

:50:12.:50:16.

circumstances and aren't able, at the moment, to bring an end to what

:50:17.:50:20.

can be a very difficult time. What is your response to that, Chris?

:50:21.:50:25.

That is one of the curious contradictions within the Bill. None

:50:26.:50:29.

of us would want anybody to suffer one second of unnecessary pain -

:50:30.:50:37.

that's first point. It is curious that you attach a six-month stopgap.

:50:38.:50:44.

Who is to say what suffering somebody may be in, aged 30, with

:50:45.:50:48.

potentially 40 years left? What the Bill is saying those people are

:50:49.:50:52.

condemned to 40 years of suffering because they are not in a terminable

:50:53.:51:07.

state. Two doctors better than one? 100% better than one? And for

:51:08.:51:16.

everybody, what this will do is change the way life, the human

:51:17.:51:20.

condition, is viewed in this country. The arguments from the

:51:21.:51:24.

Netherlands, the arguments from Washington State, look how that

:51:25.:51:33.

shaped up? I would ask anybody with doubts about the Bill - I respect

:51:34.:51:39.

them - to read the wonderful article by Chris Woodhead in the Sunday

:51:40.:51:43.

Times yesterday. He knows that life is going to get worse for him. He

:51:44.:51:47.

doesn't want to die. He knows that at some stage, he might want to end

:51:48.:51:52.

his own life. This Bill would enable him to do so. The most important

:51:53.:51:57.

thing about Friday is that it opens up the debate in Parliament so I

:51:58.:52:02.

very much hope it isn't voted down at Second Reading. Parliament

:52:03.:52:07.

deserves space for this sort of debate whatever side of the argument

:52:08.:52:14.

you are on. I agree very much with Jan on that. The Church - it's a big

:52:15.:52:22.

issue for them? It opens up and says people of great faith - and there

:52:23.:52:28.

are many - can reconcile to this decision. Will that have an

:52:29.:52:33.

influence on public support? Well, the public are already supportive of

:52:34.:52:38.

this. I do think the importance is going to be the debate itself. I

:52:39.:52:43.

hope very much that isn't going to be truncated. It will be important

:52:44.:52:50.

parliamentary procedure doesn't stop this in its track. Alright.

:52:51.:52:55.

Now, it might sound like something out of Star Wars, but the UK might

:52:56.:52:58.

Ministers have drawn up plans which could see a hub for space tourism

:52:59.:53:02.

What will that mean for British business and the likelihood

:53:03.:53:06.

of ordinary people being able to swap their summer holidays

:53:07.:53:09.

Could commercial spaceflights be about to take off in Britain? One

:53:10.:53:23.

man hoping so is Richard Branson, with whose company expects to launch

:53:24.:53:27.

its first flights in America by the end of the year.

:53:28.:53:31.

# I'm a Rocket Man. # Not to be outdone, David Willets has

:53:32.:53:38.

drawn up a short list of potential sites. He says space tourism could

:53:39.:53:43.

become much more affordable within a few decades, so are we about to see

:53:44.:53:47.

spacecraft like this in the skies above Cornwall, Scotland or Wales?

:53:48.:53:56.

Looks fantastic. Bearing in mind people might say that we can't get

:53:57.:53:59.

the railways right, how are we going to manage with space travel? It is

:54:00.:54:07.

brilliant. Something like - we make ?11 billion a year out of space for

:54:08.:54:11.

the economy. Young people - we are trying to get into engineering, to

:54:12.:54:16.

be excited about possibilities and to dream ahead. They will be stirred

:54:17.:54:20.

by all of this. One of the things we are doing is we are changing British

:54:21.:54:25.

industry to take advantage of the extraordinary research skills and

:54:26.:54:30.

engineering capabilities to be cutting-edge and we are doing a

:54:31.:54:37.

whole series of areas. This is cutting-edge. Where would you put

:54:38.:54:43.

it, Jan? We need high skills and good jobs up-and-down the country.

:54:44.:54:47.

I'm from the South West. Personally, I would... You are going to put it

:54:48.:54:52.

in Cornwall, are you? That is a personal opinion, of course. I hope

:54:53.:54:56.

we all reach for the stars. Well done. You spent your whole political

:54:57.:55:02.

career fighting Heathrow expansion and here we are going to have a

:55:03.:55:06.

great big runway for spacecraft? There are better ways to travel! It

:55:07.:55:11.

is hardly going to be for the masses? This is not going to be a

:55:12.:55:19.

mass form of travel - and I hope we don't have stag nights in space! It

:55:20.:55:24.

is cutting-edge. It is exciting. Britain is back in the game and

:55:25.:55:31.

people need to know that. And at the front of scientific development and

:55:32.:55:34.

that's the marker we are putting down. Are you as big a fan, Chris?

:55:35.:55:40.

Eight possible locations. Right. We will go through them in a minute.

:55:41.:55:44.

Are you a big fan, Chris? Very much so. We need to regenerate our

:55:45.:55:53.

economy in every single way we can. I'm on the digital skills committee

:55:54.:55:59.

in the Lords. We could get 10%... Could you, though? Given the rise of

:56:00.:56:06.

China and India, how is that going to be achieved? It is possible. Look

:56:07.:56:11.

at the quality of our engineers... We haven't got enough of them. We

:56:12.:56:17.

will have. Is that what it is about? Look what it will do if the decision

:56:18.:56:21.

is that it ends up in Scotland. What a great way to have such an

:56:22.:56:25.

important hub in the north of Scotland and that really underlines

:56:26.:56:29.

the point that by being part of the UK, it is not about dogma, it is

:56:30.:56:35.

about jobs. Can I say something? The exact location doesn't matter.

:56:36.:56:39.

Doesn't it? It will to the local community. Clearly. It will stir

:56:40.:56:44.

people up-and-down the country. Every university that has this kind

:56:45.:56:48.

of capacity will be able to get excited about this. Except for where

:56:49.:56:52.

it is going to be. Scotland is one of the locations? I have no idea. I

:56:53.:56:58.

see. Have you got any preference? If I stated a preference, people would

:56:59.:57:05.

think I had knowledge - I have none! Susan might get the first flight,

:57:06.:57:13.

though! How does it fit with your cost of living crisis? Very

:57:14.:57:19.

difficult. We do need well-qualified, skilled jobs and I

:57:20.:57:23.

hope food banks will not be necessary in the future. OK.

:57:24.:57:27.

Just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

:57:28.:57:31.

The question was - how many World Cup matches did the German

:57:32.:57:34.

Two. One. Two. It is two. She went early on. I don't know if you saw

:57:35.:57:56.

the pictures last night - what do you think t about leaders attending

:57:57.:58:00.

big sporting events like this? If England were playing in the World

:58:01.:58:04.

Cup Final and our political leaders didn't go, I think their throats

:58:05.:58:08.

would be cut. What about going at the beginning, Chris? They have got

:58:09.:58:12.

a very good team, Germany. But to go at the beginning is nailing your

:58:13.:58:17.

colours to the mast? It is good for all political leaders to get behind

:58:18.:58:22.

their sports teams. It was brilliant to have that political support

:58:23.:58:26.

having competed at four Games. When you go out there, you are

:58:27.:58:30.

representing Great Britain, or England, to have your politicians

:58:31.:58:33.

behind you, it makes a difference. It is good for Britain. Let's hope

:58:34.:58:35.

they do better next time round. That's all for today. Thanks to

:58:36.:58:39.

Susan, Jan, and Chris. The One O'Clock News is starting

:58:40.:58:42.

over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with

:58:43.:58:44.

all the big political stories of the day, so do join me then.

:58:45.:58:47.

Bye-bye. MUSIC: "Edward Scissorhands

:58:48.:59:12.

Introduction" by Danny Elfman

:59:13.:59:15.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS