15/03/2012 Newsnight

Marriage is such a fine institution it should be available to all, the

Government line on its plans to make gay marriage possible is

trumpeted loud, not so fast, say figures like the head of the Roman

Catholic church in England and Wales, who claims that marriage can

only be marriage if it is between a man and a woman.

Why has the coalition Government picked this fight with an enemy

which includes many of its supporters and MPs. We are going to

hear all sides of the argument. One other issue tonight.

Hello love. What have you got for nose bag, I feel like a steak and

kidney pudding. You are beginning to look like one, salad, victims.

Is it time police pay and conditions got a current shake-up,

what about making sure to start with they are all reasonably fit

and competent. The author of this subversive idea is here with a

If you know cause or just impediment you have 12 weeks to

speak your mind or forever hold your peace, not that doing so will

make much difference, mind. The consultation announced by the

Government today is only about how to make gay marriage local in

England and Wales, not about -- legal in England and Wales, not

about whether to do it at all. This, say opponents, is absurd, since it

wasn't in any manifesto before the last election. On the one side is

the political establishment, and on the other, the churches. We asked

our correspondent why the Government had picked this fight.

I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I

support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.

Marriage is an institution that has served this country very well for

nearly 2,000 years, and I think we should change it at our pour Rhyl.

Modern day "middle England" in a town built in the Middle Ages, and

one the Government believes is ready to accept gay marriage.

This ancient ward city is represented by Julian Brozier, he

is one of the Tory MPs critical of the party leadership's bill to

finally go for it and legalise gay marriage. The Conservatives want to

do that because they think it emblematic of the journey its party

has been on, in touch finally with Britain. Some don't get it. They

don't understand why the party would spend time on something like

this. The Prime Minister makes this

argument, he believes in marriage, in all its forms.

But it then means redefining marriage, it also means rather

impartial. Does it really? They are not religious ceremonies, civil

partnership has redefined marriage. You have to ask yourself what

marriage actually is, it has traditionally been between two, in

some ways restricted people, they had to be a man and a woman, not

related, and what we are talking about here is not only a big step,

but it is also a partial step. Why gay marriage and not Sharia

marriage. In 2005, the then Labour Government

legislated to bring in civil partnerships, now David Cameron's

team want to put down their own contribution towards modernising

Britain. And so, they have started the

process of bringing in civil gay marriage, by opening a consultation

to cheering from some of their MPs. I have looked at three studies that

show children being brought up in strong relationships, whether they

be between men and women, or men and men, or women and women, do

just as well as each other, so it is important that we, not despite

being Conservative, but because we are Conservatives, support the

equalisation of civil marriage. So we are in Canterbury, what is

your feeling about your constituents, how would they want

you to vote? I have made my own mind up, because it is something

that I feel strongly about. But, in fact, the bulk of the

representations I have had so far, all but one of them, have been

against this measure. And what was the one person who was

in support of it, why did they say they support it? On the rights

point, on the point of equal rights. It seems to me that rights have to

be balanced against the wider needs of society.

So how did Julian Brozier's opinion fare on his streets. On the

religious angle I have a bit of a problem there, I'm not particularly

religious, but on the human rights angle I suppose you can't deny it.

I really haven't got strong feelings either way. I don't agree

with it at all. Why not? I don't think marriage is for not two

fellas or two girls, it is male and female. Even though you have civil

partnerships? Civil partnerships, not marriage. Don't they deserve

equal rights? In a diverse society it is fine. You have an MP who

thinks it is the opposite, he thinks it shouldn't be allowed?

He's being a bit of a dinosaur then. Quick-fire tests like these are

normally a fool's game, but on this question the Government has

certainly put thought into where opinion lies.

Downing Street think that the number of people at the next

election who will vote against them because of policies like this, well

they are minuscule, all three party leaders will be voting in the same

way. So as a way to decide your vote it won't be very helpful, in

the round the Conservative leadership has decided there is

more to be risked from not going for something like this, than going

for it. There is something else, if you get from the 37% of the vote

that the Conservatives got at the last election, to the 44% they need

to win a majority, you have to go for Labour and Lib Dem votes, they

think on policies like this they can do that. For the Prime Minister,

while there is a lot of principle involved, there is also a lot of

polling. Issues like gay marriage, et cetera, are things that could

make a difference. But to be honest, they are swamped entirely by things

like basic competence on running the economy, crime, this isn't an

issue that everybody in Britain is champing at the bit and getting

excited about. It is hard to find a more Godly

dwelling than Canterbury, and on this issue the church is ranged

against the Government. Writing this morning, the Home Secretary,

May, sought to reassure, she pledged the Government won't touch

religious marriage in any way. Churches, she insisted, keep their

right to preach that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Son the Canterbury, Chaucer, told many tales about the trials and

tribulations of marriage, David Cameron, on the other hand, is a

much more pang losian chap, and on this occasion, he's xet dent he

won't be left at the at -- competent he won't be left at the

alter. Nick Herbert has been watching that report, this wasn't -

- altar. Nick Herbert has been watching that report, this wasn't

in the Lib Dem manifesto or the Conservative manifesto, it is a

major social change, what authority have you done to do it? It will be

done with the authority of parliament, if that is what

parliament will decide to vote for. I believe they will. When we were

consulting about the extension of civil partnerships a couple of

years ago, we realised that a lot of people were saying that this is

something that they believed in strongly. It is, fundamentally,

about the kind of society you want to build, and the important

principle of equality, it is also about strengthening an institution.

As David Cameron said, from the Conservative point of view it is

not in spite of being a Conservative that we want to ensure

equal marriage, it is actually because we are Conservatives, and

believe in that institution. know the Lib Dems are claiming

credit for this, public low claiming credit for it? I don't

think -- publicly claiming credit for it? I don't think it is about

claiming credit. There has been enormous strides in equality in our

society in the course of the last few years. That has been important,

but there is more to do. There are now far more, for instance, gay

members of parliament, of which I am one, there are people now who

can have civil partnerships, I am one of them. But we still have a

situation in this country where you have young people who are being

bullied in school because they are gay, where we have a tremendous

problem in sport, in particular football, in relation to homophobia.

We have homophobic abuse around the world, and the idea that actually

we can rest on this issue, I think is wrong. Symbolically, therefore,

as well as on the merits itself, I think it is incredible important,

that we should, as a society, be saying that the valuable

institution of civil marriage, is available to all. I should just

emphasise, it is civil marriage we are talking about. This is not

affecting, or has anything to do with religious marriage, which is

untouched by the prososals. Much of the running on the debate is

running with religious figure. With what are you saying with your

colleagues, on the same side of the fence? It is complete and utter

claptrap I have to say to the minister, to be polite. This is no

nobody's manifesto, it was not in the manifesto and there is no hint

of it. If you are going to change something that is 2,000 years old,

put it in your manifesto, see if people vote for you, and then bring

it forward after the next parliament. This sham of a

consultation, 12 weeks when you have decided to do it, makes the

party look appalling. It is a disastrous policy. What do you tell

your constituents? My constituents have written in to me since I got

involved in it, and 80/20 they agree with me. Although it is your

party that is doing it? It is not my party that is doing it, hang on,

it is not my party. It is the coalition Government. As you said,

this is because of a dirty deal with the liberals behind the scenes.

Nick Herbert denies that? I think actually the surveys are showing

that most of the public think this is a change that is being made.

They don't, 88%, get this right. think it is the right thing to do

in any case. In the end parliament will decide. Will it be a free vote,

Nick, a genuine free vote, where ministers will be able to vote

against the Prime Minister? sure it will. Certainly in our

party we have always had a free vote on these issues of conscience.

I do think it is important to realise this is affecting the

majority of marriages which are actually civil marriages, we have

made it absolutely clear that this is not something that should affect

churches, religious marriage, we should not be tell them what to do.

They are, as I said, the people making much of the running on the

moral aspects of this, the most vociferous voice of opposition to

the gay marriage scheme has been that of the Catholic Church. A

little earlier I sat down with the Archbishop of Westminster, head of

the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales.

Archbishop, no-one is going to require you to conduct a gay

marriage, so why have you got anything to say about it? This is

not a debate, actually about religious freedom, this is a debate

about the nature of marriage. That is why it is very helpful, I

believe, that this consultation has now started. I hope that the debate

can be measured and reasonable, and really pay attention to the central

point, what do we mean by marriage, what do we understand it to be. Why

is it an important institution in this land?

You believe marriage to be beneficial to hetrosexual couples,

why isn't it beneficial to gay couples? I think you have to say,

marriage is beneficial to society, because of the complex features

that come together in marriage. is presumably you also believe it

is beneficial for the man and woman concerned? Of course it is.

isn't it beneficial for the two men or women involved in the gay

marriage? Let's put it this way, marriage is about bringing

difference together, different sexes, sometimes different families,

sometimes different tribes, it has been used to bring kingdoms

together. It is about bringing difference together, out of which

comes a new life and start. And the gender difference is, in your

judgment, absolutely essential to that? The gender difference is

essential, for its creativity and its compliment arity. You have

consistently redefined marriage, you cited marriage as a political

device, to bring about some sort of different relationship between

different tribes, why can't we redefine it again? No, I think what

you are talking about is different uses of marriage, different

purposes to which it is put, not the definition of it. If this

debate was simply about extending marriage, I would be not bothered,

but it is not extending marriage, it is about redefining marriage.

That is the crux of it. So far in this conversation you have not

mentioned what most people believe marriage to be, which is a

statement of commitment between two individuals, don't you believe

that? Of course it is a statement of commitment between two

individuals. It is valid between two gay people as hetrosexuals?

is not only that. We esteem marriage in our tradition and law,

because it is also the place where the next generation is produced. To

me it is utterly astonishing that in the whole consultation document

that the Government has put forward today, on marriage, there is not

one mention of the word "child", there is no reference to children

at all. That shows that the vision of marriage contained in the

consultation document is reduced. It is excluding things that are

actually of the very nature of marriage. You would, marry, would

you, a man and a woman who knew themselves to be infertile? I would,

as long as their intention was to live as man and wife. And you know,

as I know, that sometimes there is permanent infertility, sometimes

there is not. But the fundamental point is the shape of marriage is

respected in that union. What about two lesbians who wanted to marry

and would conceive a child by artificial insemination? They would,

it would not be naturally their child. So it is about the nature of

sex they practice? It is about, in this case, it is about who the

parents of a child are. And what society says, I believe, is that

the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children

is the partnership between the two natural parents. That is what it

says, and I think that is why the law is there to protect marriage.

That is why the change of the definition of marriage affects

everybody. But the politic Catholic Church recognises civil marriages,

doesn't -- Catholic Church recognises civil marriages? It does.

Why not recognise civil gay marriages? Because what is proposed

is a change in the definition of marriage. You have a view on it,

others have other views? I hope we can debate it calmly and well in

these three months. I hope that people will pay attention to the

first question in the consultation, which is, "do you want this change

in the law or not?". I hope that too will be part of the debate.

want to stop it? I think it is not good, it is not in the long run a

good idea to change, to shake that fundamental idea of marriage, in

which a man and a woman call each other husband and wife. And if a

gay Catholic couple came to you and said we want to marry, and we want

it to be recognised by the church, within the confines of the church,

respecting religious belief, what would you say to them? I would want

to sit down with them, I would want to say to them that I understand

their desires, that I understand that their experience of love is

vitally important in their lives. I would want to say to them that they

are called, in my view, in the Channel Tunnel's view, to a very

profound -- church's view, to a very profound friendship in life, I

would want them to be respected, but to have a vision in themselves,

that what they are called to is not marriage, but a profound and

lifelong friendship. Let's discuss this further with the

minister, hush Nick Herbert and the rest of my guests, who represent

many sides of the debate. Why isn't the profound friendship enough?

is a sad misunderstanding of the relationship gay couples have if he

thinks it is a profound friendship, it is akin to the union between a

man and a woman in a hetrosexual marriage. And what is wrong with

wanting to show a commitment towards someone to say you will

spend your life with somebody, that you will look after someone, that

they will look after you. I don't seek to dictate to the bishop what

happens inside his church, and what standards he sets, and what he

seeks to do, it would be wrong for me and the state to seek to do so.

Equally, I wonder why he should seek to dictate the institution of

civil marriage outside of his church, which is not a matter for

the church. I think if it is, what he's really saying is he's in

support of civil marriage for straight couple, but he can't

accept it for gay couples. I think we have the measure of this

consultation exercise, you are not going to listen? We are clear this

is a consultation about how to do something that the Government

believes is the right thing to do, parliament can then decide. It is

not a consultation about the principle, we believe in the

principle, we believe in equality. We have another bishop, an Anglican

bishop, did you agree with everything the Archbishop said?

think there is a problem about the catagories here, the report we have

before us is intellectually dishonest, it tries to say that

there is two sorts of marriage, civil marriage and religious

marriage, that is not true. The law of England has one thing called

marriage, solemnised in churches and registry offices, the ministers

have been going round for the past few weeks talking in rather loose

terms about civil marriages as if it is a different thing. It is not.

The reason why the churches are concerned, not merely because of

their own religious beliefs, it is about the fact that we believe that

marriage is a good for the whole of society, and you don't just lightly

change the nature of marriage, by saying, well, of course we know

people who are in committed partnerships, let's be nice to them,

because actually being nice to people is not a good reason to

change the law. Why are you shaking your head? We have got into the

situation where we have said the churchs are against it. There are a

number of bishops who are, on the ground, in the pews it is entirely

different situation. I'm afraid the bishops are out-of-touch with the

majority of people. A great many of us want it to happen. You are an

Anglican Clergyman, is there any reason why two men or women could

not get married? No. One of the problems with this thing from the

Government, it doesn't go far enough. It won't allow churches to

have gay marriage, even if they want to. So the state is dictating

to the churches, if the church or synagogue decides it wants to marry

two people of the same-sex, it won't be allowed to do it. The

state is saying to the churches, even if you want to do it, you

can't do it. It is a distinction we shouldn't be making, it is a

discussion about the nature of marriage we haven't had. The

Government has said we will do it any way, here is a called

consultation document, they are not allowing us to talk about the

nature of what it is we are changing. There is something about

the nature of marriage that hasn't been discussed, that is where the

Archbishop was right. The Government is just saying let's

reinvent it as we go along, let's make it up, let's be nice to gay

people, who do need to be able to have their commitments recognised,

but let's do it without thinking about the impact upon the whole of

society. Sitting behind you and shaking his head, Milo Yinnopoulos,

you are a Catholic and also gay? am, let me explain briefly the

problem I have. First of all, this doesn't sound like a Tory minister

to me, I'm confused about why David Cameron is doing this at the moment,

I think he -- I know, it's because he's sucking up to people who won't

vote for him any way, that is patronising. As soon as this hits

the statute books we will be besieged by test cases, seeking to

force churches, whatever the churches say, we will be besieged

with test cases that are seeking to force churchs to perform these

ceremonies. What will happen, can tell you one thing, the Catholic

Church is never going to perform a gay marriage, because the priest

involved, and the two people involved would be instantly

excommunicated, nor is any mosque, you are setting up something very

dangerous. It is all very well to say gay people should have these

unions and be respected and all of rest of it. I don't see any

difference between that and civil partnership. You are setting the

churches and the gay establishment against one another, my worry is.

You are saying all the churches think the same they won't. My worry

as someone with a foot in both camps is we will start a war here

that nobody can possibly win. gay Catholic you decide, do you,

that your religious belief is greater to you than your sexual

identity, fall in love with a man and wish to marry him, you would

not seek to do so within the church? I would not, no. It is not

my personal beliefs, my worry with this perpetual drive for equality,

we will drive people apart. Can I make a very simple point. I would

like to say, because somebody has to say this, look, there will be a

lot of people debating over the next few weeks and whatever this

issue, people will be talking about theology and legislation, and

people like yourself will be arguing with people like him

because he's aligning himself with something progressive you don't

believe in, all these discussions will take place. I'm really keen to

say that I think we should probably acknowledge that at times like this

it does unforth Natalie give a voice to people who just --

unfortunately give a voice to people who clearly hate homosexuals

who have deep rooted fears of themselves. He doesn't like the

idea of gay marriage and he's gay. That is a sweeping accusation you

have no way of justifying? I'm not talking about Milo.

Can I finish this point. Let me bring this these two guys here?

would like to hear why Peter feels so angry about Nick's support.

is not about Nick's support it is the democratic deficit. His point

was, as he clearly stated, that it was not in the manifesto of either

party in the coalition Government, therefore no-one had voted for it?

Let me bring in you two, you are a couple? We have been together for

25 years this April. Monogamous couple. Have you got children?

have five children together, our oldest two are 12, an eight-year-

old and It Takes Two-year-olds, healthy, well balanced, well

adjusted children, in our family relationship. You are in a civil

partnership? Our children are baptised, we are practising

Christians in the local church. I want to get married in my church.

With my Reverend who wants to marry us, but legally can't do it. It

goes back to your comments, we have a vicar in our parish in Essex, who

wants to marry us, but legally can't do it. This takes us into the

key area of the relationship between the state and the church.

Nick Herbert I will ask you in a second, you heard him say he's not

seeking to compel any church to do this. Maybe you should? Maybe you

should. He's compelling them not to. We can't compel the churches to do

something they don't want to. Neither the Anglican Church nor

Catholic Church would want to do this.

I accept there is an issue with the some denominations. They will not

do that, a very simple thing. want the same right as every other

man and woman in this country. Please don't all talk at once.

gay man, we are the only section of society, and you are a gay man too,

sitting here, that are locally discriminated against. If I was

black, anything else, it is ridiculous. My mother and father.

If we throw it over to men and men, why not let people have six wives.

Some people do. You don't find that abhorrent.

Don't all speak at once, please. (all speak at once) Hang on, you

have made your point, one at a home. I don't want six wives, I want the

same as a straight couple. Stop, let me say this. You have made that

point. Stella. For a start, you keep, Newsnight has been doing it

all day, talking about gay marriage, it is not gay marriage, it is

marriage. Equal marriage is what we are asking forks equality under the

law, the minute you add "gay" to it, you quantify it. It is simply

marriage. That said, what would be brilliant is if the church would

listen to itself, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. And stop

interfering what is going on in the rest of the world and go back to

its work. The gospel will tell you to butt out.

This lacks any sense of history, what we have in this country is a

judeo-Christian tradition from which we have inherited marriage,

you can't just write that could have. We have had only priests of

marriage for 500 years. You are shar I don't know James, you speak

for the traditional view of marriage. What do you make of this

conversation? I think that talking about religion is actually side

tracking the issue, I would like to move the discussion completely away

from religion, and say that the consultation and the ministers say

that introducing equal marriage, if you want to call it that, will

strengthen the marriage institution. Let's look at the evidence in

countries that have introduced, as we call it here, equal marriage,

the first thing, the marriage culture has been weakened. In the

Scandinavian countries that have introduced it, rates of childbirth

outside marriage have increased. The Netherlands have introduced it

and the next thing legalising threesomes, in Canada they have

taken the term "natural parent" out of the legal system and there is

pressure for group marriage. Marriage culture is weakened.

Suggesting that it will make marriage better, the evidence says

otherwise. When you hear a couple here at the back talking about, you

know, it's a very dually conventional life in many respects,

they have lots of children, they are committed, why not get married?

In that case why did the biggest gay rights group in the country not

come out in favour of gay marriage until 2010 they are the biggest gay

rights lobby, they said up until 2010 that the rights given by civil

partnerships are sufficient, and still gay couples say that. What

does the minister make of that argument? I don't think the

argument that some how having equal marriage has undermined the

institution would be a question of cause and effect. The truth is

marriage is an institution that has been systematically undermined by

lots of things. Over many decades. Actually, I'm one of a number of

people, and it is the view actually in my party at the moment, and of

the Prime Minister, that marriage is a really important institution

that we should be seeking to strengthen. Our starting position

is not to seek to undermine it, but that it is an important institution.

In a funny sort of way isn't it great to talk about how we

strengthen that institution, there is a disagreement here about it.

That is what we want to do. I think that it does come down to really

quite a straight forward proposition, which is why when a

straight couple are able to have a civil marriage, and a civil

ceremony, which is outside of a church, is that not available to a

gay couple as well. Yes we can have a civil partnership, I'm incredibly

grateful that was possible. But to me and thousands of other people it

is not the same, it makes us feel different. It makes us feel that we

are not treated equally to others, and we want to share, and be part

of an institution that has been so important in our country.

Gay relationships are not the same as straight relationships, it is

ridiculous to say they are. A man and a man loving each other is the

same, I love my husband the same as my mother loved my father. That may

be your view. The only difference is I'm male and he's male. I can't

believe as a gay man you feel that way. I believe the relationship

between a man and a man and a woman and a man are completely different.

When you hear these protestations of genuine affection, and a desire

to be treated merely the same as everyone else, don't you feel a

bigot? Not at all, because there are actually gay and lesbian people

who say that civil partnerships give all of the rights that they

require, and they do not want to see the tradition of marriage

redefined, they believe marriage is good for society. This is the

second time you have done to quote what you say gay and lesbian

organisations say, I'm interested in your personal feelings are, it

would make me feel uncomfortable? Not at all, I believe marriage

predates the state and church, it goes right back, it is a natural

institution between men and women, and the majority of people in this

country think you can respect the rights of gay and lesbian couples

and live in a tolerant society, we all want that. And also. It is not

about being tolerated, I'm not second class to anyone else.

Why is the gay and lesbian community clamouring for this?

Clearly they are not clamouring. We would like equality. It is very

simple, only asking for equality. agree with Stella, what's the big

deal, don't we all, listen, bottom line, actually cross-party, the

current state of the world, OK, human beings are actually the most

depressed, medicateed, anaesthised they have ever been, there is a

massive crisis. We think we live in a happy world. We should be moving

towards being more compassionate, and being more open-hearted and

accepting, we should all be moving towards equality. It pains me to

want to agree with anything that comes out of a Conservative's mouth,

at the same time, can I just point out a quick contradiction, I hope

you will be applying this great compassion for equality to all the

people who are losing out with all the massive public cuts you are

making and the health service and all the working-class people.

to the point! The point is that all of us should be moving forward in a

truly open-hearted way, where we would like equality. Now, if people

like yourselves, you know, extremely right-wing stories,

members of the church, and marriage coalition whatever it is called, if

all you guys think that marriage is so great and so special and it is

the ultimate place, which it is not, by the way, because human

relationships are complex. OK, OK, OK. Why not allow gay people who

want to join that. You can explain this? Peter why

shouldn't I be able to marry my partner of 25 years. I have got the

message, I just think it is a very simple case that marriage is

between a man and a woman, it is rather like saying an apple is a

pear, it is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that has

been for 2,000 years. Tauring about tradition. Thankfully things change.

(all talk at once) Things move on. Absolutely you can redefine

marriage, but you can't do it if there is not a democratic mandate

for it. You can read anywhere, you can read any of the manifestos

there was not a hint this was coming on, that is my view.

I think the reason there is so much heat in these discussions is

because many of us believe that the arguments people present against

equal marriage are actually a cover for homophobia, actually that is

what really is going on. That is a very serious accusation to make.

is Jeremy. That is what many people feel, that, I mean, it may not be

in certain circumstances, but actually in a number of

circumstances. Bishop are a homophob? I don't think it does any

credit to this to play the homophobia card. It is not. Hear

him out. What you need is a serious discussion about the nature of

marriage. I would be quite content for us to be having this

conversation at length, 12 weeks of a consultation, called, that says

we are going to do it any way, how do you want us to do it. That is

not a consultation. A serious debate in society about the nature

of what we believe in marriage, such that you can convince people

like Peter if you want to, that actually it might be worth thinking

about changing it. That would be a rational thing for us to do. This

is a thoroughly rushed, irrational bit of playing to the gallery that

is going on. Is any of this going to make a difference? Yes because

it is a consultation about how we do something, and big issues that

we haven't talked about, like how civil partnerships are affected. It

is important that we continue to listen to views. This is something,

as I say, that the Government wants to do, and then parliament will

decide. All those gam rouse police officers on TV are fiction. It

turns out large numbers of police have enough trouble getting out of

their chair in the canteen. The exmost extensive review of the

police in England and Wales, suggests they should be tested for

fitness and suitableness for conditions, and should have pay cut

if they don't measure up. The police trades union responds

that their's is not happy lot. Good evening all, I'm the mug

tonight. Faced with what's being called the biggest change to

policing since George Dickson was a lad, Andy Young isn't happy, it

took him 21 years to go from beat Bobby to inspector. He doesn't like

the plan, part of today's proposals from the lawyer, Tom Winsor, that

talented newcomers could get his rank on entry to the force. I want

officers who understand what the role of the job is, and their

personality in temples of being able to be decisive and -- terms of

being able to be decisive and empathise with the members of the

community they work with, are more important than qualifications.

There is a lot about the Winsor review he doesn't like, in the

words of one who drew it up, they are not looking for supermen or

comic book heros, on Winsor's evidence, that is just as well. He

has found 52% of male officers in the country's biggest force, are

overweight, 1% are morbidly obese. Winsor says there should be fitness

tests and disciplinary action for those who fail. Winsor says current

starting pay at over �23,000 is too high, 15% above similar grades in

other emergency services. Inspector Young sun impressed. You can be be

-- is unimpressed. You can be expected to work extended hours for

short notice. Pretty good reason? Reasonable for what we do. Winsor

wants to cut starting pay to �19,000, it is claimed all of this

could save a total of �1.9 billion by 2017, most of that, �2.1 billion

would be used to increase the salaries of the most skilled stpe,

a switch to performance re-- officers, a switch to performance

related pay. Don't you think it is a good idea

to cut that pay and given to those performing well? If you cut the

starting pay you won't get the quality of officers that the police

are trying to attract. The Conservative Party always

portray themselves as the party of law and order. From the start of

this Conservative-led coalition, the Government has been seen as

determined, one way or another, to take the police on.

There is history here, David Cameron was adviser to the then

Home Secretary, Michael Howard, when the Sheehy report on police

reform was considered and dumped. That was in 1993. And the politics

were different. The police were very united in

their opposition, and frankly, they had bigger fish to fry, they had a

prisons' crisis to deal with. Here we are 20 years later, some of the

same analysis, a lot of the same recommendations and the Government

this time round will see it through, I think. The economy squeezed, the

police are falling in public popularity, and this time, ACPO,

the Chief Constables, rather like the idea of greater flexibility in

handling staff. So the Government have the police management on their

side, and the shop floor, like the Police Federation's Inspector Young,

on his late shift, are facing a struggle. What about this

suggestion that 52% of officers in the Met, for example, are

overweight, 1% morbidly obese? Technically I'm overweight. What

are you going to do about it? That's another issue. But we need

to be careful on the way that is implemented, especially if there is

disciplinary powers behind it or consequences. Another five minutes

to sign off. Then the fun will start, night blokes will get the

lot. Hold it, customer. George Dixon served his time, and then

some, the actor was 80 when he left Dixon of Dock Green. In the real

world they will have to shape up. Are you entirely comfort of

producing a picture of the police that presents them as overpaid, not

sufficiently competent, and unfit? That is not the picture that time

painting. That is the implication of the recommendations? No. They

are not overpaid, I'm not making recommendations. Why are you

suggesting their pay be cut? not, I'm suggesting the starting

salary for new constables, not existing ones, is lowered, because

there is not a recruitment crisis, and we can get the same calibre of

officers for the lower salary. I'm suggesting the pay scale remains

where it is, and people go up the pay scale faster. You believe in

payment on merit? Payment for stree performance and the acquisition --

satisfactory performance, and acquisition of skills. How can you

be against that? We are not against payment for perrite, we are against

this being a complete attack on police officers pay. This is a

cost-cutting exercise, Tom Winsor took �300 million in the first

report, and �800 million here. It is not about reform but cost

cutting. There is no shortage of recruits, is there? Just because

you have a lot of people who want to be police officers, you justify

slashing their pay by �4,500, because you want people to be

police officers. You have heard of supply and demand, presumably?

There is a supply and demand. We should be saying we want the best

people to be police officers. The average age of a police officer now,

joining is 27. You have got 40% of them with degrees, they are coming

in with skills we need. They will not come in for �19,000 a year.

Where will they go instead? They won't join. They will not join the

police service. If you have a degree you will join on �21,000 a

year, and not �19,000, you will go up the pay scale faster, there is

no pay grade for existing officers, and new officers will go up the

scale faster. You concerned about what is mentioned in the report,

the fitness of the police? That is a real concern. The police will be

surprised to know that after initial training there is no test

of physical fitness unless you are in a specialist part of the police

like firearms. That is staggering? There are many officers who do have

to take fitness assess thements. 52% of the Metropolitan Police --

Assessments. 52% of the Metropolitan Police? They are

erroneous figures. They are the Metropolitan Police's own figures.

I have met with 800 police officers part of the TSG group. Tactical

support group? These are people told 50% of them are overweight,

these are very fit police officers, they are big police officers. Now

that just points out, whatever the figures are saying, they are

erroneous, these are big, fit, individuals. We are not saying that

every division of the Metropolitan Police has 50% of its compliment

overweight. That is not what it is said, and the Metropolitan Police

gave us -- it is their figures. What about fitness testing, we are

not against it, an average force of 4,000 officers, how would they

assess 4,000 officers and the remedial work toe get them fit and

do it again every year, the cost of that will be probibive. 15 --

Prohibitive. It takes 15 minutes, given at the same time as officer

safety training. 15 minutes a year will be bureaucratic? You have to

get people to assess them, remedial work. They are the ones who have to

get fit, not the force.Less's on the ones unfit and overweight

with health issues. Let's not put every police officer through a test

that is pointless. We rather expect when we pay police officers that

they will be able to do what we expect police officers to do, if

that requires them to be fit, why aren't we entitled to expect that?

The majority of them are fit for the role they now carry out. Most

officers are fit. We need them all to be fit. It was said today the

majorbt of police officers are fit. What is that majority, we want them

all to be fit. Let's focus on the ones not fit. We will just waste

time and money. How determined do you think the Government is to push

through your reforms? That is a matter for the Home Secretary. I

think these ministers in this Government do have a significant

political appetite for reform. It is the last unreformed public

service. This is a pay structure designed in...I Don't know why you

are shaking your head, it is unreformed? He using a mantra and

report from decades ago with no substance. I have been an officer

for 30 years, everything has been changed by my terms and conditions.

The last time we had a change to our pay was in 2004. I'm not saying

there is no reform, but the structure was established in 1920,

it was last majorly reformed in 1978, it has been tinkered with

ever since, but the fundamentals of just being paid for turning up,

those have not been reformed. We will leave it there. Thank you

both very much. Budget Day next week, and no end of speculation as

to what horse trading may go on between the coalition partners. In

tomorrow's Guardian a report that the coalition is ready to scrap the

50p top rate of tax when the Chancellor gets to his feet next

Wednesday. The Liberal Democrats, it is claimed, recognise they are

unable to stop the move. Our political editor is here. What do

you know about this? I think we are actually at long last nearing the

end of George Osborne's fight to get rid of the 50p rate of tax.

think he will do it? There is a phone call that most of the big

players are in at the moment. There is a phone call tomorrow, a meeting

on Monday ahead of Wednesday's budget. Osborne has been pushing

since almost he came in to get rid of it. They are worried even more

so because they have been seen to be banker-bashing with new stories

on Goodwin and Hester, they have to do something to say Britain is open

for business. He has been pushing and pushing. The most interesting

thing is it is not just Liberal Democrats who have been reluctant

to let him do what he wants. The Prime Minister himself is really

queasy about it. When talk to people in Downing Street, they say

hold on a second, we have to have big numbers to make the case

finally on this, the opinion poll is so uncertain. The public don't

yet want to slash this rate. indeed they will ever want it. What

will the Lib Dems get in return? They are going to say they will get

this tycoonry, some action on tycoon tax. My feeling is when we

did the David Laws interview, he said the most critical move we want

is the move on the personal allowance, the move up to �10,000,

we will have to see how much they get that, they have got one

increase and we will have to wait and see how much over. Bits on

tycoonry were never going to get what they were after. More tomorrow,

Another grey murky start to the day tomorrow. Mist and fog around. Rain

for parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Heavy bursts too, edging

its way down into the more north western parts of England and Wales

later on. Further east, much of the Midlands and eastern England,

broken cloud and sunshine through the day. It will feel pleasant with

temperatures into the low to mid- teens. We can't complain,

reasonably mild for the time of year. Cloud down towards the south

coast and much of the south west will be overcast. Rain knocking on

the door of west Cornwall, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan Bay.

Further east across Wales it will probably stay dry through daylight

hours. For Northern Ireland after a wet start to the day, things will

brighten up, a few showers left behind. That is the story for the

more north western parts of Scotland. Early rain clearing

through, sunshine arriving later on. Down towards the border it will

stay cloudy and damp. Locking ahead to the weekend, as you can --

looking ahead to the weekend, you can see showers around. Cold enough

for the showers to fall as snow, up over the high ground, where as

further south, we could see prolonged rain as we get into

Saturday. Some of that rain could be heavy and possibly thundery. The