12/06/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Are church and

state heading for a messy divorce over gay marriage? The Church of

England has this morning issued a highly critical response to the

Government's plans to allow gay couples in England and Wales to

marry, warning that the legislation could undermine the church's

established status. The UN says it's gravely concerned

about the escalation of violence in Syria. We'll be talking to former

Liberal Democrat Leader, Paddy Ashdown.

Cricketing hero, Ian Botham, steps up to the crease to deal with a

problem that's stumped politicians. He'll be with us later in the

programme. And feeling blue? Is the bad

weather getting you down? We'll be asking if we can blame the Prime

Minister. All that in the next hour and with

us for the whole programme today is the chair of the Equality and Human

Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips. Welcome to the programme. Good

afternoon. Now first this morning let's talk about health because

later today ministers will confirm that doctors and NHS managers will

be banned by law from denying older patients treatment simply on the

grounds of their age. It follows a series of reports showing that

older people often suffer sub- standard care and uneven treatment

in the NHS and the social care system. Is this something you

support? It is terrific and long overdue. The original argument was

it you introduced age discretion legislation it would move Dr's

discretion. But you have to have some protection for people who are

older. On top of that, what you cannot have, which existed in the

health service, our blanket rules that say people over a certain age

may not have some treatment it you would give automatically to

somebody under that age. So you have treatments denied to a fit 65-

year-old, who can run 10 miles a day, to an unfit for two year-old

who can barely walk to the shops. It is a reasonable approach and it

is long overdue. Is it the case a lot of the distressing images we

have seen are about a general lack of care and dignity being given to

older people, rather than them being denied clinical treatment?

is true, particularly in the social care arena. In the home care

inquiry, which showed people were being given 15 minute slots and

they were being left in their dirty garments and all of that. What is

also true, some bits of the system have policies, and those policies

say in a blanket way, let's not look at the individual, let's say

if you are over 50, you cannot have this liver treatment. So there is

evidence those policies exist? Exactly. What we're saying is we

have to look at the individual. you think it will open floodgates

of legal action, people saying I was not offered that treatment and

I am 65 and they should have been? I don't believe that for a second.

Most people trust their doctors and this says, doctor's exercise their

discretion but they do have to think of the individual in front of

them, rather than the birth certificate.

Now, gay marriage. The Church of England has today responded to the

government's consultation on same- sex marriages saying that the

proposals would dilute an institution, vastly important to a

healthy society. The Government launched their consultation earlier

this year looking to make same-sex marriage legal by 2015. The

proposed legislation would allow same-sex couples to marry in a

registry office or civil ceremony but the ban on marrying in a

religious service would not change. The Home Office has insisted that

no religious organisation would be forced to conduct weddings. However,

today the Church of England has responded to the Government's

consultation, saying that the proposed legislation is shallow.

They worry that keeping the ban on marrying same-sex couples in

religious services would not survive legal challenges. Gay

Rights campaigners have accused the church of scaremongering. Support

for same-sex marriage was seen as a cornerstone of David Cameron's new

direction for the Conservative Party. However, the issue has

proved divisive for backbench Tories with MP Peter Bone, calling

the proposals "completely nuts". I'm joined now from Norwich by the

Bishop of Norwich, the Right Reverend Graham James, and here in

the studio with me is Labour MP Chris Bryant. Graham James, why do

you think the consequence of same- sex marriage would have a big

impact on society? Want are the things the Government consultation

paper suggests is there is a distinction between civil marriage

and religious marriage. This is a new distinction in English law.

Marriage is a centuries-old institution which has always been

defined as the Union as one man and one woman. That goes back before

church and state. One of the things we fear is two different

understandings of marriage creates a whole host of new minorities in

society. So including one group, that is those who want same-sex

marriage, will inevitably create a division in our understanding of

marriage, which is meant to be a unifying factor within society.

this is about equality, essentially. That is what the supporters of this

proposal want to see. Surely that saw it is, and extension of equal

rights, same-sex couples want to have that heterosexual couples

have? We also have civil partnerships and same-sex marriage

wouldn't give any greater rights to same-sex partners. One of the

things that is clear in our documents is we support civil

partnerships. We do want stable, permanent, faithful relationships

between same-sex couples in society, as it strengthens society. The

distinction in marriage is the sexual union of a man and a woman.

The ceremony does not marry someone, it is the sexual union that creates

the marriage which is why we have a annulment in civil law and

determined by consummation. One of the things in the consultation is a

failure to define how this would work across same-sex couples and

heterosexual couples and that is left to case law to determined.

There is a whole host of things that are ill-thought out. A Home

Office has said no religious organisation will be forced to

conduct those same-sex marriages? But there will be a redefinition of

marriage for everyone. At the moment, within the Church of

England people have a right to be married in their parish church, and

Church of England clergy are in effect, registrars. We are not

confident that if there was a challenge when the legal definition

of marriage is altered to the position that the Government's

assurances could withstand. Chris Bryant, two understandings of

marriage, basically there would be two definitions, it wouldn't be the

sexual union of a man and woman? is depressing that the Church of

England, the big issue to have a row with the Government about it is

not about the NHS, it is about same-sex and the quality Coulstock

but it is a shame the Church of England cannot get its history

right. Civil marriage was introduced in the 17th century and

the Church of England was restored at the Restoration and did not

object to it. The Church of England did choose to oppose the law, but

subsequently said it was right to change the law. When marriage was

concede that the woman was a chattel of the husband at the

Church maintain that. When we tried to change that, the Church of

England opposed it. But they now accept that marriage has changed in

every generation. What about them, the claim that civil partnerships,

which the Church supports, are enough? The bizarre thing is, one

bishop this morning was maintaining the bishops had supported civil

partnerships. Completely untrue. 6- 1, they voted against it in the

House of Lords. Secondly, we now have a situation where you can have

a civil partnership in a church, if the Church chooses to allow that to

happen, but you cannot have a marriage! It is ludicrous. Graham

James, there wasn't the widespread support for civil partnerships in

the first place, and marriage has evolved over the centuries?

Undoubtedly, marriage and vaults over the centuries. It is feasible

for marriage to a golf further. What we are saying is the present

consultation raises a good many issues about the nature of marriage

that we want answered. It simply isn't the case that there had been

two different understandings of marriage. The Church's

understanding a mistake's understanding has been the same.

am sorry, that is factually and legally wrong. The understanding of

civil marriage is different from the sacraments of marriage. I

disagree with you as an Anglican, albeit a boycotting Anglican

because of the Church's stance on these issues. I do hope you do

change, just like the Church changed on slavery. The sacrament

of marriage, should be free for you to keep as such. What they don't

understand is why the Church does not support commitment, made in law

and in a ceremony, which is the same difference same-sex allows.

view is at the moment, civil partnerships allowed the stable,

permanent and faithful relationships to be recognised in

the law. A change in our understanding of marriage affects

us all. For the state to change immediately, an age-old institution

which has been the union of one man and one woman, without very careful

thought about the consequences, then we need to think much further.

His Graham James out of touch and representing and out of touch, old

fashioned view? Or is this I threat to the church? I would never say

Graham James is out of touch. But I do think the arguments being made

marks something different. The submission this morning helps. What

the Church is worried about is not so much homosexuality, it is the

status of the Church. The Government is offering choice for

the first time. The only choice that won't be available to anybody

is to force a vicar, Coychurch to conduct a same-sex union. Except

they are worried about legal challenges? I can say with

authority, we the Commission do not believe the European Court would

ever take that view, all case law says the opposite. And this would

never support a challenge. But the issue, which is Graham James

raising, should be discussed. That is the question of the change in

the status of the Church. 500 years ago, the state said to the church,

you are in charge of deciding what marriage is. Now parliaments are

saying, we decide what marriage is. That is a reasonable thing. I don't

think it has to lead to disestablishment. I do think the

Church getting into a pickle about this removes, if you like, the

Church's role as being a spiritual guide. Fighting to be the agent of

the state, doesn't seem to be the right place for the Church of

England. The Church of England was created by Parliament, Cromwell

took it through the House of Lords and Parliament. We disagree on how

and when the Church of England was created. At the Church of England

would be cutting off its nose to spite its face ellipsis with this

argument by saying it is the biggest change in 500 years. My

hope they would do exactly what they did after they voted to keep

slavery in place, 30 years later they apologised. Politically, will

it be voted on? They have made a commitment, but with the opposition

coming through? I am sure a bill will be presented. Whether it is a

private member's bill from somebody, which will probably be heavily

supported in the House of Commons, and similarly in the House of Lords.

But we will have to deal with the bishops of both. What a warning,

Graham James. We will end on that. Plans to make it tougher for

relatives of those living in the UK to migrate here were announced in

the Commons yesterday. The Home Secretary, Theresa May said that in

2010, 18% of all non EU immigration was through the family route and

she claimed that in the past sham marriages were widespread. However

the debate wasn't as well attended as it might have been and some

suggested a certain football game may have had something to do with

In 2010, family immigration accounted for approximately 18% of

all non EU immigration to the UK, around 54,000 people out of 300,000.

But like the rest of the immigration system it has not been

regulated effectively for many years. Sham marriages have been

widespread, people have been allowed to settle in Britain

without being able to speak English and they have not been rules in

place to stop migrants becoming a burden on the taxpayer. We are

changing all of that. The UK needs a system for family migration

underpinned by three simple principles. One, that those who

come here should come on the basis of a genuine relationship. Two,

that migrants should be able to pay their way and three, that they are

able to integrate into bridges society. We agree that stronger

safeguards are needed for the taxpayer of family migration. If

people want to make this country their home, they should contribute

and not be a burden on public funds, but it isn't clear that the vexed

weighed to protect the taxpayer is to focus solely on sponsors salary.

In the current economic climate, someone on 40,000 today could lose

their job next month and then there's no way to protect the

taxpayer. It also doesn't take account of the foreign partner's

income and may have a differential impact on women. Can she explain

why the Government will do a consulting on a bond which could

have been used to protect the taxpayer if someone did need public

funds later on? The effect of this change will be directed against the

British Asian community, not illegal immigrants, settled

Britain's who are here, pay their taxes and contribute to this

country. I really don't believe that the British Home Secretary

should be determining who a spouse of a British citizen should be

based on an arbitrary limit and -- an arbitrary financial limit.

congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward one of the most

important announcements of this session. So important I'm here to

ask a question rather than watching England against France! There's a

lack of public confidence in our immigration system. I'm doing my

bit! Is it not the case that the best way to tackle this lack of

confidence is to bring these sorts of measures forward that strengthen

public confidence by strong and robust Innovation? Can I thank my

honourable friend for his commitment to this issue such that

he is in the chamber. I notice there have been one or two levers

since the statements started which may have something to do with what

is happening in Ukraine! reference to the Football!

Damian Green, the Minister responsible for immigration, joins

us now and Chris Bryant, who's a shadow Home Office minister, is

still with us. Is this purely about numbers, knocking down the number

of people coming here from non EU countries so that you can hit the

target you set? It does help us to hit the target, but it is mostly

about two things. Fairness and cohesion. The fairness in that we

don't think people think it is fair that you can come here and in the

full expectation from day one that you can live off benefits. Is there

evidence to show what numbers of people who are from non-EU

countries marrying British Simpsons -- citizens are sponge of the

state? For migration Advisory Committee on whose independent

report we based the figure of 18,600 as a minimum income level

say that is the level at which you stop being dependent on benefits.

About 45% of those applying for marriage are coming in at below

that level. That doesn't answer the question. How many people... The

Government statistics I've seen say foreign-born people are less than

half as likely to claim benefits as bone born here. Those are people

coming here to work. You would expect them... How many? Nearly

half of those who come, under the marriage route, are eligible and up

at an income level where they can get income related benefits.

eligible. How many of them do claim? The vast majority. You don't

know. We do, we have the assessment coming up tomorrow. The amount

saved to the taxpayer is �700 million. The critics will say those

proposals would exclude something like two-thirds of British people

from living in the UK as a couple if they marry and non EU national

by setting it at that 18,700. People -- not enough people

turnover that. You will be persecuting the poor.

persecuting anyone. They will have to split up or they will have to

move abroad. This is a new definition of persecution. You

don't have the absolute right to come from anywhere in the world and

on day one of arriving in Britain, live off benefits. Why are you

pitching it at 18,700? Because that is the point at which people are

not going to be living off income related benefits. It is an

absolutely clear point. We were offered by the migration of

advisory figure a higher figure. They suggested 25,500, which would

be the point at which people become net economic beneficiaries. We took

the low level because we thought this was fair. This is a fair

policies. There's one point I do agree with. Somebody coming to this

country should not expect to live off the British taxpayer. Somebody

sponsoring, whether a partner or a dependant of any kind, coming into

this country should be able to prove that person isn't going to be

a burden on the taxpayer. You would support that level? The question I

have is about the many anomalies I think this will set up an by

relying only on the salary of the sponsor, whether you introduced

some injustices and don't sort out the problem. In the present

economic circumstances, you can be on �40,000 today and earning

nothing in two weeks' time because you could be made redundant. How

have you protected the taxpayer from the partner of that person?

Let's say you what a British army veteran, you are disabled, you want

to marry an American who is earning $100,000 a year, is going to come

to the UK and the moment they arrive, they will start earning

�80,000 a year but that salary is not allowed to be included. Isn't

it? Christian do his homework. This doesn't apply to the military. They

are covered under a different part of the immigration laws. This is

changing the immigration laws... The army... The broad thrust of

this, you'd do agree with. I agree with the principle, but I wonder

whether there isn't a different -- different way of doing it rather

than relying on salary. Somebody commits to laying down a certain

amount of money, which I think some people, in particular in poorer

parts of the country, might be able to raise, which then does protect

the taxpayer better. You would not be able to redeem it until you had

had three or five years without claiming benefits. The problem, I

looked at the bond when I was doing Chris's job, the problem is that it

is an expensive visa only available to the very rich and slightly dodgy

who want to bring relatives in. Where would you set the Bond level?

As you didn't declare which rate you would pitch it at in opposition,

I will not do that now. Is this quite a brave move by the

Government to come out and set a bar to achieve some of the things

they want to do to stop people coming here, on day one and

claiming benefits? Everybody agrees that the cheating issue is one we

have to tackle. I don't think this will make a blind bit of difference.

In terms of the numbers of people coming over? By the way, 18,600,

the cost of the average wedding is not far short of that these days. I

would be very surprised... I can see the political arguments about

this and the Government wants to send a signal. But I would be very,

very surprised. If it doesn't achieve what you want, which is to

bring down those numbers and help economically... It will not do

anything for the economics. best estimates, the Immigration

Advisory Committee thinks the number of visas issues will be

13,000 fewer. It is not huge numbers. The family route is a

relatively small part of the Overall numbers. The vast majority

are students. Sham marriages is quite a big issue. Sham marriages

is a huge issue, as is forced marriages. In percentage terms,

about two-thirds of immigrants come under student visas, that is why we

took action... But it will harm settled Asian families here.

think it will cause some anxiety. The problem is... I understand what

you want to do and nobody is going to accuse the Government of bad

faith, but the question is, will it make a huge difference? We will see

in a couple of years. Does it send the right sort of message? The

Overall message is a problem one. Employers talk about this all the

time. Britain is beginning to feel like it is shut for business. We

need clever people. Some of these will be husbands and wives. That is

why there's a problem about the British woman in particular,

because of the pay gap differential, who marries... It is only her

salary that is able to be considered. She marries somebody

who is earning well abroad and is intending to come to this country

and has a guaranteed job in this country on way more than the 18,500

the Government is considering, and that is not able to be considered.

That person can come in on a work visa. It has got nothing to do with

employment. If people can come here to do a graduate level job...

not heard that way abroad, you know that, that is the problem. Thank

you. Now, it was a certain former prime

minister who spoke nostalgically about warm beer, old maids cycling

to Holy Communion and long shadows on cricket grounds. Well, I can't

speak for the maids or the beer, but cricket isn't all about village

greens or, come to that, summer weather. It can be played anywhere,

in any weather, and there's apparently a message for Cameron's

"Big Society". It's being played right here, under a soggy Big Ben,

today. To explain all, we have Home Office minister Crispin Blunt and

none other than Sir Ian Botham. Ian Botham, what is it you're doing?

How does it work? It is very simple. There are so many of these multi-

games areas around the country that get used we believe at an average

of one hour per day. They are dormant for long periods of time.

We are trying to bring in a very raw basic level form of the game of

cricket, which needs six people to play it in one of these can find

areas, or a gymnasium, or village hall. It can be played anywhere.

You play it in this area, you rotate all the time. Everyone Batts,

everyone bulls and everyone, more importantly, umpires the game as

well as fielding. It is total involvement and it is done and

dusted in an hour. We're trying to get away from a lot of kids

impressions of cricket, which is that you stand at fine leg, you are

there for most of the day, you don't get a bowl or bat... Isn't

that true?! That is the advantage of being an all-rounder! We wanted

to show them that you can have this great game. You don't need pads or

all of the equipment. You need a bat and a synthetic ball. It is

cheap and easy to do. Be it is making it more accessible. As well

as what you've said about standing there for hours waiting, you need

quite a big space to do it and this will work against that. Yes. We are

trying to give opportunities to people who would not have an

opportunity. We have had guys who have never picked up a cricket bat

and within 15 minutes they know the rules and a loving the game.

that because it is seen as more of a posh sport? Possibly. But also

the fact that you do need a bigger area, you need 21 other people to

play and you need all of the equipment, then a couple of umpires.

It takes some organisation. This doesn't. What's not to like about

this? Not very much not to like! What is quite good for the Prison

Service is it fits into the kind of spaces that are available in prison.

Ian alighted on what I think is the real benefit, which is the umpire's

role. All of the players rotate around and it is the social effect

of people learning how to take responsibility for their decisions

and then taking decisions themselves and receiving decisions

and learning to accept them. There's a rather exciting social

ethic about this, all of which sits with the ethics around cricket as

well. It has a big potential benefit for offenders as well as

society as a whole. You think it will go as far as helping to

rehabilitate offenders are? Not on its own. If you have an activity in

custody, where we do insist that people make time for physical

activity in custody, if you have an activity that they want to do and

get engaged with, and has a social benefit in terms of relationships

they make and have to make through the game, so much the better.

you agree with that, Ian Botham? Can't have positive effects in the

way you have described it, in terms of sharing roles and then somebody

adjudicating, even in a prison environment? Year. It is unique as

well. You are playing for yourself, but you are playing with five other

people. You have to police it as well as play. There's no point in

thinking I don't like that guy over there, so why would give him out.

By the time the other five have dealt with you, you will be in a

minor situation. It gives you a bit of that. It is disciplined, but it

is having fun with discipline. The other thing, I would much rather

get the kids off the streets and the Street corners and get them

into this. It is instant. You play for yourself, you put your scoring

on your iPhone or BlackBerry and it goes to the national grid and then

it will come back and say you are now number two in Westminster,

number 36 in Middlesex another 200 in the UK. That is how we see it

going. It will build up and then you'll have regional finals. It

will expand and once they get the bug, the kids will go for it.

think it will take off in that way? Not being a cricket expert myself,

it is interesting seeing you defining it in that terms. I think

it will. I believe it will end up being international, not just in

this country. There's talk about it in Australia already, there's a lot

of interest over there. I think it is magnificent, everybody wants to

Presumably sport is played in prison, why would this make a

particular difference? It can adapt to the kind of spaces available for

physical activity in prison. Then you have the rules and

responsibility so round it. That's why I think it will work in custody.

Every prison is different, and every prison governor or have to

make a decision on what resources they have available to spend and

whether it stacks up against the other things he wants the prisoners

to do. But what is more interesting is the wider benefit, getting

cricket in two parts of the community. As a cricket fan, I

appreciate that possibility. Before you go off, Ian Botham, slightly

related, will England beat South Africa in the test? Yes. That was

nice and short. Crispin Blunt, this is unrelated but it is the current

story, your reaction to the same- sex marriages and the Church's

response? The coverage I have seen on the position of the Church of

England is they seem very split on this issue. I was speaking this

morning on this. The Government have come forward with proposals

designed to protect the position of all the churches, they will be

prescribed from offering same-sex marriage. I think that position may

have some legal difficulties of its own. I don't think anybody would

tolerate a position where religions are being forced to conduct same-

sex marriages, it has to be a matter for them. The Government is

proposing the state recognised the quality of marriage, and inequality

is not acceptable. One thing I want to say about the England and South

Africa series - something to think about - you have the two best

bowlers, Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson and they will be competing

against each other. That will be fascinating in itself.

Our guest of the day Sir Trevor Philips, is standing down from his

job as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission this year.

The Government are taking the opportunity to "refocus" the role.

But that's not the only thing that they're changing when it comes to

equalities legislation. Here's Adam. The nine so-called protected

characteristics, discrimination based on any of them is illegal

under the qualities act of 2010. But the Government say they will

repeal some of that legislation, such as employment tribunals losing

the power in ordering businesses to make changes to their whole

organisation over one case. Businesses will no longer be

responsible if an employee is harassed by a third party.

Employees will lose the right to request information from their

employers if they think they have been discriminated against. That is

a step and the right direction for entrepreneur, James Caan. He says

most cases of false claims brought by employees affected by the

recession. Ilott then go because the business is declining and you

have to reduce costs. When you look to let the individual go because

she wants the company to survive, the employee will go to a lawyer

and come up with some reason saying, you're letting me go because it is

not because the business is not there, it is because of my colour,

Mike Reid, my race and religion. one of his companies, the reason is

say they have a diverse workforce is nothing to do with equality laws.

With the freedom of Labour, increased individuals coming in

from different cultures it adds benefit to the economy. I think it

is something that has been wonderful as a company. We have

done it without the legislation. The public sector will be affected,

the Government is considering whether to scrap the law that says

all public bodies, such as schools and hospitals have a general duty

to foster a quality, which would be a big change. All of this appals

Labour. I think it is death by a 1000 cuts of a quality protection

in this country. Whether it is repealing some of the existing

legislation, or not going ahead with things we expected, light

legislating to outlaw age discrimination, watering down

provisions and making it more difficult for employees and

consumers to exercise their right and get support. The Commission is

reviewing the role and funding of the Equality and Human Rights

Commission, the watchdog that oversees all this.

And we're joined now by the Conservative MP, Nadine Zahawi. I

think I elevated to to Sir Trevor Phillips. I am just a common man.

This is nothing to do with equalities laws, what do you say

about that? I wish that was true. It never occurs to that individual

who said that. The situation we are in now, is different to 20 years

ago, when discrimination of various kinds, not just race, but gender

and disability will comment. The law isn't the be all and end all,

but it changes the atmosphere and the climate. Without the law we

would still be seeing the kind of discrimination we saw in the 80s.

That would mean people who currently contribute to companies

like that one would feel shut out of the labour market, and probably

would be. They were major changes in terms of the way people were

employed, and the workforce as it looks now. Do you think, although

this is a well-motivated, it is a burden on business? It is promoted

by a lot of noisy people who don't employed any body, and don't work

with employers. As a matter of fact, this proposition, it is all very

difficult and so on, over six years since the Equality and Human Rights

Commission has been in business, Dino amid times we have prosecuted?

Tell us. Three times. And we have settled it before going to court.

So the idea of employees being forced into court all the time is

nonsense. The Government should remove the anxiety small employers

have about an. People from ethnic minorities and disabled people. And

particularly women of child-bearing age. Your average hairdresser

thinks they will run into trouble. But there is no possibility if they

can do themselves sensibly. It would be great if we could help

people do with it. Do you accept that? It is the rhetoric that has

frightened employers into thinking it's legislation and the qualities

legislation that will make it difficult for them to hire and fire

people, for example? I think he has a good point, there is a lot of

misconception around employing women. As soon as they fall

pregnant there is an enormous additional cost to small businesses.

There has been a piece in the Times, going over the numbers. When you

talk to small businesses, there is this urban myth these things cost

an enormous amount of money. On the other hand, when you do conducts

surveys, and round tribunals, which is a different area, when they feel

the cost of tribunals, the time it takes that maybe there is better

ways of doing it. Trevor says not many people are dealt with in that

way? That is the concern, rather than cases coming to? It has

nothing to do with the qualities legislation, it is sorting out the

machinery of the employment tribunal system. Precisely, and the

settlement agreement Vince Cable was talking about is positive. An

employer can offer a settlement to an employee, if they do not accept

a one to go to the tribunal, the tribunal won't take that settlement

into account. It is better and faster than the compromise

agreement we have now, which is suited to larger employers. Do you

accept the legislation is not a burden on business, not a

significant burden? Some of it is, because some of the conversation we

have had back, for example, the third party discrimination is the

responsibility of the employer. So some of it is. The work Trevor has

done is incredibly valuable, but to refocus the organisation and to

tighten its budget is the right thing to do. This requirement on

public bodies to have an equality duty, to make sure anything they do

has some equality duty in it, was described by death by 1000 cuts

because the Government is repealing it. Is it necessary to have it

there? It is, I wish the Government would use it more effectively.

Their case for deficit reduction would be aided if they used it more

effectively. We have done an assessment of the 2010 spending

review and published a few weeks ago. One of the things we

discovered, the Government tried very hard and they did do very well.

But one of the things that was interesting, people premium, 2.5

billion a year, it did not do a gender impact assessment. If they

had, what would have been revealed is the real problem is not all poor

children. It is mainly boys of a particular ethnic group. They could

have cut the bill of the pupil premium by 50% had they done a

proper assessment. Also, it is so the Government makes better

decisions. What is happening now is the Government is, in a way,

because it wants to receive -- wave a flag on how it is helping

businesses, it is taking away the tool to make better decisions and

spend less of the public's hard- earned money. Do you think the

Government has an agenda that it basically wants to abolish the

Commission? Not true. The Government wants to focus the

Commission on the strategic aims, tighten the board. Bring on board

members that have a business background, so there is a closer

understanding and focus it on the things it does really well. Take it

away from conciliation services, which is a necessary.

As the violence in Syria continues, the UN reports say Syrian troops

have tortured children and use them as human shields on tanks. The UN

Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon is concerned that the violence has

intensified across Syria over the past couple of days. William Hague

is visiting Pakistan, but made the statements and said military

intervention was not being considered and there was hope for

some kind of peaceful transition. Each day reports emerge of savage

crimes. The Syrian military are bombarding towns with heavy

weaponry, and then releasing militia groups to murder civilians

in their homes. It is reminiscent of the Balkans in the 1990s. Two

weeks ago in Houla, 108 civilians died in this manner including

children. A similar atrocity was committed last week in Qubair. Un

monitors attempting to report on these events have been shot at and

obstructed. These grotesque crimes have eliminated to the world, the

nature of Syria and the regime. It is to break the spirit of

opposition in Syria and tried to reassert control. This is as futile

as it is morally reprehensible. By branding their opponents terrace

and using tanks, the regime is driving Syrians to take up arms to

defend their homes and by singling out particular communities it is

inflaming sectarian tension. We are joined by Lord Ashdown. William

Hague has said there are similarities with the Balkans,

Bosnia, military militia killing civilians. Do you agree with that?

Yes, up to a point. I know there. He is trying to make, it is a valid

point, there are horrors going on there. But I suspect dark deeds are

going on which both sides. In Bosnia we could have acted, but we

chose not to, foolishly. In Syria, I think we cannot act, even though

we would like to. The reason is, we cannot get unanimity in the

Security Council, and that is essential. We cannot act without

that. But on a humanitarian basis? No, the truth is the days when the

West was powerful enough to treat the Security Council with cavalier

regard are over. I think there will be many who will be pleased about

In Libya, we played very canny diplomacy. We made sure those who

led the charge were the regional voices, especially the Arabs.

Secondly, we concentrated on humanitarian intervention, to save

those suffering rather than regime change. This time it seems to me we

have gone back to the old practice of making it easiest for the

Russians to cast their veto by making this led by the West and

making it about regime change. The result is that we've got ourselves

into an impasse we did not need to get into. But we are where we are

now and we have to decide what we do next. That is how we got here.

Do you think that if the Government and other governments had played it

differently, the Russians would be on board in some way to put

pressure on? That is a legitimate question. I think clever modern

diplomacy is about making it as difficult as possible for the

Russians to disagree. And the Chinese. If we had had this led by

Arab forces, especially Turkey, and if we had had it about humanitarian

intervention rather than removal of the one from the Russians had got,

we would have made it more difficult for them to cut their

veto. It would have been... Do you believe in the Kofi Annan plan?

think it is over now. The really dangerous situation we have got

ourselves into, we need to learn the lessons of Libya. We are living

in a different age. We need to be more canny about our diplomacy. It

was led by the Americans, not by William Hague, but it was still

wrong. They did talk about regime change with Colonel Gaddafi. No one

ever said he would stay end any post. If I may gently suggest to

you that you are wrong. We deliberately did not say it was

about regime change. The Security Council resolution did not go that

far. We were careful to say it is about humanitarian intervention.

Everybody knew that at the end of that process Gaddafi had to go, but

we started with a humanitarian intervention. What about this

Russian suggestion for an international conference? Is that

them just playing with the international community or do you

think there's a genuine mood in Russia because of the terrible

images from Homs and Houla? Although they will not come out

blatantly against their ally, they do want something to be done and of

course also said Iran should be part of that. I think it is playing

for time. When you're in these situations, you have to go every

last mile for peace. We have to take them at base value. It would

be foolish to reject that option, but I guess the Russians are trying

to play for time. Where we are now, the impacts can only be broken when

the Russians change their position. The danger of this impasse is not

just that the killing goes on in Syria, it is that this develops and

to work wider war which engulfs the whole of the Middle East and that

is the danger. What would tip that over the edge? We've seen these

dreadful massacres. Lebanon. When it starts to spread into Lebanon...

You now have Saudi Arabia arming the rebels. Many of these are now

Sunni, Shea conflicts within Syria. If that tips over into Lebanon, a

widening conflict is a real possibility. Matt Seaton called the

first and second world wars the European civil wars. -- mousy tone.

In order for that not to happen, his William Hague right, if it is

how you interpret it, to suggest that if the best efforts might fail,

that they will have to consider other options? Do you see that as

in suggesting that military intervention may at some point be

necessary? In diplomacy you never say what you are not going to do.

We all know that absent a shift in the Russian position, and in the

Chinese position, a military intervention by the West would be

unfeasible in the present circumstances. If we are clever, we

might try to resuscitate the Arab voice, bring Turkey into this. If

we could put Turkey up front, there would be different. But you are

straight back into Sunni and Shia factions. From the impasse we are

now in, there are very few ways out of this absent the Russians

realising they are not doing themselves any good by supporting

Assad. Pretty gloomy and bleak. certainly is. That is international

politics for you. Another day, another former prime minister in

the dock. It must be the Leveson Inquiry. This morning it was the

turn of John Major who acknowledged he had been given a rough ride by

the press when he was in power. He was asked about a lunch he had

before Rupert Murdoch -- with Rupert Murdoch just before the 1994

election. It became apparent in discussions that Mr Murdoch said

that he really didn't like a European policies. This was no

surprise to me. He didn't like our European policies and he wished me

to change our European policies. If we couldn't change our European

policies, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative

government. As I recall, he used the word we when referring to his

newspapers. He did not make the usual nod towards editorial

independence. It is not very often someone sits in front of a prime

minister answers to a Prime Minister, I would like you to

change of policy and if you don't change your policy, my organisation

can't support you. People may often think that, they may often react

that way, but it is not often do that point is put to a prime

minister in that fashion. James Landale has been following the

day's events. What did you make of what John Major said? It was very

interesting if. That excerpt was all about a meeting in the early

part of 1997 about one of those crucial meetings between a prime

minister and a media baron. There's quite a heavy debate about whether

or not John Major is accusing Rupert Murdoch of giving the wrong

evidence to the inquiry. Mr Murdoch said at one point in his evidence,

I've never asked anything from a prime minister and here is John

Major saying he asked me to change my policy. Others say what Rupert

Murdoch was referring to was corporate favours, very specific

context they were discussing the proposed acquisition of the times

with Margaret Thatcher. The other interesting point he has made his

he has given a very, very strong warning to the current generation

of politicians. He said he failed to reform the media, he should have

done, he said it was a missed opportunity. He said that today's

politicians are in the last chance saloon, they have to act, they

can't not act simply because they might want to curry favour with the

media baron in the future. Picking up one of your points about

conflicting evidence. Two perspectives. Let's listen to

Gordon Brown also giving evidence about a conversation or not with

Rupert Murdoch. You are relying on second-hand conversations that are

reported by people who are not participants in the events. I don't

take that as a serious comment about what happened. Were your

aides involved in using the media to force or attempt to force Mr

Blair's resignation in 2006? would hope not. Were they involved?

I would hope not. I've got no evidence of that. What do you make

of that form of words used by Gordon Brown? I would hope not.

exactly a denial. No. There's a fair amount of documentary evidence

of the scale of the divisions between Camp Blair and camp Brown.

That claim was met with a certain degree of incredulity outside the

court and within Westminster yesterday. I was referring to

something not played in that clip, but about declaring war on Rupert

Murdoch and this was about the allegiance which by those News

Corporation papers. What has the media made of that evidence from

Gordon Brown? They believe that there's a certain degree of history

being revised. The media have that view of a lot of the evidence given

to the live as an inquiry. A lot of it is about a lot of things that

happened in the past. John Major has been trying to give his account

of what happened during the ERM exit. One of the side bits of the

Leveson Inquiry has been setting the record straight, getting their

line across at on stuff which is already out there in all the

biographies that have been written since then. If you read Alastair

Campbell's diaries, they would give it slightly different account,

perhaps, a different emphasis to that which was given by Gordon

Brown yesterday. Yes. Difference in opinion is slightly contrary.

Anyway, I will leave it there. Thank you.

Let's talk about the weather. Over to Adam outside.

For once it is actually a nice day if it was February! I have got an

umbrella in case it rains and a couple of guests as well. We have

got Peter Gibbs, the busy weather presenter, and then Page, a

pollster. Is it really that wet? Yes. We have unrealistic

expectations of a British summer. British farmers are cool and often

quite work. It has not like this everywhere. I've just come back

from the north of Scotland and I've got a bit of a suntan. I flew back

on the same plane as Danny Alexander. It was a low-cost

airline. Does he have a suntan as well? Slightly. Will there be any

break-in this cloud? Will it dry up? A glimmer of hope for the end

of the month for southern and eastern parts of the UK. It should

get a bit warmer, but then the rain sets in across the north-west. I

think long-range weather forecasts are like political forecasts, they

can be a bit fraught. Is this just weather or is something do so --

specific making it this way it? has been the jet stream. It has

died south over the last few weeks. It wasn't that long ago that we

were getting temperatures in the mid-twenties, at the end of May. We

have short-term memories! You have got something that looks quite

scientific. At Ipsos MORI we went back and crunched the numbers to

see if we could find any relationship between the amount of

rain and how people are happy with the Government. The answer is

there's not much relationship. It seems to depend more on what the

Government does rather than acts of God in terms of how it is doing.

Maybe on election days, a lot of rain might favour one party over

another, depending on how motivated their supporters are to vote. But

over all, no. We are a bit stoic as Brits. We are used to this weather,

we just get on with it. You are talking to somebody from Glasgow!

Is there any idea that bad weather reflects badly on politicians. It

is raining and I hate David Cameron! I don't think there's any

evidence of that. For last time he was as unpopular as he is now, he's

not as unpopular as some predecessors, but you will remember

there were floods in Yorkshire and he went off to Rwanda. That was

going to Rwanda rather than the floods, that was when he was in

opposition. Voters judge their politicians on their basic

competence and not the weather. think I just felt a spot of rain!

Back to you in the hot, dry, warm studio.

All right! I got the message! There don't seem to be any

relations between what people feel about their politicians on the

weather, is the wet weather getting you down? It is fantastic. Because

politics is dull, what do we retreat to? The weather. Anybody

else in the world would think, what are these people on? It is

important! I am extremely interested. If it matters to your

garden, that is a thing... I grew up in a country where it was either

hot and wet or hot and dry. That is really dull weather for top thank

you. That's all for today. Thanks to our

guests. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll

be here with Andrew at 11.30am tomorrow with all the big political