:00:36. > :00:41.Hello, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:52.Breaking news as we go on air. Lady Butler-Schloss has announced she
:00:53. > :00:54.will stand down over criticism of her appointment.
:00:55. > :00:56.David Cameron prepares to reshuffle the Conservatives in his cabinet
:00:57. > :01:00.with big hints that he'll try and get more women around the table and
:01:01. > :01:05.Women who want to be MPs should be given more training to boost
:01:06. > :01:07.We'll discuss the latest report that's aimed at
:01:08. > :01:21.Ministers want Britain to have its own commercial spaceport
:01:22. > :01:31.by 2018 for launching well-heeled tourists into the outer atmosphere.
:01:32. > :01:35.All that in the next hour and with us for the next half hour, two top
:01:36. > :01:37.Westminster journalists, Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and
:01:38. > :01:48.First to the breaking news. In the last minute, it has been announced
:01:49. > :01:53.but Baroness Butler-Sloss, the High Court judge it was appointed to
:01:54. > :01:59.chair the enquiry into historic child abuse cases has stepped aside.
:02:00. > :02:04.Can you give is more detail, James? When Lady Butler-Sloss was appointed
:02:05. > :02:08.into the job, she had all the right credentials in one way. The hugely
:02:09. > :02:12.respected judge of the top of her appeal. She led the way in family
:02:13. > :02:15.law and had done child abuse enquiries before and have the
:02:16. > :02:20.knowledge and expertise and background. But clearly some people
:02:21. > :02:24.forgot and did not realise was that her brother, the late attorney
:02:25. > :02:28.general, Michael Havens, was involved in paedophile prosecutions
:02:29. > :02:33.himself in the 1980s and Michael Haver 's had had a conversation with
:02:34. > :02:36.Geoffrey Dickens, the Tory MP at the heart of the allegations of which we
:02:37. > :02:40.don't know the detail, but at how much you should reveal to the
:02:41. > :02:44.public, and it also turned out that he had been involved -- she had been
:02:45. > :02:46.involved in certain cases and enquiries were some victims had felt
:02:47. > :02:51.she had not behaved in the way she would have -- they would have liked.
:02:52. > :02:54.There was a question over her. She has thought long and hard about this
:02:55. > :03:02.and had a conversation with the Home Secretary over the weekend and
:03:03. > :03:04.decided to stand down. The last two secondaries issued a statement in
:03:05. > :03:06.which he said there was a widespread perception, particularly amongst
:03:07. > :03:09.victims and survivors groups but I am not the right person to chair the
:03:10. > :03:13.enquiry and it has also been clear that I did not sufficiently consider
:03:14. > :03:17.whether my background and the fact my brother had been attorney general
:03:18. > :03:20.would cause difficulties and she said she must have confidence in the
:03:21. > :03:24.people who will give evidence in front of me and media attention
:03:25. > :03:31.should not divert attention from the enquiry, so having listened to the
:03:32. > :03:35.concerns of victims and survivors groups, I've come to the conclusion
:03:36. > :03:41.I should not chair the enquiry. Willie be seen by poor judgement by
:03:42. > :03:44.the government in the first instance -- will it be seen? It will be the
:03:45. > :03:48.Home Office, because this is a Home Office appointment. She does have
:03:49. > :03:53.all the right credentials on one hand. Lots of people have said that.
:03:54. > :03:56.Number ten and the Home Secretary making it clear that their view of
:03:57. > :04:00.her appointment has not changed. They still think she is the right
:04:01. > :04:03.person for the job. But they say that she has made the decision by
:04:04. > :04:08.herself because of the uproar since her appointment. Isabel, are you
:04:09. > :04:13.surprised? With hindsight it's easy to say she's made the right
:04:14. > :04:17.decision. But are you surprised? Not surprised by her standing down.
:04:18. > :04:20.Initially I thought she was a great appointment and the government were
:04:21. > :04:28.trying to play whack a mole with conspiracy theories, and the fatal
:04:29. > :04:31.error they made was appointing someone who appeared to be a figure
:04:32. > :04:35.in the establishment who fed the conspiracy theories. It also shows
:04:36. > :04:40.the sensitivities around the enquiry and the whole issue of child abuse,
:04:41. > :04:44.looking at public institutions where certainly over the past few days
:04:45. > :04:49.there have been some claiming there is hysteria around this. Do you
:04:50. > :04:52.think that feeds into what happens? There is some hysteria but there are
:04:53. > :04:58.also people coming forward who were not listened to and were abused.
:04:59. > :05:03.When the cases extend into Westminster and Whitehall and into
:05:04. > :05:10.the establishment, to pick a woman who has questions about previous
:05:11. > :05:16.cases, certainly her link to her brother and how he handled cases,
:05:17. > :05:20.you would never have picked the head of South Yorkshire police to do the
:05:21. > :05:31.Hillsborough enquiry, and she's also 81 next month, and there are rumours
:05:32. > :05:33.swirling around about her help. -- her health. What about reports that
:05:34. > :05:37.they were going to appointed co-chairman, and I have seen it
:05:38. > :05:41.denied that is the reason she stood down, that her role might be
:05:42. > :05:45.overtaken or hindered by a co-chairman will stop do you think
:05:46. > :05:50.that was part of it? I imagine that was one of the options considered to
:05:51. > :05:53.see if there was a way out. When the idea was first floated, some of the
:05:54. > :05:55.critics of her appointment said idea was first floated, some of the
:05:56. > :06:00.could not work with that as a possible option, or it could be a
:06:01. > :06:05.solution. Clearly, Downing Street is making it clear that they have no
:06:06. > :06:09.knowledge of this fact playing any role in the decision of Lady
:06:10. > :06:12.Butler-Sloss, and she herself makes no mention of it in her statement.
:06:13. > :06:19.But clearly, if you have to appoint a code share to counter apparent
:06:20. > :06:26.criticism of appointment, that might be a. -- two have a co-chairman.
:06:27. > :06:31.They were saying this is causing a row and it clearly won't work, so it
:06:32. > :06:34.can't go on. Just finally, they will presumably appoint someone else to
:06:35. > :06:40.replace quickly. Any who it might be? No, both the Home Office and
:06:41. > :06:43.Downing Street say they will try to appoint as soon as possible but are
:06:44. > :06:48.making it clear that it will be within days. We are not talking
:06:49. > :06:53.later today. They will take their time. Back to the drawing board.
:06:54. > :06:55.David Cameron's reshuffle of Conservative ministers.
:06:56. > :06:58.We expect this to get started tonight and be done by tomorrow.
:06:59. > :07:03.And expect old faces to make way for new ones.
:07:04. > :07:08.Owen Paterson, and Wales Secretary, David Jones, could all get the chop.
:07:09. > :07:11.Other old faces are also expected to go; Ken Clarke,
:07:12. > :07:16.In their place expect to see a younger set of ministers,
:07:17. > :07:21.Esther McVey, Liz Truss and Nicky Morgan are all expected to
:07:22. > :07:28.The papers are also suggesting that former Defence Secretary Liam Fox
:07:29. > :07:36.could make a surprise return to Government.
:07:37. > :07:42.There has been so much speculation about the reshuffle partly because
:07:43. > :07:45.it was delayed. We were expecting it while ago. Presumably you support
:07:46. > :07:49.the speculation that women will be the winners in this. Yes, because
:07:50. > :08:04.there are so many impressive female MPs. He isn't looking at his
:08:05. > :08:09.backbench thinking they are duffers. What about the idea that Anna
:08:10. > :08:12.Soubrey could be the first female defence secretary? She has got a
:08:13. > :08:15.small majority in could lose her seat and might be doing the
:08:16. > :08:18.calculation and whether she should campaign or will a high profile
:08:19. > :08:24.appointment help me, but that would be a radical step if he did give her
:08:25. > :08:31.that post. To some extent, we wouldn't be in this mess if Eton
:08:32. > :08:34.school admitted women, but he normally surrounds himself with
:08:35. > :08:39.these types which tend to be posh blokes. That he will want to answer
:08:40. > :08:47.in terms of the promotions, but sticking with the winning issue --
:08:48. > :08:51.woman issue, and he always maintained he wanted to have a third
:08:52. > :08:55.of cabinet or ministers as women, and he's yet to reach that, what
:08:56. > :08:58.about Esther McVey question not she's been in the Department of work
:08:59. > :09:01.and pensions there has been speculation over Iain Duncan Smith.
:09:02. > :09:06.Is there anything in that or is Westminster gossip? Friends of Iain
:09:07. > :09:13.Duncan Smith are saying he is staying right where he is but what
:09:14. > :09:16.they could do with Esther McVey is to promote her to Kenneth Clarke's
:09:17. > :09:21.old job as Minister without portfolio and she could become the
:09:22. > :09:24.Minister Patel attrition -- for television. She's an old TV
:09:25. > :09:28.presenter and she knows what she's doing. She doesn't just not look
:09:29. > :09:33.odd, and should be very good at that. What -- one calculation
:09:34. > :09:36.Cameron has to make is that he does not want to promote people to jobs
:09:37. > :09:40.that will take away from the fight to retain their seats. If you are in
:09:41. > :09:45.a marginal seat, you want to get out and about so you are more visible
:09:46. > :09:48.rather than disappearing into a department which doesn't win votes
:09:49. > :09:52.and then lose your seat next year. What about some of the other big
:09:53. > :09:58.moves in cabinet? Will Owen Paterson surviving his position that Kenneth
:09:59. > :10:03.Clarke and George Young will go? What about him? Kenneth Clarke has
:10:04. > :10:09.been written off so many times. Maybe he will survive. He's kind of
:10:10. > :10:13.the cuddly Freddy Krueger, he always comes back. He would probably laugh
:10:14. > :10:17.at the characterisation. That is one of his strengths for the
:10:18. > :10:20.Conservative party. You put him on television and he's pretty
:10:21. > :10:24.reasonable. With Owen Paterson you have to make a political calculation
:10:25. > :10:29.because Owen Paterson and Iain Duncan Smith who might both be under
:10:30. > :10:35.threat, they represent a right wing section of the Tory party that would
:10:36. > :10:37.not be represented if they went. Would he not be the answer to
:10:38. > :10:43.replace anyone they lose on the right? The other proposition put
:10:44. > :10:50.forward is that David Cameron would move George Osborne from future
:10:51. > :10:54.leadership, and that could be seen as a George Osborne reshuffle? I
:10:55. > :10:59.think most of them are George Osborne reshuffle. I know one MP who
:11:00. > :11:03.went into the office and he pointed at pictures of colleagues who had
:11:04. > :11:07.stuck by him who had been promoted, and if you get the seal of loyalty
:11:08. > :11:14.from George Osborne you can see your career shoot out. Watch out the
:11:15. > :11:17.Chief Whip. If Greg hands goes up, then George Osborne is tightening
:11:18. > :11:23.his grip ahead of the battle with Boris Johnson. This is not a Liberal
:11:24. > :11:29.Democrat reshuffle. That will happen in the autumn, we understand. And he
:11:30. > :11:34.will supposedly moving Joe Swinson into some sort of Cabinet position.
:11:35. > :11:38.Is that what you heard? Clegg has always had men in the Cabinet and he
:11:39. > :11:44.has the lowest proportion of female MPs. Seven out of 57, one in eight.
:11:45. > :11:49.Never mind David Cameron's problem. I think he wants to do it separately
:11:50. > :11:53.to put some distance into it. The truth of the Tory party is because
:11:54. > :11:59.they only have 48 women in just over 300 MPs, there are about 40% of
:12:00. > :12:02.women MPs are ministers, which is a high proportion of Tory women who
:12:03. > :12:07.are already ministers. His problem is he has very few women. The only
:12:08. > :12:10.way to make the big leap forward is to have women only short lists and
:12:11. > :12:16.the Conservative party will not do that. He has resisted that until
:12:17. > :12:19.now. Looking at another role that could be occupied, what about
:12:20. > :12:24.European commission? We talked about Andrew Lansley taking that position.
:12:25. > :12:28.Michael Howard. What about a woman? Apparently Jean Claude Juncker would
:12:29. > :12:33.look kindly at a female Commissioner? David Cameron now
:12:34. > :12:40.through the bash needs to befriend Jean Claude Juncker -- now needs to
:12:41. > :12:44.befriend him. They have only been in government for four years and don't
:12:45. > :12:46.have that many senior women. What about the Labour Party? They will do
:12:47. > :12:48.it just before the party Conference. As you may have seen last night
:12:49. > :12:55.Germany won the football World Cup. And no-one was more pleased than
:12:56. > :12:57.German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Here she is celebrating with
:12:58. > :13:03.the team afterwards. She jumped for joy when they scored
:13:04. > :13:06.the goal. How many World Cup matches
:13:07. > :13:10.did Angela Merkel attend? Later in the show, we will
:13:11. > :13:16.give you the correct answer. As we've just been discussing
:13:17. > :13:19.David Cameron is trying to increase the number of women
:13:20. > :13:21.on his front bench, but what At present, there are 147 women in
:13:22. > :13:27.the House of Commons out of a total This lunchtime a report is being
:13:28. > :13:35.launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group for women
:13:36. > :13:37.in Parliament and they've come up They want to see a clampdown
:13:38. > :13:43.on unprofessional and rowdy behaviour in the Commons
:13:44. > :13:45.suggesting that offending MPs should MPs' passes should be redesigned to
:13:46. > :13:53.stop women parliamentarians from being mistaken for staff
:13:54. > :13:56.and there should be training to help improve parliamentary
:13:57. > :14:02.candidates' confidence. The report criticises
:14:03. > :14:03.the masculine atmosphere of Parliament and suggests a gender
:14:04. > :14:06.audit of artwork currently on display in the Palace of Westminster
:14:07. > :14:08.arguing that the environment can be Finally the MPs want the
:14:09. > :14:25.Culture Media and Sport Select Committee to review sexism in both
:14:26. > :14:28.the traditional and social media. With me now is the chair of the
:14:29. > :14:42.all-party parliamentary group for Would you describe Parliament as a
:14:43. > :14:46.masculine place to work? I think it is. Parliament was built by men for
:14:47. > :14:50.men, and even though there have been a number of changes including
:14:51. > :14:58.working hours and on nurseries, I think, with every more times we get
:14:59. > :15:02.female politicians into parliament it starts changing the culture and
:15:03. > :15:06.nature of the environment. We are still on 22%, but I want to increase
:15:07. > :15:10.further. As part of the report, I wanted to be a call out to women
:15:11. > :15:16.across the country to say that we need you to contribute to life
:15:17. > :15:20.changing issues and making a difference to communities and people
:15:21. > :15:26.'s lives to the country as a whole. We need a whole range of women from
:15:27. > :15:28.backgrounds -- a range of backgrounds to start making a
:15:29. > :15:32.contribution. The only way to do that is to have all women short
:15:33. > :15:39.lists in the Conservative party and the Conservatives have never done
:15:40. > :15:47.that. What the Conservative party have done is a lot of training on
:15:48. > :15:52.the selection committees in having no male only short lists, which is
:15:53. > :15:56.important. And as long as we are making progress. The thing about
:15:57. > :16:02.women only short lists is that Labour thought it would be a short,
:16:03. > :16:07.sharp measure. Next time round they found the numbers went down again.
:16:08. > :16:27.They had to start again to make sure the numbers kept going up. Do you
:16:28. > :16:30.think commissioning a gender audit of artwork in Westminster will
:16:31. > :16:36.revolutionise the feel of the Houses of Parliament? Not that stuff on its
:16:37. > :16:44.own. There's a whole range of recommendations. But what it is is a
:16:45. > :16:47.very male environment, and lots of women and politicians through time
:16:48. > :16:51.have made a massive contribution to this country, so let's portray some
:16:52. > :16:56.of that is part of the environment. How important do you think the look
:16:57. > :17:00.and feel in the environment is? We will talk about the numbers, but
:17:01. > :17:06.looking around the place does it look like an old-style male drinking
:17:07. > :17:09.club, and does it make a difference? The recommendation about artwork is
:17:10. > :17:19.eye-catching and important. I really agree. And I saw female political
:17:20. > :17:24.journalist bylines in newspapers, it was good for me. When you see other
:17:25. > :17:28.women doing things it means you see a role model and it encourages you.
:17:29. > :17:33.Personally, I don't think Parliament is that masculine. Maybe I am quite
:17:34. > :17:38.manly, I don't know. We would never say that, Isabel. I don't find the
:17:39. > :17:45.atmosphere particularly masculine. It's aggressive, and women can be.
:17:46. > :17:50.What do you say that women should man up in that sense, that it is
:17:51. > :17:54.about being assertive themselves rather than feminising Parliament? I
:17:55. > :17:56.then want to give the impression that women cannot hack it in
:17:57. > :18:00.Parliament. They absolutely can. They can do as well as anyone, but
:18:01. > :18:06.we're trying to encourage a range of women to come forward who are put
:18:07. > :18:09.off by that sort of aggressive approach in Parliament, and that is
:18:10. > :18:13.one of the things we want to change, the culture of the chamber which is
:18:14. > :18:18.not acceptable in the boardroom or classroom, so why allow it to happen
:18:19. > :18:23.in Parliament? I know a few aggressive women in Parliament. They
:18:24. > :18:28.are not shrinking violets. But it is very male dominated. As you said, it
:18:29. > :18:32.came up through generations of guys, not just the artwork, look at
:18:33. > :18:37.the statues, through St Stephens corridor they are all men, apart
:18:38. > :18:40.from Margaret Thatcher in the members lobby which most people
:18:41. > :18:47.cannot see. Other than that I cannot think of another female statue.
:18:48. > :18:51.Queen is a -- Queen Elizabeth, there is a painting of her. It's quite a
:18:52. > :18:55.long time ago. It is not very modern looking and it's a traditional old
:18:56. > :19:00.building, so would it make a difference to modernise the
:19:01. > :19:04.insides? Would it feel less like a traditional old man's club. I would
:19:05. > :19:08.like to start again and move it somewhere else, where you can get
:19:09. > :19:14.everybody in the chamber. Just reduce the number of MPs. It is part
:19:15. > :19:20.of heritage. You still get a pink ribbon on your coat hanger to hang
:19:21. > :19:26.up your sword in the cloakroom. Some people love that though, don't they?
:19:27. > :19:30.The rowdy behaviour, as we talk about so often, would you like to
:19:31. > :19:41.see sanctions brought in for people who are considered to be more rowdy
:19:42. > :19:45.and aggressive during PMQ 's? Definitely. It seems crazy. The
:19:46. > :19:50.public are scathing of our behaviour in the chamber. They only see Prime
:19:51. > :19:54.Minister 's questions and programmes like this, so there are many debates
:19:55. > :20:00.that are well balanced, but because that is the most visual, it's what
:20:01. > :20:03.people notice, and they are scathing of our behaviour. We would not
:20:04. > :20:07.tolerate it in a classroom or boardroom, so why do we allow
:20:08. > :20:11.Parliament to be like that? We want the Parliament to be the best in the
:20:12. > :20:15.world, so we need to be more respectful and behave more
:20:16. > :20:19.professionally. You watch Villa hurly-burly. If you're just standing
:20:20. > :20:23.reading a speech, like giving the weather forecast, I won't watch --
:20:24. > :20:28.you watch it for the hurly-burly. I don't want to take away the
:20:29. > :20:31.compassion and challenge in the debate. But you can do that in the
:20:32. > :20:38.way you speak, it's not about shouting abuse and insults. How
:20:39. > :20:43.would you do it? You would have to start with the speaker belittling
:20:44. > :20:45.MPs, and he's very good at telling MPs often then mocking other ones,
:20:46. > :20:48.so he MPs often then mocking other ones,
:20:49. > :20:53.doesn't set a good example. But would it be a good idea to punish
:20:54. > :20:57.people in that sense? Some MPs will say he has done quite a lot for
:20:58. > :21:02.giving backbenchers more of a roll and letting them speak. -- more of a
:21:03. > :21:08.speaking role. There is no doubt he is unpopular in some quarters with
:21:09. > :21:12.the way he interrupts. I don't know about sanctions. I personally can't
:21:13. > :21:14.think of anything worse than a passionless prime ministers
:21:15. > :21:18.questions because people get worked up because they like the issues
:21:19. > :21:22.being debated. You are encouraged to act like a gang and it is tribal. We
:21:23. > :21:27.talk about gangs in the street but we behave like gangs in the chamber.
:21:28. > :21:31.It is that bit which is unacceptable, and by all means keep
:21:32. > :21:34.the passion in the debate, and you could do sanctions like yellow in
:21:35. > :21:48.the red cards in football. The Walk of Shame(!) Would it make
:21:49. > :21:52.much difference? It has to be defined in terms of what is
:21:53. > :21:57.acceptable. We do it in other business. I was going to say... We
:21:58. > :22:02.have to stop it and be more professional. We want to rebuild
:22:03. > :22:07.trust. Thank you. How much competition should the
:22:08. > :22:11.Royal Mail face in its postal delivery business? The company has
:22:12. > :22:15.complained to the regulator about a rival firm's growing presence in
:22:16. > :22:22.door-to-door deliveries which Royal Mail says is threatening its own
:22:23. > :22:27.universal service. Sending a letter used to be a
:22:28. > :22:31.straightforward affair. It went in the letterbox, Royal Mail collected
:22:32. > :22:37.it, it worked out where it was going and then delivered it. Not so much
:22:38. > :22:44.anymore. In fact, the postal service has changed so much that over half
:22:45. > :22:48.of the mail in the UK is collected and sorted by its private sector
:22:49. > :22:55.competitors. When it comes to business mail, the new kids on the
:22:56. > :22:58.block have 70% of the market. But still pay Royal Mail to do the final
:22:59. > :23:03.bit of the job - putting letters through your front door. Most of it
:23:04. > :23:15.seems to be coming from various competitors. I notice very few
:23:16. > :23:22.stamps or Royal Mail logos. But across town, another revolution in
:23:23. > :23:30.the way the mail works is under way. In South West London in April 2012,
:23:31. > :23:35.for the first time in the Royal Mail's history, TNT Post delivered
:23:36. > :23:39.mail through people's doors. They are now active in a third of London
:23:40. > :23:44.and in the places that they are, some 15% of all the letters
:23:45. > :23:48.delivered come from a TNT employee rather than the traditional Royal
:23:49. > :23:53.Mail postman. However, there have been some high-profile cases of mail
:23:54. > :23:57.going missing. Back in April, BBC London reported on how one North
:23:58. > :24:03.London resident found over 200 letters dumped in a bush. This bag
:24:04. > :24:08.of TNT Post was discovered by the Conservative MP for Hendon after it
:24:09. > :24:12.was dumped in a river. Myself and some supporters were cleaning up the
:24:13. > :24:17.river after we noticed a lot of cans and mattresses. We came across a
:24:18. > :24:23.black sack which, when we pulled it out, opened up to reveal lots of
:24:24. > :24:33.council tax bills and other official documents, which had not been
:24:34. > :24:37.delivered. TNT Post point out most of their mail is delivered without a
:24:38. > :24:41.hitch. The newcomers are only delivering to the most profitable
:24:42. > :24:48.parts of the country, mostly so far in London. That gives them an unfair
:24:49. > :24:52.advantage. The universal service offering is prescribed in law, so
:24:53. > :24:58.from our perspective we have to deliver to every address in the UK
:24:59. > :25:05.six days a week. If we don't have the volumes of mail that allow us to
:25:06. > :25:10.cross subsidise, so business mail cross subsidising social mail, we
:25:11. > :25:13.will get to a tipping point where the economics of the universal
:25:14. > :25:19.service offering don't make sense. The Royal Mail asked Ofcom to look
:25:20. > :25:23.at this issue. A review is promised but not until next year. In the
:25:24. > :25:32.meantime, if you don't already, you might well find a TNT Postman
:25:33. > :25:42.delivering at your door. I have been joined by the Deputy
:25:43. > :25:51.General Secretary of the communication service workers union.
:25:52. > :25:56.It is allowing competition that there threaten profitability. Is it
:25:57. > :26:11.trying to destroy the Royal Mail? Not at all. The Government got the
:26:12. > :26:14.sale of Royal Mail under way safely. Of course, part of the legislation
:26:15. > :26:19.that we put through Parliament was to give the regulator powers to make
:26:20. > :26:25.sure that competition is fair and there is a level playing field and
:26:26. > :26:30.the problem that this is causing and the Chief Executive has been to see
:26:31. > :26:36.parliamentarians across-the-board to explain that the very profitable
:26:37. > :26:41.postcodes help Royal Mail deliver in the rural communities, like my
:26:42. > :26:46.constituency and further afield. If you have a competitor who picks off
:26:47. > :26:51.the profitable postcodes you can then get into a situation where that
:26:52. > :26:55.business goes away, it erodes away and puts Royal Mail in a difficult
:26:56. > :27:00.situation. That is why the regulator has the power to look at this - and
:27:01. > :27:03.it is they review this very quickly. From other geographies around the
:27:04. > :27:09.world, once the business goes away, it is hard to try and bring it back.
:27:10. > :27:15.You admit there is a threat to the way been set up, to Royal Mail being
:27:16. > :27:18.able to fulfil in the long-term its universal obligation while, at the
:27:19. > :27:23.same time, it is being hampered by competition? No. Competition has to
:27:24. > :27:27.be fair and it is right that the regulator... You are worried about
:27:28. > :27:31.it being fair? It is right - they are reviewing this. They are looking
:27:32. > :27:35.at this very carefully. It is important they look at it carefully
:27:36. > :27:39.and quickly. Ofcom has said there is no material threat to the Royal Mail
:27:40. > :27:44.fulfilling that regulation, so it is a storm in a teacup? Ofcom have
:27:45. > :27:49.abandoned their primary role, which is to protect the universal service.
:27:50. > :27:54.This is not real competition. This is cherry-picking competition. If
:27:55. > :27:58.you want to see that very visually, TNT stated ambition is to deliver to
:27:59. > :28:03.42% of addresses, but they have chosen only 8% of the UK geography
:28:04. > :28:09.to do that. What you have got is them delivering to all the high
:28:10. > :28:14.density areas - and that undermines the very economics. So your
:28:15. > :28:20.constituents will suffer if this is allowed to carry on. Can I make this
:28:21. > :28:24.point? Politicians are making the mistake of saying this is new jobs.
:28:25. > :28:29.It's not. It is replacing existing Royal Mail jobs with underpaid jobs,
:28:30. > :28:33.poverty-paid jobs against market-leading jobs. It is wrong.
:28:34. > :28:37.Why then is Ofcom saying their current evidence clearly shows that
:28:38. > :28:43.the service is not currently under threat from competition? That TNT
:28:44. > :28:49.Post deliver less than 1% of mail in the UK. Ofcom have got it wrong.
:28:50. > :28:54.They have got those numbers wrong? They have already allowed the
:28:55. > :28:58.competitors to take up to 50% of Royal Mail's access mail, so
:28:59. > :29:03.competitors can sort and collect 50% of the mail in total. If they
:29:04. > :29:07.switched that mail, to their direct delivery, this is a disaster waiting
:29:08. > :29:11.to happen. They have to act now. If they are wrong, what is wrong with
:29:12. > :29:15.them reviewing it? We are not saying to them, or telling them what they
:29:16. > :29:21.have to do, we are saying intervene now and review it. It sounds like
:29:22. > :29:25.Ofcom are failing to get a grip of the situation. The whole point is to
:29:26. > :29:29.allow new entrants into the market but they have to have conditions
:29:30. > :29:36.that mean it would be fair? That is the point being made. If Ofcom are
:29:37. > :29:41.right, a review will prove them to be right. If they are wrong, and
:29:42. > :29:46.this business does go away, it is very difficult to bring it back. You
:29:47. > :29:49.create a very difficult situation for Royal Mail, which is why I think
:29:50. > :29:51.Ofcom get on with the review. Is the universal service under threat? It
:29:52. > :29:56.will be You will allow a private company to come in and cherry-pick
:29:57. > :30:01.and Royal Mail is left with the uneconomic route. You won't be able
:30:02. > :30:07.to keep down the price of a if you allow somebody to cream off the
:30:08. > :30:11.profit. A few years down the line, there will certainly be that
:30:12. > :30:16.problem, we will see stamp prices go up and services go down. They have
:30:17. > :30:21.gone up over time... That was to fatten it up for privatisation. Is
:30:22. > :30:22.this all sour grapes, from the union, who oppose the sell-off in
:30:23. > :30:34.the first place? through competition, and if you
:30:35. > :30:37.hobble a service, it makes it hard to improve across the board. It
:30:38. > :30:42.should be the people start at the same level. If you are going to
:30:43. > :30:50.create a level playing field and TNT want to deliver post, they should
:30:51. > :30:54.deliver to the whole country. This is not real competition. What
:30:55. > :30:59.competition would you accept? What we are saying is, Shell is whether
:31:00. > :31:03.consumers benefit. That the moment, the idea that you have a Royal mail
:31:04. > :31:10.postman going up the garden path and five minutes later he is followed by
:31:11. > :31:13.a TNT Post -- show us where the consumers benefit. It's a natural
:31:14. > :31:17.monopoly, and we have to be honest about it. You cannot have both in
:31:18. > :31:22.the Royal Mail service. What do you say to that? I don't think it is a
:31:23. > :31:31.natural monopoly where you have one set line with trains on the railway.
:31:32. > :31:34.It is more like buses. If you look London, where you regulate the
:31:35. > :31:39.buses, it's the best service in the country, and if you go around the
:31:40. > :31:42.country you pay more for a worse service because all the bus
:31:43. > :31:48.companies crowd into the profitable routes and you don't get elsewhere.
:31:49. > :31:51.The buses is the best comparison. If you regulated properly, as you do in
:31:52. > :31:56.London, it works, and if you don't, like the rest of the country, it's
:31:57. > :32:00.not as good. So the sell-off will achieve inefficiency at one level
:32:01. > :32:05.and a fracturing of the service, and the price of the stamp is likely to
:32:06. > :32:10.go up? It doesn't seem to be what you set out to do. I don't agree
:32:11. > :32:17.with that. Firstly, the Royal Mail is costing the taxpayer millions. It
:32:18. > :32:22.was in profit. That was very recent. If you look beyond that it cost a
:32:23. > :32:27.lot of money. No dispute about that. If you are going to have competition
:32:28. > :32:30.and strong regulation, which we did see giving the power is going to
:32:31. > :32:35.offer comp, then you create a better market. Whether it is buses or
:32:36. > :32:40.anything else -- of com. It's regulated well, the market works
:32:41. > :32:44.efficiently. This is just the unions, the chief executive is
:32:45. > :32:47.saying that there are other issues here that need to be looked at
:32:48. > :32:50.because good competition can be healthy but if you have somebody
:32:51. > :32:51.picking of the profitable bits, it is unhealthy. We will leave it
:32:52. > :32:55.there. Thank you. It's just gone 12:30pm,
:32:56. > :32:58.and it's time now to say goodbye to The final version
:32:59. > :33:00.of the government's emergency communications bill is due to be
:33:01. > :33:02.published today. Last week David Cameron and
:33:03. > :33:05.Nick Clegg announced the Government would rush the bill through
:33:06. > :33:07.in record time to ensure that the police and security services
:33:08. > :33:10.can continue to access people's The law will replace previous data
:33:11. > :33:17.rules, which were struck down by the European Court of Justice
:33:18. > :33:21.earlier this year. Last week the Home Secretary was
:33:22. > :33:27.questioned by MPs about the emergency Bill. Here's
:33:28. > :33:37.a flavour of what was said then. This legislation will merely
:33:38. > :33:39.maintain the status quo. It will not tackle the wider problem of
:33:40. > :33:43.declining communications data capability to which we must return
:33:44. > :33:48.in the next parliament. But it will ensure, for now at least, that the
:33:49. > :33:51.police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the
:33:52. > :33:55.criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this
:33:56. > :33:59.legislation, we face the very prospect of losing access to this
:34:00. > :34:02.data overnight with the consequence that police investigations will
:34:03. > :34:10.suddenly go dark and criminals will escape justice. We cannot allow this
:34:11. > :34:13.to happen. We cannot keep doing sticking plaster legislation in a
:34:14. > :34:16.rush without the proper consideration of the privacy and
:34:17. > :34:20.security balance that modern Britain wants to see. We will scrutinise the
:34:21. > :34:25.detail of the bill as it goes through Parliament next week and we
:34:26. > :34:28.will support it, because we know that the police and intelligence
:34:29. > :34:36.agencies need the information to fight crime, protect children. There
:34:37. > :34:41.have been plenty of time to look at the 12 clauses relating to data
:34:42. > :34:46.retention, so if there is an emergency, is it now, not then? The
:34:47. > :34:49.only reason this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a
:34:50. > :34:52.single day in the Commons is because the government has spent three
:34:53. > :34:53.months making its mind up and the government has decided we are going
:34:54. > :34:57.on holiday in ten days time. I've been joined by Baroness Kramer
:34:58. > :35:00.the Lib Dem transport minister, Baroness Royall, Labour's shadow
:35:01. > :35:02.leader of the House of Lords and the Conservative peer Lord
:35:03. > :35:14.Holmes for the rest of the show. Welcome to all of you. Susan Kramer,
:35:15. > :35:18.first of all, why has it taken three months since the ruling to announce
:35:19. > :35:22.them emergency legislation quest not where the Lib Dems dragging their
:35:23. > :35:25.feet? It's been necessary to make sure we don't bring back more
:35:26. > :35:30.legislation that is struck down again. I also think it's been
:35:31. > :35:35.important that, along with what is basically maintaining the existing
:35:36. > :35:38.powers, there is now more oversight and it is more transparent as a
:35:39. > :35:41.process and there will be an oversight committee and the
:35:42. > :35:50.particular legislation dies in two years. They will look at the overall
:35:51. > :35:55.powers of investigation and there will be more civil liberties
:35:56. > :35:59.protection rather than keeping the powers in place. This has gone on
:36:00. > :36:03.behind-the-scenes. There has not been the chance for MPs to debated
:36:04. > :36:10.hence the comments by some backbenchers saying it has been
:36:11. > :36:14.stitched up by party leaders. It's essential legislation that needs to
:36:15. > :36:17.get through quickly. It does take a while to make sure you have it
:36:18. > :36:22.drafted so you don't end up back in court again. That is an important
:36:23. > :36:25.step that had to be taken. It has been brought in in a timely way, so
:36:26. > :36:30.the parties will recognise the need to do that. Of course, there has
:36:31. > :36:35.been a lot of discussion and there will be a very big viewing of all of
:36:36. > :36:40.these issues, which is the substantive part of this. You are
:36:41. > :36:45.shaking your head, but you back it anyway? We do because the safeguards
:36:46. > :36:50.are there but it hasn't been brought in in a timely way. Why is it
:36:51. > :36:54.emergency legislation? It didn't need to be three months ago, but
:36:55. > :36:58.nowadays. Four months ago Yvette Cooper was calling for a review of
:36:59. > :37:01.the whole of the legislation, a real public debate and at the time the
:37:02. > :37:05.government said no and now they have said yes, and that's important,
:37:06. > :37:09.because these things have to be out to the public and the public have to
:37:10. > :37:12.debate them and we have to think of the implications of new technology.
:37:13. > :37:16.People will think it is a stitch up and it was done behind closed
:37:17. > :37:21.doors, so why has there not been a more public debate about it? I don't
:37:22. > :37:26.think it's absolutely required at this time. The key point and the
:37:27. > :37:29.main worry is that this does not cover intercepted data, it is about
:37:30. > :37:37.the meta data, what calls were made and when and Joo-ho. That is
:37:38. > :37:42.critical not in serious crime or terrorist -- and to whom. If we
:37:43. > :37:45.consider the historical child abuse cases and how we can address those
:37:46. > :37:49.situations better going forward, this will be a cornerstone in the
:37:50. > :37:54.process. You see it as necessary data to be retained, but if it is so
:37:55. > :37:58.critical to solving crime cases, it's probably been deleted, some of
:37:59. > :38:04.it, between the ECJ ruling and today. The ruling did not require it
:38:05. > :38:10.to be deleted. But it might have done so. It left companies in a
:38:11. > :38:13.state of uncertainty so we needed to move promptly. But you had to move
:38:14. > :38:17.in such a way that you would put through legislation that was not
:38:18. > :38:20.going to get knocked over again. That's not helpful to anyone. I
:38:21. > :38:23.think it is important that it has come with the additional civil
:38:24. > :38:29.liberties protections and with this major review of the whole issue.
:38:30. > :38:33.There is an oversight body that will be critical and more transparency.
:38:34. > :38:36.The oversight body will do what? As I understand it, there would still
:38:37. > :38:41.be a case for legal intercept and the Home Secretary or Secretary of
:38:42. > :38:47.State for Northern Ireland can say not only can we log of the calls you
:38:48. > :38:50.made, we will be able to look at the content of yours and mine if we are
:38:51. > :38:56.deemed suspicious. But it is limited, as you describe. There are
:38:57. > :39:01.no powers that don't exist already but these additional measures mean
:39:02. > :39:04.that there is now an oversight committee which will look at this.
:39:05. > :39:09.That is what the public were also looking for, that it's not just the
:39:10. > :39:14.interested parties, there needed to be an oversight away from that.
:39:15. > :39:17.These are important Civil Liberties steps, but the most substantive
:39:18. > :39:21.thing is that all of this will be reviewed over the long term and of
:39:22. > :39:27.course there will be a great deal of public debate, and the legislation
:39:28. > :39:28.dies in two years. That is if the new parliament and public not
:39:29. > :39:33.convinced. It will new parliament and public not
:39:34. > :39:38.that is the important thing. But Parliament can put in a new set
:39:39. > :39:41.powers or legislation, but it is true that the Labour Party support
:39:42. > :39:44.this to the hilt. They always supported these powers because they
:39:45. > :39:47.agreed with the government and the Conservatives that it was vital to
:39:48. > :39:51.have this information in order to solve crimes, whether it was child
:39:52. > :39:56.abuse or terrorist cases. You are not saying you wouldn't go ahead
:39:57. > :39:59.with anything that would the public less safe? We do support the
:40:00. > :40:04.legislation but we made sure there were important safeguards. We do
:40:05. > :40:08.recognise since this came into force that there have been profound
:40:09. > :40:13.changes and everything needs looking at again. Also after the Edward
:40:14. > :40:16.Snowden debate. The public deserve the opportunity to think about these
:40:17. > :40:21.things and debate them, and that is necessary. The European Court of
:40:22. > :40:22.Justice ruling said that the regulations breached a fundamental
:40:23. > :40:26.rights to respect for private life, regulations breached a fundamental
:40:27. > :40:27.but are you worried that those companies who could face legal
:40:28. > :40:31.challenges from people who have said companies who could face legal
:40:32. > :40:34.you have held data and information illegally since
:40:35. > :40:34.you have held data and information companies will have got rid of it?
:40:35. > :40:39.There companies will have got rid of it?
:40:40. > :40:42.need to realise that it could be need to realise that it could
:40:43. > :40:46.potentially dangerous on activities going on in our country at the
:40:47. > :40:51.moment. You look at the conviction with the Soho killings in 2002, this
:40:52. > :40:57.data was absolutely critical to ensuring that case went to the right
:40:58. > :41:01.conclusion. So much has changed in our world in the last decade. We
:41:02. > :41:07.need this and we need the police and security services to have access.
:41:08. > :41:12.The work our security services do, dangerous work on a daily basis,
:41:13. > :41:17.unsung heroes by the nature of the work, we need to give them all the
:41:18. > :41:23.support, not trample all over human rights by any means, but to enable
:41:24. > :41:30.them to do a job to keep reddish citizens safe here and abroad. When
:41:31. > :41:36.will this be on the statute books? It goes through the Commons today,
:41:37. > :41:41.then the Lords after. Two days of debate in the Lords, and if there
:41:42. > :41:46.are any amendments passed... Do you think there will be? I don't know.
:41:47. > :41:51.That is the point of proper scrutiny on which we insisted in the Lords.
:41:52. > :41:55.But there is no real risk it went beyond the statute book before the
:41:56. > :41:59.summer recess? I think not, but it might not possibly be until next
:42:00. > :42:01.week. But it will be rapid, and it needs to be.
:42:02. > :42:04.Let?s go back to the news that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former
:42:05. > :42:06.High Court judge who was appointed to chair the inquiry into historic
:42:07. > :42:10.Downing Street has said "it was entirely her decision" and a
:42:11. > :42:16.new chair would be appointed within a few days.
:42:17. > :42:23.Speaking in the last few minutes, Labour MP Tom Watson, who raised the
:42:24. > :42:26.issue of child abuse in the Commons welcomed the decision. For someone
:42:27. > :42:31.who has such a large record in public service, she would know that
:42:32. > :42:35.any controversy around her as the chair of the enquiry would cause
:42:36. > :42:38.difficulties, particularly with vulnerable survivors who are nervous
:42:39. > :42:42.about speaking out all stop they need to be encouraged to do so and
:42:43. > :42:46.any question over the enquiry would have been difficult. I think it is
:42:47. > :42:51.testament to her own integrity that she has made the decision herself
:42:52. > :42:54.and gone quickly. Chris Holmes, do you agree with that or was it poor
:42:55. > :42:57.judgement on behalf of the government in appointing her and not
:42:58. > :43:00.seeing the problems the problems that could lie ahead? She is an
:43:01. > :43:06.honourable lady and she has done the honourable thing. She could have
:43:07. > :43:09.done a great job in sharing this. It became untenable when there was a
:43:10. > :43:15.question of the co-chairman. She has done the right thing. Has she done
:43:16. > :43:19.the right thing? It had to be very much her decision. The government
:43:20. > :43:22.continues to have great faith in her integrity and skills and feel she
:43:23. > :43:27.would have done a terrific job if she were the chair. But should they
:43:28. > :43:30.have seen the pitfall of her being an establishment figure and the
:43:31. > :43:32.connections with her brother as the former jerk -- attorney general
:43:33. > :43:39.question mark should it have been picked up? If you know Lady
:43:40. > :43:42.Butler-Sloss, you are conscious of how much skill and wisdom and
:43:43. > :43:46.integrity she has. It's going to be a tough job to share this, because
:43:47. > :43:52.the scope is so wide. You've got to be able to command the respect of a
:43:53. > :43:56.broad range of institutions that create confidence in the public. She
:43:57. > :43:59.could have done all of those things. I don't have a dispute with her
:44:00. > :44:04.appointment. She realised she had become the story, and the
:44:05. > :44:09.controversy surrounding might make it difficult for her to do her job,
:44:10. > :44:13.but is very much a decision. I hope we find a new chair of similar
:44:14. > :44:16.character very quickly. I think she is an extraordinary woman and it's a
:44:17. > :44:22.great testament to her integrity she did this. As she said in her
:44:23. > :44:24.statement, this is very much a victims and survivors focused
:44:25. > :44:29.investigation, therefore these people must have confidence in her.
:44:30. > :44:31.But I do think she was put in a very difficult position by the Home
:44:32. > :44:33.Secretary and difficult position by the Home
:44:34. > :44:36.Secretary it is a testament to her own integrity that she has decided
:44:37. > :44:42.to take this action. How difficult will it be to find summary of her
:44:43. > :44:48.calibre with that experience who is also not part of the establishment,
:44:49. > :44:52.as that seems to be the main criticism, to carry out what could
:44:53. > :44:56.be a long and involved enquiry? She is superbly qualified but there must
:44:57. > :44:59.be people who are likewise qualified out there who do not have this
:45:00. > :45:01.background that she has. Let's leave it there.
:45:02. > :45:04.On Friday the House of Lords will consider a bill - proposed by
:45:05. > :45:06.the former Labour Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer - which would allow
:45:07. > :45:10.doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients with less than six months
:45:11. > :45:15.to live medication to end their life - so-called 'assisted dying'.
:45:16. > :45:18.Last week the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said he had
:45:19. > :45:22.changed his mind, and that he now supports assisted because of the
:45:23. > :45:27.But the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby,
:45:28. > :45:30.has described the attempt to legalise assisted dying as
:45:31. > :45:34."both mistaken and dangerous - quite literally, lethally so".
:45:35. > :45:38.Today in the Telegraph Boris Johnson has a more nuanced approach writing
:45:39. > :45:42.that he "would like the Falconer Bill apply not to all those
:45:43. > :45:46.who might well die in the next six months, but only to those whose
:45:47. > :45:50.lives are overwhelmingly likely to be very near the end" But a group
:45:51. > :45:54.of MPS and Peers including David Blunkett and Baroness Tanni
:45:55. > :45:57.Grey-Thompson have written in a letter in the Times today that "the
:45:58. > :46:01.mark of a healthy society is how it treats those who have
:46:02. > :46:06.We must not enact laws which will endanger the lives of
:46:07. > :46:18.Where do you stand on this? Is this something you would like to see,
:46:19. > :46:22.legislation, you will support Charlie Falconer's Bill? I do
:46:23. > :46:27.support this Bill. I very much support the need for a debate. Two
:46:28. > :46:30.weeks' ago, the Supreme Court said this issue should be debated in
:46:31. > :46:36.Parliament, therefore it is right and proper that it is debated in
:46:37. > :46:41.Parliament. I do respect those who take a different view to me and in
:46:42. > :46:45.my own group, in the House of Lords, there's a plethora of different
:46:46. > :46:49.views. The House of Lords is a great place to have this sort of debate.
:46:50. > :47:05.It will come into its own on Friday. You are head of the disability at
:47:06. > :47:10.the Disability Rights Commission? This is the most significant debate
:47:11. > :47:14.there has been in the Lords for a good number of years. You see that
:47:15. > :47:20.in the number of people who have signed up to speak. It is incredibly
:47:21. > :47:25.difficult. I believe the Bill, as currently structured, doesn't
:47:26. > :47:30.deliver what a number of people believe it will. My mailbag and
:47:31. > :47:40.other colleagues' mailbags have been dominated by this subject, as you
:47:41. > :47:44.can imagine, for weeks. The Bill is very tightly-drafted. Many people
:47:45. > :47:49.who have had desperate experiences in this area wouldn't have been
:47:50. > :47:52.covered by the Bill, thus does it go through and keep that title? Does
:47:53. > :47:56.that necessarily mean that later down the track it has to be
:47:57. > :48:00.broadened? Your point of view, at this juncture, is you would like to
:48:01. > :48:04.see a Bill that covers more people in the situations that you have
:48:05. > :48:09.described so they could take a decision or get others to do it for
:48:10. > :48:12.them in terms of a right-to-die? I think if you are on that side of the
:48:13. > :48:17.argument, you have to accept it needs to be broadened for it to be a
:48:18. > :48:22.coherent argument. Where are you? I don't think we are in a position to
:48:23. > :48:27.pass this legislation. There's probably a case for this being the
:48:28. > :48:33.start of a national debate around this potential to have a Royal
:48:34. > :48:37.Commission to get into this area. I don't believe the legislation should
:48:38. > :48:46.be passed. What do you think? I do support the Bill. It is a very good
:48:47. > :48:51.Bill. It is very narrowly-drawn. We need to make sure that they get the
:48:52. > :48:56.protection that they need. How do you do that? The voice that often
:48:57. > :48:59.isn't heard is the person that is suffering in the last months of
:49:00. > :49:05.their lives. I have been through this with a number of relatives. I
:49:06. > :49:09.know how limited palliative care is. I know what my own decision would be
:49:10. > :49:14.in many of the circumstances that they went through. I'm very
:49:15. > :49:19.supportive of this Bill. I will be up north for part of the day. Are
:49:20. > :49:25.you happy with the idea that there could be people in vulnerable
:49:26. > :49:26.situations who aren't making decisions with enough of a state of
:49:27. > :49:29.mind to do so, that decisions with enough of a state of
:49:30. > :49:34.taken advantage of, that actually they make that decision in distress,
:49:35. > :49:39.there isn't good enough palliative care and they needn't take that
:49:40. > :49:44.decision to end their life? I think that one must have respect for the
:49:45. > :49:50.capacity of people. There are safeguards in this Bill. It deals
:49:51. > :49:57.with people who have been identified as having six months left to live.
:49:58. > :50:02.So, they are in the final stages of their lives. You need two doctors to
:50:03. > :50:07.be engaged in this process. The Bill does draft in - it could be done in
:50:08. > :50:11.a way that is very sensitive to that issue. I also think we have to be
:50:12. > :50:16.very sensitive to the suffering of the individuals who go through these
:50:17. > :50:20.circumstances and aren't able, at the moment, to bring an end to what
:50:21. > :50:25.can be a very difficult time. What is your response to that, Chris?
:50:26. > :50:29.That is one of the curious contradictions within the Bill. None
:50:30. > :50:37.of us would want anybody to suffer one second of unnecessary pain -
:50:38. > :50:44.that's first point. It is curious that you attach a six-month stopgap.
:50:45. > :50:48.Who is to say what suffering somebody may be in, aged 30, with
:50:49. > :50:52.potentially 40 years left? What the Bill is saying those people are
:50:53. > :51:07.condemned to 40 years of suffering because they are not in a terminable
:51:08. > :51:16.state. Two doctors better than one? 100% better than one? And for
:51:17. > :51:20.everybody, what this will do is change the way life, the human
:51:21. > :51:24.condition, is viewed in this country. The arguments from the
:51:25. > :51:33.Netherlands, the arguments from Washington State, look how that
:51:34. > :51:39.shaped up? I would ask anybody with doubts about the Bill - I respect
:51:40. > :51:43.them - to read the wonderful article by Chris Woodhead in the Sunday
:51:44. > :51:47.Times yesterday. He knows that life is going to get worse for him. He
:51:48. > :51:52.doesn't want to die. He knows that at some stage, he might want to end
:51:53. > :51:57.his own life. This Bill would enable him to do so. The most important
:51:58. > :52:02.thing about Friday is that it opens up the debate in Parliament so I
:52:03. > :52:07.very much hope it isn't voted down at Second Reading. Parliament
:52:08. > :52:14.deserves space for this sort of debate whatever side of the argument
:52:15. > :52:22.you are on. I agree very much with Jan on that. The Church - it's a big
:52:23. > :52:28.issue for them? It opens up and says people of great faith - and there
:52:29. > :52:33.are many - can reconcile to this decision. Will that have an
:52:34. > :52:38.influence on public support? Well, the public are already supportive of
:52:39. > :52:43.this. I do think the importance is going to be the debate itself. I
:52:44. > :52:50.hope very much that isn't going to be truncated. It will be important
:52:51. > :52:55.parliamentary procedure doesn't stop this in its track. Alright.
:52:56. > :52:58.Now, it might sound like something out of Star Wars, but the UK might
:52:59. > :53:02.Ministers have drawn up plans which could see a hub for space tourism
:53:03. > :53:06.What will that mean for British business and the likelihood
:53:07. > :53:09.of ordinary people being able to swap their summer holidays
:53:10. > :53:23.Could commercial spaceflights be about to take off in Britain? One
:53:24. > :53:27.man hoping so is Richard Branson, with whose company expects to launch
:53:28. > :53:31.its first flights in America by the end of the year.
:53:32. > :53:38.# I'm a Rocket Man. # Not to be outdone, David Willets has
:53:39. > :53:43.drawn up a short list of potential sites. He says space tourism could
:53:44. > :53:47.become much more affordable within a few decades, so are we about to see
:53:48. > :53:56.spacecraft like this in the skies above Cornwall, Scotland or Wales?
:53:57. > :53:59.Looks fantastic. Bearing in mind people might say that we can't get
:54:00. > :54:07.the railways right, how are we going to manage with space travel? It is
:54:08. > :54:11.brilliant. Something like - we make ?11 billion a year out of space for
:54:12. > :54:16.the economy. Young people - we are trying to get into engineering, to
:54:17. > :54:20.be excited about possibilities and to dream ahead. They will be stirred
:54:21. > :54:25.by all of this. One of the things we are doing is we are changing British
:54:26. > :54:30.industry to take advantage of the extraordinary research skills and
:54:31. > :54:37.engineering capabilities to be cutting-edge and we are doing a
:54:38. > :54:43.whole series of areas. This is cutting-edge. Where would you put
:54:44. > :54:47.it, Jan? We need high skills and good jobs up-and-down the country.
:54:48. > :54:52.I'm from the South West. Personally, I would... You are going to put it
:54:53. > :54:56.in Cornwall, are you? That is a personal opinion, of course. I hope
:54:57. > :55:02.we all reach for the stars. Well done. You spent your whole political
:55:03. > :55:06.career fighting Heathrow expansion and here we are going to have a
:55:07. > :55:11.great big runway for spacecraft? There are better ways to travel! It
:55:12. > :55:19.is hardly going to be for the masses? This is not going to be a
:55:20. > :55:24.mass form of travel - and I hope we don't have stag nights in space! It
:55:25. > :55:31.is cutting-edge. It is exciting. Britain is back in the game and
:55:32. > :55:34.people need to know that. And at the front of scientific development and
:55:35. > :55:40.that's the marker we are putting down. Are you as big a fan, Chris?
:55:41. > :55:44.Eight possible locations. Right. We will go through them in a minute.
:55:45. > :55:53.Are you a big fan, Chris? Very much so. We need to regenerate our
:55:54. > :55:59.economy in every single way we can. I'm on the digital skills committee
:56:00. > :56:06.in the Lords. We could get 10%... Could you, though? Given the rise of
:56:07. > :56:11.China and India, how is that going to be achieved? It is possible. Look
:56:12. > :56:17.at the quality of our engineers... We haven't got enough of them. We
:56:18. > :56:21.will have. Is that what it is about? Look what it will do if the decision
:56:22. > :56:25.is that it ends up in Scotland. What a great way to have such an
:56:26. > :56:29.important hub in the north of Scotland and that really underlines
:56:30. > :56:35.the point that by being part of the UK, it is not about dogma, it is
:56:36. > :56:39.about jobs. Can I say something? The exact location doesn't matter.
:56:40. > :56:44.Doesn't it? It will to the local community. Clearly. It will stir
:56:45. > :56:48.people up-and-down the country. Every university that has this kind
:56:49. > :56:52.of capacity will be able to get excited about this. Except for where
:56:53. > :56:58.it is going to be. Scotland is one of the locations? I have no idea. I
:56:59. > :57:05.see. Have you got any preference? If I stated a preference, people would
:57:06. > :57:13.think I had knowledge - I have none! Susan might get the first flight,
:57:14. > :57:19.though! How does it fit with your cost of living crisis? Very
:57:20. > :57:23.difficult. We do need well-qualified, skilled jobs and I
:57:24. > :57:27.hope food banks will not be necessary in the future. OK.
:57:28. > :57:31.Just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:57:32. > :57:34.The question was - how many World Cup matches did the German
:57:35. > :57:56.Two. One. Two. It is two. She went early on. I don't know if you saw
:57:57. > :58:00.the pictures last night - what do you think t about leaders attending
:58:01. > :58:04.big sporting events like this? If England were playing in the World
:58:05. > :58:08.Cup Final and our political leaders didn't go, I think their throats
:58:09. > :58:12.would be cut. What about going at the beginning, Chris? They have got
:58:13. > :58:17.a very good team, Germany. But to go at the beginning is nailing your
:58:18. > :58:22.colours to the mast? It is good for all political leaders to get behind
:58:23. > :58:26.their sports teams. It was brilliant to have that political support
:58:27. > :58:30.having competed at four Games. When you go out there, you are
:58:31. > :58:33.representing Great Britain, or England, to have your politicians
:58:34. > :58:35.behind you, it makes a difference. It is good for Britain. Let's hope
:58:36. > :58:39.they do better next time round. That's all for today. Thanks to
:58:40. > :58:42.Susan, Jan, and Chris. The One O'Clock News is starting
:58:43. > :58:44.over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with
:58:45. > :58:47.all the big political stories of the day, so do join me then.
:58:48. > :59:12.Bye-bye. MUSIC: "Edward Scissorhands
:59:13. > :59:15.Introduction" by Danny Elfman