14/07/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

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



Hello, welcome to the Daily Politics.


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


will stand down over criticism of her appointment.


David Cameron prepares to reshuffle the Conservatives in his cabinet


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


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


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


Ministers want Britain to have its own commercial spaceport


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


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


Westminster journalists, Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and


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


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


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


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


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


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


law and had done child abuse enquiries before and have the


knowledge and expertise and background. But clearly some people


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


general, Michael Havens, was involved in paedophile prosecutions


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


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


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


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


involved in certain cases and enquiries were some victims had felt


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


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


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


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


which he said there was a widespread perception, particularly amongst


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


looking at public institutions where certainly over the past few days


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


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


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


When the cases extend into Westminster and Whitehall and into


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


David Cameron's reshuffle of Conservative ministers.


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


And expect old faces to make way for new ones.


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


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


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


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


The papers are also suggesting that former Defence Secretary Liam Fox


could make a surprise return to Government.


There has been so much speculation about the reshuffle partly because


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


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


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


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


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


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


calculation and whether she should campaign or will a high profile


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


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


school admitted women, but he normally surrounds himself with


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


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


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


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


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


and pensions there has been speculation over Iain Duncan Smith.


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


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


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


old job as Minister without portfolio and she could become the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


forward is that David Cameron would move George Osborne from future


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


look kindly at a female Commissioner? David Cameron now


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


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


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


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


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


German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Here she is celebrating with


the team afterwards. She jumped for joy when they scored


the goal. How many World Cup matches


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


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


David Cameron is trying to increase the number of women


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


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


launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group for women


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


on unprofessional and rowdy behaviour in the Commons


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


stop women parliamentarians from being mistaken for staff


and there should be training to help improve parliamentary


candidates' confidence. The report criticises


the masculine atmosphere of Parliament and suggests a gender


audit of artwork currently on display in the Palace of Westminster


arguing that the environment can be Finally the MPs want the


Culture Media and Sport Select Committee to review sexism in both


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


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


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


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


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


female politicians into parliament it starts changing the culture and


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


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


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


changing issues and making a difference to communities and people


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


backgrounds -- a range of backgrounds to start making a


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


lists in the Conservative party and the Conservatives have never done


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


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


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


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


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


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


think commissioning a gender audit of artwork in Westminster will


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


about being assertive themselves rather than feminising Parliament? I


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


from Margaret Thatcher in the members lobby which most people


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


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


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


building, so would it make a difference to modernise the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


so he MPs often then mocking other ones,


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


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


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


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


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


think of anything worse than a passionless prime ministers


questions because people get worked up because they like the issues


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


trust. Thank you. How much competition should the


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


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


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


universal service. Sending a letter used to be a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


delivered come from a TNT employee rather than the traditional Royal


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


hitch. The newcomers are only delivering to the most profitable


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


General Secretary of the communication service workers union.


It is allowing competition that there threaten profitability. Is it


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Why then is Ofcom saying their current evidence clearly shows that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the first place? through competition, and if you


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


because good competition can be healthy but if you have somebody


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


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


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


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


published today. Last week David Cameron and


Nick Clegg announced the Government would rush the bill through


in record time to ensure that the police and security services


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


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


earlier this year. Last week the Home Secretary was


questioned by MPs about the emergency Bill. Here's


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


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


declining communications data capability to which we must return


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


police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the


criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this


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


data overnight with the consequence that police investigations will


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


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


rush without the proper consideration of the privacy and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


leader of the House of Lords and the Conservative peer Lord


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


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


them emergency legislation quest not where the Lib Dems dragging their


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


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


important that, along with what is basically maintaining the existing


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


process and there will be an oversight committee and the


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


powers of investigation and there will be more civil liberties


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


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


hence the comments by some backbenchers saying it has been


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


These are important Civil Liberties steps, but the most substantive


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


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


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


convinced. It will new parliament and public not


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


recognise since this came into force that there have been profound


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


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


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


Justice ruling said that the regulations breached a fundamental


rights to respect for private life, regulations breached a fundamental


but are you worried that those companies who could face legal


challenges from people who have said companies who could face legal


you have held data and information illegally since


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


There companies will have got rid of it?


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


potentially dangerous on activities going on in our country at the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


new chair would be appointed within a few days.


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


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


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


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


difficulties, particularly with vulnerable survivors who are nervous


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


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


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


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


judgement on behalf of the government in appointing her and not


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


statement, this is very much a victims and survivors focused


investigation, therefore these people must have confidence in her.


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


Secretary and difficult position by the Home


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the former Labour Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer - which would allow


doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients with less than six months


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


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


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


But the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby,


has described the attempt to legalise assisted dying as


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


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


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


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


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


of MPS and Peers including David Blunkett and Baroness Tanni


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


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


We must not enact laws which will endanger the lives of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the Disability Rights Commission? This is the most significant debate


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Netherlands, the arguments from Washington State, look how that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


What will that mean for British business and the likelihood


of ordinary people being able to swap their summer holidays


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


industry to take advantage of the extraordinary research skills and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


important hub in the north of Scotland and that really underlines


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


representing Great Britain, or England, to have your politicians


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


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


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


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


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


Bye-bye. MUSIC: "Edward Scissorhands


Introduction" by Danny Elfman


Download Subtitles