:00:35. > :00:40.David Cameron's been a busy bee this morning conducting the most
:00:41. > :00:42.far-reaching Government reshuffle since he became Prime Minister.
:00:43. > :00:46.Phillip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary, taking over from William
:00:47. > :00:55.The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is moved to Chief Whip.
:00:56. > :00:58.There'll be more women around the Cabinet table.
:00:59. > :01:01.A long time coming some would say, but are departing male ministers
:01:02. > :01:08.The European Commission's also been dishing out jobs this morning.
:01:09. > :01:11.It's got a new president, Jean Claude Juncker.
:01:12. > :01:15.And "mistaken and dangerous" or " an act of kindness"?
:01:16. > :01:18.The House of Lords debates assisted dying on Friday.
:01:19. > :01:26.We'll be talking to the man behind the Bill, Lord Falconer.
:01:27. > :01:32.And with us for the duration is Sir Paul Coleridge, who was
:01:33. > :01:34.a high court judge in the Marriage Division until just recently.
:01:35. > :01:43.Now, without further ado, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of David
:01:44. > :01:46.Cameron's reshuffle - the most extensive since he took office.
:01:47. > :01:51.It's already been dubbed the cull of the white, middle-aged man, or the
:01:52. > :01:59.So let's have a look at who's out and who's in.
:02:00. > :02:02.The big news last night was that William Hague is leaving the
:02:03. > :02:08.He is going to be the new Leader of the House of Commons before he steps
:02:09. > :02:15.The current Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, will replace
:02:16. > :02:19.The new Defence Secretary will be Michael Fallon,
:02:20. > :02:22.who is promoted from his job at the Department for Business.
:02:23. > :02:24.The other big news today is that Michael Gove is moving
:02:25. > :02:28.from the Department for Education to become the new Chief Whip.
:02:29. > :02:31.Nicky Morgan, currently a Treasury Minister, will replace Mr Gove
:02:32. > :02:39.Another big move is Liz Truss, who is promoted to Cabinet
:02:40. > :02:44.The Prime Minister has also announced that Lord Hill,
:02:45. > :02:47.the current Leader of the Lords, will be his nomination
:02:48. > :02:51.Let's talk to our Deputy Political Editor, James
:02:52. > :03:05.James, this is far more radical and dramatic than you, or I or anyone
:03:06. > :03:09.expected. Ye, it is the Prime Minister has gone to make a bold
:03:10. > :03:13.statement here. Most reshoveles fairly percolate out of Westminster
:03:14. > :03:16.as people sit here and say - somebody replaced by somebody else I
:03:17. > :03:20.didn't know. This is radical enough to breakthrough and say - there is
:03:21. > :03:24.real change going on. A new Foreign Secretary. Will that bring any
:03:25. > :03:28.change in foreign policy, particularly in Europe? William
:03:29. > :03:31.Hague being replaced by Philip Hammond the former Defence
:03:32. > :03:36.Secretary. Philip Hammond last a track record of being eurosceptic.
:03:37. > :03:42.He has in the past allowed the idea to go twha he, if he had a chance,
:03:43. > :03:46.if there was a referendum now, that he would be tempted to vote no and
:03:47. > :03:48.we should leave the European Union. We have Michael Gove leaving
:03:49. > :03:54.education to become Chief Whip. Fascinating. Number Ten insisting it
:03:55. > :03:59.is not a demotion. But he is not a full men of the Cabinet. He will be
:04:00. > :04:02.paid less. His aim is to communicate the Government's policies over the
:04:03. > :04:05.next ten months. What does it mean for education? Education has been a
:04:06. > :04:09.big message for the Government. They have been driving the reforms
:04:10. > :04:12.through, primarily because of Michael Gove's energy and passion
:04:13. > :04:15.for that job. Has it now been a question that that drive, that
:04:16. > :04:19.passion was beginning to look arrogant and perhaps was urning it
:04:20. > :04:26.off some voters, particularly those in the education world - was turning
:04:27. > :04:29.off some voters. And parents. Number Ten insist the education reforms
:04:30. > :04:33.will carry on. A lot of change. The interesting question is what they
:04:34. > :04:36.will do in the new posts? Let's pick up on that. You mentioned Michael
:04:37. > :04:40.Gove, Chief Whip, William Hague, stepping down as Foreign Secretary,
:04:41. > :04:43.becoming Leader of the House. Is this the case of senior figures
:04:44. > :04:49.being released now because this Government is on election footing?
:04:50. > :04:53.We have just got the latest arrival. Penny Morden who appeared. You heard
:04:54. > :04:58.it there - in the programme called Splash. She did very well when she
:04:59. > :05:02.gave a speech just after the Queen's Speech a few weeks ago and the Prime
:05:03. > :05:05.Minister was known to favour her. We expect her to be another of those
:05:06. > :05:08.women who will make gains. The interesting question, as you say,
:05:09. > :05:11.Jo, is the Government now on election footing. The answer is,
:05:12. > :05:15.yes, it is. It has been for sometime. William Hague and Michael
:05:16. > :05:20.Gove have been freed up from busy jobs to be able to get on the -
:05:21. > :05:22.Gove have been freed up from busy the Prime Minister's official
:05:23. > :05:25.spokesman, not even the political spokesman, not even the political
:05:26. > :05:29.Service spokesman said -- you can expect to see an awful lot of
:05:30. > :05:32.Michael goal of on radio and television channels in the months
:05:33. > :05:37.ahead. The interesting question is - how else are they going to reshape
:05:38. > :05:40.the Government? Will they have a huge increase in women? All the
:05:41. > :05:45.middle ranking ministers have coming in to get their jobs now. I think we
:05:46. > :05:49.will get a very large number of them women by the end. As you say, it is
:05:50. > :05:51.about presentation, it is about the Government renewing itself in
:05:52. > :05:54.office. It is something all governments try to do. They try to
:05:55. > :05:59.change the personnel. The question is, will it work this time. We will
:06:00. > :06:03.come back to you in a few minutes tripe. Maybe more face also have
:06:04. > :06:06.gone in and out of the famous black door behind you. There has been
:06:07. > :06:13.plenty more activity overnight and this morning at Cabinet level.
:06:14. > :06:15.the current Chief Whip, Sir George Young, Minister without
:06:16. > :06:17.Portfolio, Ken Clarke, Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson
:06:18. > :06:31.Other big names are also out - Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,
:06:32. > :06:36.Leader of the Commons, Andrew Lansley, Universities Minister,
:06:37. > :06:37.David Willetts, International Development Minister, Alan Duncan,
:06:38. > :06:40.Also leaving Government are Oliver Heald, Nick Hurd,
:06:41. > :06:43.Andrew Robathan, Stephen Hammond, Greg Barker and Hugh Robertson.
:06:44. > :06:48.Esther McVey stays as Employment Minister
:06:49. > :06:53.The new Attorney General is Jeremy Wright, currently
:06:54. > :06:58.Stephen Crabb is promoted to Cabinet as the new Secretary of State
:06:59. > :07:06.Greg Clark is the new Minister for Science and Universities
:07:07. > :07:13.And Matt Hancock is also promoted to Energy Minister
:07:14. > :07:22.Let's go back to James Landale in Downing Street.
:07:23. > :07:32.We will go back there in a few minutes' time. We saw before we left
:07:33. > :07:37.him there, Penny Mordent. MP, who went into number Ten and I think
:07:38. > :07:43.following on her footsteps was Amber Rudd. I think we can talk to James
:07:44. > :07:50.who is in position outside number Ten. What do you think of the charge
:07:51. > :07:55.that this is the cull of white middle-aged, men, is it fair? It is
:07:56. > :07:58.an apt description. A lot of white, middle-aged men have lost their
:07:59. > :08:02.jobs, who have been Conservativing in the Cabinet, and have lost their
:08:03. > :08:06.jobs. Most have gone relatively gracefully. What will happen now, is
:08:07. > :08:11.one or two of them who are now seething behind closed doors will
:08:12. > :08:14.wait for their moment to explode and write an article for a Sunday
:08:15. > :08:17.newspaper or give an interview in which they will express their
:08:18. > :08:21.concern about how they were sacked unfairly and it is unfair. Basically
:08:22. > :08:25.a lot of these people have done reasonable jobs. The Prime Minister
:08:26. > :08:29.does not think they have done a bad job. He simply needs to renew the
:08:30. > :08:32.Government. It is always a tough call to make. Those MPs, those
:08:33. > :08:36.ministers who lost their jobs in the last major reshuffle two years ago,
:08:37. > :08:41.they, many of them are still pretty angry, I can tell you. They can
:08:42. > :08:45.cause trouble on the backbenches. The issue now is we are now ten
:08:46. > :08:48.months away from a general election. The pressure for party discipline is
:08:49. > :08:54.such that the calculation Downing Street will be making is that - the
:08:55. > :08:59.angry, sacked dismissed ex-ministers will feel enough sense of electoral
:09:00. > :09:05.loyal Tyne a desire to be re-elected themselves, that they will not rock
:09:06. > :09:10.the boat too much. One or two will not follow that pattern. But felt
:09:11. > :09:13.vulnerable to the charge that they zrnt a diverse enough looking
:09:14. > :09:17.Cabinet and Government? Yes and this is something that all the three
:09:18. > :09:22.largest parties at Westminster are acutely aware of, both in terms of
:09:23. > :09:26.frontbenches and governments but in terms of the MPs they have selected.
:09:27. > :09:30.It is not just about employment. It is about the number of women to
:09:31. > :09:34.apply to have the jobs. A lot of surveys suggests that many women are
:09:35. > :09:38.put off entering politics because of the nature of British politics. It
:09:39. > :09:41.is something they want tow counter. Whether or not the Prime Minister
:09:42. > :09:46.achieves his aim today in having a third of the Government made up of
:09:47. > :09:51.women by the end of the day, but that was the tall order some years
:09:52. > :09:53.ago he set himself. We will come back to you later and you can give
:09:54. > :09:55.us an update. With us now is the former Welsh
:09:56. > :09:58.Secretary, Cheryl Gillan and the former Children's Minister, Tim
:09:59. > :10:04.Loughton. Cheryl, has it been a long time
:10:05. > :10:08.coming this, promotion of women? I think it probably has, yes. I think
:10:09. > :10:12.women are not only underrepresented in Parliament but they have been
:10:13. > :10:16.unrepresented in Conservative ministerial ranks for many moons.
:10:17. > :10:20.When you consider, when I was made a Cabinet minister in 2010, I was only
:10:21. > :10:25.the fifth Conservative woman ever to serve at Cabinet level. I think
:10:26. > :10:29.that's a crying shame. There are 49 women on our bedges and there's
:10:30. > :10:34.plenty of talent. What -- on our benches. What I have been pleased to
:10:35. > :10:39.see is some of these women who have been promoted I think are tip-top
:10:40. > :10:44.and will outperform the men. Who? Let's look at Niki Morgan. She is in
:10:45. > :10:48.the Cabinet from the Treasury to replace plyingal Gove. Is she up to
:10:49. > :10:52.the job of carrying on with those reforms? I think she is. I don't
:10:53. > :10:57.think that would be a question you would scoff a man going into that
:10:58. > :11:01.position. I think she has been a feisty character she has singularity
:11:02. > :11:08.of mind, good education and she will make aed good job. She follow in the
:11:09. > :11:10.footsteps of Gillian Shepherd, a first-class Education Secretary.
:11:11. > :11:15.Nobody questioned whether she was up to the job. Liz Truss, I was with
:11:16. > :11:19.her last night, she is a very feisty, capable woman who knows what
:11:20. > :11:23.she wants in terms of both her family life and the balance she has
:11:24. > :11:27.there as well as her political career and what she gives to the
:11:28. > :11:32.country. I think we should welcome those appointments. Any other women
:11:33. > :11:38.you would like to have seen in? I don't want to see women promoted too
:11:39. > :11:42.rapidly without that hinterland and that political hinterland they need
:11:43. > :11:45.to be able to develop well in ministerial roles. I think he has
:11:46. > :11:50.chosen well with the people he has put N he is letting other women
:11:51. > :11:55.attend Cabinet but not of Cabinet rank, a good way of bringing them
:11:56. > :11:58.on. Don't forget, the Prime Minister has very little room to manoeuvre
:11:59. > :12:03.because he has Liberal Democrat posts to fill. He has undergone a
:12:04. > :12:07.radical reshuffle of the pack here. He has. I think it is important in a
:12:08. > :12:11.run-up to an election that a Prime Minister - this is his trump card,
:12:12. > :12:15.and what Prime Ministers do, that they can reshuffle the pack, but can
:12:16. > :12:19.I say that is not to say that I don't think there has been equally,
:12:20. > :12:24.very, very capable men who have left office. Right. You, Tim Loughton, we
:12:25. > :12:28.could say you are a middle-aged white man. Not that pale. You lost
:12:29. > :12:32.your ministerial job last time round. You know how it feels. How
:12:33. > :12:40.much resentment will there be? It was before the last time around. It
:12:41. > :12:43.was 2012. It is a horrible thing reshoveles. Both for the Prime
:12:44. > :12:47.Minister and the person on the wrong end of the rankings. But it is
:12:48. > :12:51.particularly annoying because you think you are doing a good job and
:12:52. > :12:55.you have kept your nose clean and you get some plaudits in the press
:12:56. > :12:58.but still you have to make way for somebody else and it is particularly
:12:59. > :13:02.galling. But that's politics. Politics isn't fair. As Jameses a
:13:03. > :13:06.saying earlier, the reshuffle isn't fair. I agree with Cheryl. There is
:13:07. > :13:12.really good women coming through entirely on talent. Pound-for-pound,
:13:13. > :13:17.I would say, that the women who were brought in in 2010, without do many
:13:18. > :13:22.of the men. There is talented people. The trouble s you don't want
:13:23. > :13:27.to promote them too early. Have they been promoted too quickly? Nicky
:13:28. > :13:32.Morgan, great talent. She took to being a minister like a duck to
:13:33. > :13:38.water. She has a big brief. She has a marginal seat. Liz Truss, another
:13:39. > :13:42.natural. They have been bumped up but we are eight or nine months away
:13:43. > :13:45.for campaigning from a general election and many people investment
:13:46. > :13:50.marginal seats. That will be a consideration. Do you think and do
:13:51. > :13:54.you agree the charge that this is a cull, if you like, that actually
:13:55. > :13:58.someone might say - sexists, do you think it is fair? Of course it is
:13:59. > :14:03.not fair. James said it wasn't fair. No reshuffle is fair. But what I
:14:04. > :14:06.think is fair is that the women who are coming forward are really good
:14:07. > :14:10.talents, will do great jobs as ministers and will portray a good
:14:11. > :14:14.face for the Tory Party that has been missing. Will this cut through,
:14:15. > :14:18.Paul coal ridge, to the general public who, most to of the time at
:14:19. > :14:20.reof shovels, people always say moving in one person you don't know
:14:21. > :14:26.being replaced by another? ? I moving in one person you don't know
:14:27. > :14:30.it is radical, so I think it is tribe a chord but this is surely all
:14:31. > :14:33.about positioning, as James Landale said, for the next general election,
:14:34. > :14:36.and that s I would imagine, the overwhelming consideration in
:14:37. > :14:42.Government at the moment. So, this is all about, I suppose, making sure
:14:43. > :14:48.you present a new, fresh, image to the public, you ditch all the people
:14:49. > :14:52.who bring with them a lot of rather unpleasant policy decisions that
:14:53. > :15:01.have gone on in the last few years and you present a new image to the
:15:02. > :15:04.electorate. Is this a friendlier face of the Conservative Government?
:15:05. > :15:08.Is this what David Cameron is trying to do? People who are telegenic, who
:15:09. > :15:13.will be able to communicate the message - that this is about a
:15:14. > :15:18.cinder, friendlier face, or is that not how you see it? I very much am
:15:19. > :15:23.hoping it is not as shallow as you are trying to make it out to be, I
:15:24. > :15:27.don't think it is necessarily about looking good on TV or promoting
:15:28. > :15:31.women for president sake of it. They have to be able to do the job. I
:15:32. > :15:35.think that these particular women, will be able to cut mustard but I
:15:36. > :15:38.agree with Paul, I think the Prime Minister needed to have a new and
:15:39. > :15:43.fresh approach and I think that he is sharpening up the party for what
:15:44. > :15:52.is going to be a very hard fight in this next general election. And we
:15:53. > :15:55.need politics that is constantly being lampooned at being out of
:15:56. > :15:59.touch with the people, we only have three women in Cabinet, that is not
:16:00. > :16:03.right or fair, when we have such intelligent women who should be in
:16:04. > :16:07.Cabinet. We are starting to see that. David Cameron might have
:16:08. > :16:11.wanted to get rid of people who had too much baggage, do you think that
:16:12. > :16:17.is the case with your boss, Michael Gove, deemed too controversial? I am
:16:18. > :16:23.probably not the right person to be asked about Michael Gove. But it was
:16:24. > :16:30.probably right. But he is being moved to Chief Whip, to bring the
:16:31. > :16:33.whip to bear on everybody else! Be afraid, be very afraid! We were
:16:34. > :16:37.surprised, and there is a big irony here because I think the education
:16:38. > :16:40.reforms have been one of the big successes of this government.
:16:41. > :16:45.Michael, whether you like him or not, he is controversial, took on
:16:46. > :16:49.the mediocre educational establishment and force through a
:16:50. > :16:56.lot of changes. Or alienating the educational establishment. The irony
:16:57. > :16:59.is that he is seen as a divisive and controversial figure, so in opinion
:17:00. > :17:06.poll terms it is not done us the good it deserves to have done. That
:17:07. > :17:10.is the problem. Let's see about Owen Paterson, you could have said a
:17:11. > :17:15.cheerleader for the right. Will there be unhappiness about that on
:17:16. > :17:19.the backbenches? Yes, I think so, because Owen is seen very much as a
:17:20. > :17:23.flag waver for the right and the Eurosceptic side of the party. I
:17:24. > :17:26.also hope with the two vacancies into which the two women have gone,
:17:27. > :17:30.there will not be this discussion about, are these two breeds that are
:17:31. > :17:39.associated with women? Why do we have Michael Fallon - macro two
:17:40. > :17:46.briefs. Why do we have Michael Fallon going in as Defence Secretary
:17:47. > :17:51.when we do not have a woman? He has tried to make sure, David Cameron,
:17:52. > :17:54.that we put the message across that this party has changed. He has been
:17:55. > :17:59.consistent on that right from the beginning when he stood as leader
:18:00. > :18:02.for the party. He came in as leader of the party to change the face of
:18:03. > :18:05.this party, and that is what he's doing, and my colleagues and myself
:18:06. > :18:09.have to understand that nobody is indispensable. There always live
:18:10. > :18:14.after a reshuffle on the backbenches, and Tim and I know
:18:15. > :18:18.that. There speaks the voice of experience from the backbenches. If
:18:19. > :18:22.you are disappointed about Owen Paterson going, are you pleased that
:18:23. > :18:25.Philip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary? Do you think he will
:18:26. > :18:33.bolster that Eurosceptic feeling? Yes, I think it is a good
:18:34. > :18:38.appointment. I came in at the same time as Philip. The whole story will
:18:39. > :18:45.be about renegotiating with Europe ahead of a referendum. William has
:18:46. > :18:49.done one a fantastic job. One of the best foreign secretaries, but has
:18:50. > :18:52.not been outspoken on euro scepticism as many would like to be
:18:53. > :18:58.and like it or not, that will be the name of the game, post-2015. Dominic
:18:59. > :19:03.Grieve, finally, sacked from being Attorney General, some say partly
:19:04. > :19:06.because he supported the European Convention on human rights. How do
:19:07. > :19:11.you view that from a legal perspective? I think it is a very
:19:12. > :19:14.political decision to make. The idea of having a different Attorney
:19:15. > :19:20.General putting a different spin on the attitude of the courts towards
:19:21. > :19:23.the European convention on human rights is in reality Fantasy
:19:24. > :19:27.Football Club a present from a political point of view at the time
:19:28. > :19:30.of the election, it may prevent a feeling that perhaps the government
:19:31. > :19:37.are less friendly towards the EEC H R than they are in fact. This is a
:19:38. > :19:43.piece of legislation now so deeply entrenched in the way the courts
:19:44. > :19:46.work. Removing the Attorney General is really peripheral. We are going
:19:47. > :19:50.to leave it there, thank you very much.
:19:51. > :19:52.is really peripheral. We are going to leave Ken Clarke and Owen
:19:53. > :19:53.Paterson are not the only Westminster figures who have found
:19:54. > :19:56.themselves out of a job this week. Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was
:19:57. > :19:59.appointed only last week by Home Secretary Theresa May, yesterday
:20:00. > :20:01.announced that she would step down as chairman of the new inquiry
:20:02. > :20:04.into alleged child abuse by the establishment,
:20:05. > :20:05.citing what she called a widespread perception that she was
:20:06. > :20:08.the wrong person for the job. It was just in time for Mrs May to
:20:09. > :20:12.appear in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, where she was
:20:13. > :20:14.grilled over her due diligence in appointing the baroness,
:20:15. > :20:16.in particular, claims that Baroness Butler-Sloss's brother
:20:17. > :20:30.Michael Havers had attempted to play I believe that the experience of
:20:31. > :20:34.Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had, and her personal integrity... We all accept
:20:35. > :20:38.this, we are all great fans of Elisabeth Butler-Sloss's integrity,
:20:39. > :20:44.that is not in question. What we have that to you twice is did you
:20:45. > :20:48.know of this specific incident involving Mr Dickens and Sir Michael
:20:49. > :20:51.Havers? This is an issue that has been raised in the last few days,
:20:52. > :20:57.and it has surfaced in the last few days as far as I am concerned. Do we
:20:58. > :21:03.take that as being a no? I have answer the question in the way I
:21:04. > :21:10.wish to answer it, chairman. Did Juno Baroness Butler-Sloss, I
:21:11. > :21:13.presume? Very well. She has been a figure in my professional life since
:21:14. > :21:21.the very day I started, many, many decades ago. She started as a junior
:21:22. > :21:25.judge, she worked her way up. She is universally respected. In the last
:21:26. > :21:27.few decades, she has been the president of the family division,
:21:28. > :21:33.the biggest family job in the country. She was chairman, as we
:21:34. > :21:36.know, of the extraordinarily important Cliveden enquiry which
:21:37. > :21:41.looked at the passing of the children's act. There is frankly
:21:42. > :21:45.nobody... That is not true, there are very few people who have her
:21:46. > :21:49.experience, and she is also a woman of most extraordinary wisdom and
:21:50. > :21:53.common sense. But was she right to resign from her appointment to head
:21:54. > :21:59.up this enquiry? I think she provably was. I suspect nobody had
:22:00. > :22:04.given proper thought to this angle at the time she was appointed.
:22:05. > :22:08.Really? You don't think the Home Secretary should have thought about
:22:09. > :22:11.it, should have thought about how sensitive it was? Somebody must have
:22:12. > :22:15.slightly dropped the ball in not noticing that her brother had been
:22:16. > :22:20.involved in the government many, many decades ago, perhaps. I think
:22:21. > :22:29.if that had been properly considered at the time, she would probably not
:22:30. > :22:37.have been considered for the job. She is a woman of huge wisdom, and
:22:38. > :22:41.has come to the decision I think quite rightly that if she was to
:22:42. > :22:47.make findings which were not finding is that some of the victims want to
:22:48. > :22:52.be made, the comment would always be made, well, she would say that,
:22:53. > :22:56.wouldn't she, because she is protecting her. And protecting the
:22:57. > :23:04.establishment. I don't think I am very impressed by that, but possibly
:23:05. > :23:09.her brother. The problem is who do you get to head up an enquiry with a
:23:10. > :23:13.similar level of expertise? The problem here is that people don't
:23:14. > :23:20.trust the establishment, and having an establishment figure will make it
:23:21. > :23:22.difficult. There are non-establishment judges, I would
:23:23. > :23:27.rather not mention names, but there are judges I can think of who have
:23:28. > :23:32.retired quite recently and have had no particular connections with
:23:33. > :23:34.government and have had no big jobs like President of the family
:23:35. > :23:38.division who would certainly be up to doing this. Child abuse is the
:23:39. > :23:43.meat and drink of the family division. And we get appointed to do
:23:44. > :23:47.these kind of specific enquiries from time to time, and I don't
:23:48. > :23:51.think, if they spend a little time, it won't be difficult to find
:23:52. > :23:56.somebody who has the expertise. Was it right for the Prime Minister to
:23:57. > :24:00.call for this overarching enquiry into child abuse? I think it was. As
:24:01. > :24:04.everybody says, things have changed very dramatically in the course of
:24:05. > :24:09.the last 30 years, particularly since the passing of the children's
:24:10. > :24:13.act. But these skeletons in the cupboard, if they exist, need to be
:24:14. > :24:19.brought out and exposed and dealt with in the same way as all these
:24:20. > :24:21.other cases have come to light. I don't think we can shove all this
:24:22. > :24:27.stuff under the carpet any more. Jean-Claude Juncker has been
:24:28. > :24:29.speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning, ahead
:24:30. > :24:32.of a debate and vote on approving his appointment as President
:24:33. > :24:34.of the European Commission. The session was basically seen
:24:35. > :24:55.as a rubber stamp for Mr Juncker, What about Britain? I am defending
:24:56. > :24:57.the single currency, because the single currency is protecting
:24:58. > :25:12.Europe, its economy, its citizens. But in reality, you know and we know
:25:13. > :25:17.that none of this really matters. The deal has been done. The spoils
:25:18. > :25:23.have been shared out. The election that was supposed to end all of
:25:24. > :25:29.these deals has resulted in the mother of all backroom deals. You
:25:30. > :25:33.know and we know that you are likely to be the next president of the
:25:34. > :25:36.commission, and Mr Juncker, we wish you well, but members of my
:25:37. > :25:40.political group will not be able to vote for you today for two reasons:
:25:41. > :25:45.Firstly, we do not subscribe to the process that brought you here. We do
:25:46. > :25:49.not believe that you have an EU wide mandate that stretches all the way
:25:50. > :25:53.across the memo states. Secondly, members of my group are not yet
:25:54. > :25:57.convinced that you are the right man to lead the charge for European
:25:58. > :26:02.reform. Green so what of our nominee? On the plus side, still
:26:03. > :26:07.Juncker, you are a sociable cove with a much better since of tumour
:26:08. > :26:11.than most people I have met in Brussels. And there is no question
:26:12. > :26:14.that you are a political operator, and you even managed to come over
:26:15. > :26:18.the last couple of weeks, as you have gone around the political
:26:19. > :26:21.groups, changed the mood music of it. You said you don't believe in
:26:22. > :26:25.the United States of Europe, you don't believe in a common European
:26:26. > :26:29.identity, but I have to say I didn't believe a word of it.
:26:30. > :26:33.Joining me now from Strasbourg is the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, and the
:26:34. > :26:37.Labour MEP, Mary Honeyball. Welcome to you both.
:26:38. > :26:43.Daniel Hannan, first of all, just listening to that, is that the taste
:26:44. > :26:49.of things to come, in terms of that rather feisty debate?
:26:50. > :26:57.Yes, and you did not even show the best bits of Juncker. He was calling
:26:58. > :27:01.for a pan European minimum wage, he was calling the 300 billion euros of
:27:02. > :27:06.extra spending, because obviously Europe needs to spend more, that is
:27:07. > :27:09.not the cause of the problem at all! The wonderful passage you showed
:27:10. > :27:14.saying that the single currency was the defender of the people of
:27:15. > :27:17.Europe, that will be news to the 19 million unemployed people in the
:27:18. > :27:21.Eurozone. Then he finished by playing tribute to his heroes, force
:27:22. > :27:24.one that Iran, home and coal. I don't think there could be anyone at
:27:25. > :27:29.this stage how King that the British, was right to vote against
:27:30. > :27:34.him. Clearly, Mr Juncker did not charm you. At the same time he has
:27:35. > :27:39.said I am not in principle saying that no kind of repatriations of
:27:40. > :27:42.powers to Britain can take place. If Westminster wants to recover
:27:43. > :27:46.competencies and others agree, it shall be done. So he might not be
:27:47. > :27:51.this block to reform that you and others have stated. The word he just
:27:52. > :27:54.used for that package was reform. So reform has become absolutely
:27:55. > :28:03.meaningless. When Juncker means it to mean more Europe everywhere.
:28:04. > :28:09.Clearly we need a different word. You are right though, the deal we
:28:10. > :28:12.should be going for is a series of unilateral repatriations which will
:28:13. > :28:16.give something closer to what the Swiss and the Norwegians do, where
:28:17. > :28:21.we are in the free market, but outside the political union. What I
:28:22. > :28:25.think is a mistake is to try to go for a pan European reform. It is
:28:26. > :28:30.very clear that isn't on offer. A man espousing the views you have
:28:31. > :28:36.just shown was elected by 22 governments. Mary Honeyball, you are
:28:37. > :28:41.desperate to come in. As Daniel well knows, that package she has talked
:28:42. > :28:45.about, Britain coming out of the US not on offer, nor I content is
:28:46. > :28:51.actually what the people of the UK actually want. It is only UKIP and
:28:52. > :28:57.some Eurosceptics like Daniel who was to see that. The point I would
:28:58. > :29:02.like to make is that David Cameron, our Prime Minister, really handled
:29:03. > :29:06.the negotiations over Juncker very badly. He missed making the
:29:07. > :29:10.alliances which she could have done, and I believe that if Cameron had
:29:11. > :29:14.been better at doing that, we may not find ourselves in the position
:29:15. > :29:19.of only having Jean-Claude Juncker here today. So I think that David
:29:20. > :29:23.Cameron has a lot to answer for. It is therefore wrong, I think, to talk
:29:24. > :29:27.about this is a stitch up. It is a bit more than a stitch up, and the
:29:28. > :29:32.way it worked was that under the Lisbon Treaty the European party had
:29:33. > :29:38.to be consulted about who would be president of the commission. And the
:29:39. > :29:43.current system emerged. And it is exactly like choosing a government.
:29:44. > :29:50.When you vote in the UK, the largest party actually then provides the
:29:51. > :29:55.Prime Minister. This system that was operated today is not very different
:29:56. > :30:00.from that. Are you a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker? He was not the
:30:01. > :30:04.candidate to which your party belongs, are you confident that this
:30:05. > :30:08.arch federalist, as people like Daniel Hannan see him as, is going
:30:09. > :30:17.to deliver what you and the Labour group want? Well, as I said, it was
:30:18. > :30:20.not a stitch up, partly because the Labour MEP did not vote for
:30:21. > :30:23.Jean-Claude Juncker. We have never supported him, because we don't
:30:24. > :30:27.think he is going to deliver a lot of the things we would like to see.
:30:28. > :30:32.We want to see jobs and growth in Europe. We want to see unemployment
:30:33. > :30:35.come right down, we wanted to see action on climate change and energy
:30:36. > :30:41.security. We want to see better wages. We want a proper reform and
:30:42. > :30:45.changed agenda in Europe, and we don't believe that John Claude
:30:46. > :30:51.Juncker, who is not of our political family, we don't believe he can
:30:52. > :30:54.deliver that. Labour didn't have an alternative candidate they were
:30:55. > :31:01.pushing but do you think that Jean-Claude Juncker, now as European
:31:02. > :31:07.Commission President hastens or coup could Hayesen British departure from
:31:08. > :31:11.the EU? I do shall -- or could hasten.
:31:12. > :31:16.It puts an end to the idea of fantasy. The idea that British
:31:17. > :31:21.politicians have been pushing for 40 or 50 years, the idea that we could
:31:22. > :31:26.create this thing called a Europe of Nations in large, free trading
:31:27. > :31:30.Europe. Plainly that is not what he is talking B he has just won the
:31:31. > :31:34.support of 26 out of 28 governments. He, in about ten minutes' time I
:31:35. > :31:40.think will win the support of most ME pe. Ps, we should stop deluding
:31:41. > :31:45.ourselves and fantasising about the kind of EU we might have liked and
:31:46. > :31:48.face up to what has taken shape on our doorstep and ask the only
:31:49. > :31:52.question that matters - will he be part of that or follow into this
:31:53. > :31:56.United States of Europe or can we have a different relationship of the
:31:57. > :31:59.kind that all the other non-EU states in Europe have, where we were
:32:00. > :32:03.open market inter-governmental cooperation and military alliance
:32:04. > :32:07.but on the basis that our own law is supreme in our territory. I would
:32:08. > :32:11.like Daniel to explain what that would mean for the UK? We know that
:32:12. > :32:14.over half of our exports could to Europe. It is not true. We know how
:32:15. > :32:18.important the single market Europe. It is not true. We know how
:32:19. > :32:23.our country. I don't believe we can have one without the other. It is no
:32:24. > :32:27.longer true that over half of our exports go to Europe. We are trapped
:32:28. > :32:32.in a trade block that is sinking. I do not want to see a superstate. I
:32:33. > :32:35.want to see reform and change but I don't think that Jean-Claude Juncker
:32:36. > :32:39.account person to do that. I will have to leave it there. You
:32:40. > :32:42.supported him. We have to stop you there. Apologies. We will get you a
:32:43. > :32:46.better earpiece next time. Later this week the House of Lords
:32:47. > :32:49.will be debating the The Private Member's Bill - bought
:32:50. > :32:53.by Labour peer Lord Falconer - would make it legal for terminally-ill
:32:54. > :32:55.adults in England and Wales to The former Archbishop of Canterbury,
:32:56. > :33:00.Lord Carey, and even Desmond Tutu, are in favour of such a change
:33:01. > :33:04.but many people still oppose it. Here's what Baroness Tanni
:33:05. > :33:06.Grey-Thompson had to say after the Supreme Court ruled against
:33:07. > :33:17.right-to-die campaigners last month. The law we have is not perfect but I
:33:18. > :33:21.think the proposition that we have before us moves the line in the sand
:33:22. > :33:25.too far the other way, where, it is open to interpretation that people
:33:26. > :33:28.may be coerced or encouraged or because they don't have the right
:33:29. > :33:35.support around them, they think that this is the only option that they
:33:36. > :33:38.have. And at the moment, you know, if there is circumstances where
:33:39. > :33:42.somebody, you know, has the wrong type of help, you know, the police
:33:43. > :33:49.investigate and there is a possibility of bringing action. If
:33:50. > :33:52.Lord falconers' bill, as it stands, go goes through, there will not be
:33:53. > :33:58.that kind of investigation. We are joined by Lord Falconer and Dr
:33:59. > :34:02.Vivienne Nathanson from the BMA who oppose a change in the law. What
:34:03. > :34:06.will be aloud over your proposal? Where somebody has a diagnosis of
:34:07. > :34:09.six months or less to live and two doctors have certified that the
:34:10. > :34:13.person has the mental capacity to make the decision as to whether or
:34:14. > :34:16.not they should be given a prescription which they can take and
:34:17. > :34:20.the doctors both certify that that person has the firm and settled
:34:21. > :34:24.intention that they wish to take their life, then they will be given
:34:25. > :34:27.a prescription but they have got to take T so what will be authorised,
:34:28. > :34:30.subject to the safeguards is the giving of a prescription, to
:34:31. > :34:35.somebody to take their own life. A lot of pressure on doctors. Isn't
:34:36. > :34:39.it? Not at all. Doctors are used to treating people in the last days of
:34:40. > :34:44.their life. What my bill does, is that it means that for those who are
:34:45. > :34:49.clear about it, they won't have to struggle and fight maybe for two or
:34:50. > :34:52.three more days of life. The BMA is very clear in its position, no
:34:53. > :34:57.change, no assisted dying. Why? Mainly because we have listened to
:34:58. > :35:01.what doctors have to say. While there are a wide variety of views,
:35:02. > :35:05.the majority are against it and they are worried. The majority of
:35:06. > :35:08.doctors, not the public? The majority of doctors. Remember, you
:35:09. > :35:12.are asking that doctors that instead of having as the basic remit of
:35:13. > :35:15.their role to be to alleviate suffering, to help and look after
:35:16. > :35:19.people, to give them control over their lives, what you are saying is
:35:20. > :35:23.they will help people to end their livers and for doctors that is such
:35:24. > :35:26.a fundamental change, that the majority are saying they wouldn't be
:35:27. > :35:31.prepared to do this. But they are out of step, aren't they, with
:35:32. > :35:37.public opinion? You see a doctor's role differently in the way you have
:35:38. > :35:41.outlined but over 80% of people in the British attitudes study have
:35:42. > :35:48.said a doctor should be able toned the life of a terminally ill person.
:35:49. > :35:51.# I think the difference here is doctors come to this from a
:35:52. > :35:55.different position. That position is understanding what can be done. A
:35:56. > :35:59.large part of a doctor's concern is that this would lead to people
:36:00. > :36:04.feeling that death was the best option for them, whereas in fact
:36:05. > :36:09.palliative care and so on maybe able to offer them those last few days,
:36:10. > :36:13.weeks or months, in a situation which is acceptable to them. It has
:36:14. > :36:19.to be what the patient wants. What about the dangers inherent in this?
:36:20. > :36:24.There are dangers? People could be pressurised into ending their own
:36:25. > :36:36.lives. And I'm sure you would not be happy about that. Not at all. In a
:36:37. > :36:44.way that people has said that legalising assisted dying, is the
:36:45. > :36:50.sword of dchl amaclese hanging over people's heads. It is beater and
:36:51. > :36:54.safer position than one and what the Supreme Court said, in a situation
:36:55. > :36:57.where somebody takes their own life and there is an investigation
:36:58. > :37:01.afterwards as to whether there was pressure. Can you put safeguards in
:37:02. > :37:05.place, legally? I don't see any problem with it. The problem with
:37:06. > :37:08.the debate is principle and practice get muddled. The principle is the
:37:09. > :37:12.one that Charlie has been talking about, that people should have the
:37:13. > :37:16.autonomy to make debt significance. That is what is supported, I think
:37:17. > :37:19.-- to make the decision. I think that's what is supported because
:37:20. > :37:23.medical science have reached the stage where people can be kept alive
:37:24. > :37:28.forever. They should be able to say, to seems to me - enough is enough
:37:29. > :37:32.and be helped to bring their lives to an end but, of course, the
:37:33. > :37:36.safeguards that need to be put in place, need to be the best possible
:37:37. > :37:41.safeguards that can be devised. I don't see a problem with this. We
:37:42. > :37:46.already, - those judges who sit in the Family Division already take
:37:47. > :37:51.these decisions frequently. The only point in which I would disagree with
:37:52. > :37:56.Charlie is with leaving it to the doctors. I would in fact shift that
:37:57. > :37:59.to the court. I would make a judge make that final decision, which is
:38:00. > :38:03.what he does now in circumstances where we are dealing with PVS
:38:04. > :38:08.patients, where we are dealing with children who can't make up decisions
:38:09. > :38:12.for themselves, for the mentally incapacitated and we are very used
:38:13. > :38:16.to doing it. They are very difficult decisions but they are tried
:38:17. > :38:20.extremely sensitively in public and there is nothing secret about it. I
:38:21. > :38:24.would be uneasy about leaving it to doctors. I think it is putting too
:38:25. > :38:29.much responsibility on them. Wouldn't that be a safer, judicial
:38:30. > :38:33.way of dealing with it? We considered carefully whether or not
:38:34. > :38:38.is should be a court-based decision process. A lot of people concluded
:38:39. > :38:42.that but the conclusion we have reached is that it is much better
:38:43. > :38:46.that it be done by the doctors, some who maybe involved in the treatment
:38:47. > :38:50.of the patient. They don't want to do it. That is the key, isn't it? I
:38:51. > :38:54.very much question what Vivien is saying is the view of the doctors. I
:38:55. > :38:58.really that that, with the greatest of respect, my experience of talking
:38:59. > :39:03.to a lot of doctors is that there are some who are very opposed to it
:39:04. > :39:07.be, there are some who are very in favour of it, the vast majority what
:39:08. > :39:11.a clear decision to be made about it, so that they, the doctors, know
:39:12. > :39:14.where they stwand. They would be following the law. Exactly. Would
:39:15. > :39:18.that change your attitude? Well, obviously if there was a law we
:39:19. > :39:22.would have to look at what that meant from doctors but the evidence
:39:23. > :39:27.we have from doctors is that the majority wouldn't want to take part
:39:28. > :39:30.in this. But we know there are some who would be willing. I don't argue
:39:31. > :39:34.about that. The question is whether those who are not willing, feel that
:39:35. > :39:38.this could damage their relationship with patients. That's part of the
:39:39. > :39:41.sensitivity here. You are a doctor, how would you feel personally,
:39:42. > :39:46.putting aside the views you are expressing of the BMA, how would you
:39:47. > :39:50.feel about making that decision personally? I would feel
:39:51. > :39:54.extraordinarily difficult. Really? Yes Having started my career working
:39:55. > :39:58.in palliative medicine. One of the things that is key is talking to the
:39:59. > :40:01.patient Bo and finding out what they want and making sure they are
:40:02. > :40:07.getting all options. What worries me and a lot of doctors s that a lot of
:40:08. > :40:11.patients don't get every option of palliative care available. The
:40:12. > :40:15.second thing is absolutely we must never force people to have a
:40:16. > :40:18.treatment that would extend their life that they don't want. It is
:40:19. > :40:22.part of the sensitivity. It is one of the things that doctors, we know,
:40:23. > :40:26.is people are more frightened, is being forced to have a treatment
:40:27. > :40:33.that is unacceptable. I will have to leave it there.
:40:34. > :40:38.Now, have you ever said "I do" or more to the point, asked, "will you
:40:39. > :40:41.marry me"? Well, apparently after decades of decline, getting married
:40:42. > :40:44.is more popular. But how important is marriage when it comes to
:40:45. > :40:44.bringing up a family? Here's Eleanor.
:40:45. > :40:50.Love to and to cherish until death do us part. We all love celebrating
:40:51. > :40:54.a good wedding but how many of us think marriage really is essential
:40:55. > :40:58.when it comes to having a family? I don't believe it is important at
:40:59. > :41:02.all. Even though we are married. You don't have to have married. You can
:41:03. > :41:09.have a stable relationship and bring up children without having to
:41:10. > :41:19.commit. I'm 50/50 on that. Oh, gosh, very important. That's bus I'm a
:41:20. > :41:24.Christian. -- -- that's because. Since the 107s there has been a
:41:25. > :41:26.long-term decline in weddings in England and Wales. That's because
:41:27. > :41:31.more couples are living together without getting married and many are
:41:32. > :41:35.delaying marriage altogether now, though, weddings are back in vogue.
:41:36. > :41:39.Marriage is up 5% according to the latest figures from the office of
:41:40. > :41:43.national statistics. It might be getting more popular but there are
:41:44. > :41:46.still clear generation a differences on marriage, according to the
:41:47. > :41:52.British Social Attitudes Survey. It says people born in the 1950s and
:41:53. > :41:56.60s are much more likely to think you ought to get married, if you
:41:57. > :42:00.want to have children, than people currently in their 20s and 30s. And
:42:01. > :42:05.the differences and opinion on marriage are played out in the
:42:06. > :42:08.political sphere, too. ! Those who are Conservative supporters are much
:42:09. > :42:11.more likely to think that marriage and children go to together than
:42:12. > :42:16.Labour and certainly Liberal Democrat supporters. You can see why
:42:17. > :42:20.this is an issue which has been a particular touchstone for the
:42:21. > :42:22.Conservative Party. Why it has wanted to reintroduce the marriage
:42:23. > :42:25.tax allowance because its supporters are particularly still in favour of
:42:26. > :42:29.marriage and certainly in favour of marriage when children are involved.
:42:30. > :42:34.And some MPs couldn't be clearer on the value of tying the knot. I think
:42:35. > :42:38.marriage is absolutely critical. As the previous Labour Government
:42:39. > :42:41.established when they did a report supporting families, marriage is
:42:42. > :42:45.historically the best foundation for bringing up children. There is no
:42:46. > :42:49.point in denying it and we face a real problem in this country, with
:42:50. > :42:54.dysfunctional families. Every Member of Parliament experiences it. We see
:42:55. > :42:59.the trail of human misery. Family breakdown is now costing this nation
:43:00. > :43:04.?46 billion a year, more than we spend on defence. I used to work at
:43:05. > :43:07.the Children's Society before I was elected to Parliament. What I saw
:43:08. > :43:10.there is that for children the most important thing is they had strong,
:43:11. > :43:13.loving relationships with their parents and their wider family. So,
:43:14. > :43:18.while we should celebrate marriage and respect it as a great
:43:19. > :43:22.institution, if children's parents aren't married they may have chosen
:43:23. > :43:27.to express that commitment in a completely different way. We should
:43:28. > :43:30.still respect and support that. Same-sex marriage became legal in
:43:31. > :43:35.England and Wales after a new law was passed in Parliament last year.
:43:36. > :43:41.As the institution of marriage is opened up to more people, some may
:43:42. > :43:46.question its value, but the trend is on the rise.
:43:47. > :43:50.We are joined by the writer and activist Julie Bindel who says
:43:51. > :43:55.marriage is a Conservative institutions which curtail's women's
:43:56. > :44:00.freedom and still with us, Paul Coleridge, previously a High Court
:44:01. > :44:04.judge specialising in family matters and founder of the Marriage
:44:05. > :44:08.Foundation. Why does marriage provide a better foundation for
:44:09. > :44:13.bringing up children than having two loving parents who aren't married?
:44:14. > :44:15.Because it lasts. The statistics are overwhelming that people who get
:44:16. > :44:19.married for all sorts of psychological reasons that we
:44:20. > :44:23.discuss, stay together longer than people who don't have children and
:44:24. > :44:27.the overwhelmingly important factor in the upbringing of children, as
:44:28. > :44:33.your film, one of your commentators on your film made clear, is for the
:44:34. > :44:36.overwhelmingly important factor in the development of children is the
:44:37. > :44:39.stable relationship of their parents and so anything that provides that
:44:40. > :44:43.stability, which is what the Marriage Fundation is all about -
:44:44. > :44:48.anything that reinforce that is stability is a good thing from the
:44:49. > :44:52.point of view of children. You are going against the statistics, the
:44:53. > :44:58.evidence of being married is better if you are going to have children.
:44:59. > :45:02.No we have not polled those people who live in non-twra digsal
:45:03. > :45:06.non-wedded relationships. They are increasing, although there is a
:45:07. > :45:11.slight rise as the figures show in marriage, more and more heterosexual
:45:12. > :45:17.couples are veering away, choosing not to share the same household.
:45:18. > :45:21.Many children are being raised in non-traditional families and are
:45:22. > :45:25.better off for T my person about the way marriage is being peddled as a
:45:26. > :45:28.great institution is we are not looking at the number of women who
:45:29. > :45:34.instigate stwors. The majority is about one in two of all marriages at
:45:35. > :45:38.the moment are instigated by women, and the majority are either their
:45:39. > :45:42.husband's infidelity or domestic violence. Now, many children who
:45:43. > :45:46.grow up in environments, in marriage environments, are very badly
:45:47. > :45:50.affected by domestic violence, by child sexual abuse and by very
:45:51. > :45:56.unhappy relationships. That's not the sort of stability children
:45:57. > :46:04.should be forced to - that should be forced upon children. And you must
:46:05. > :46:08.have seen plenty of that in the family division, are you advocating
:46:09. > :46:11.that couples should stay together even in those circumstances,
:46:12. > :46:17.marriage, above everything else, is more important, whatever is going on
:46:18. > :46:21.in that family? No, I am not advocating that, we never have
:46:22. > :46:24.advocated that. What we are advocating is much more thought
:46:25. > :46:28.before you break your relationship up, whether it be married or
:46:29. > :46:33.unmarried relationship, because what we do know, and there is very recent
:46:34. > :46:39.literature by experts that has demonstrated this, however you dress
:46:40. > :46:42.it up, the separation of parents, the break-up of a parent 's's
:46:43. > :46:48.relationship, affects the children for the rest of their lives. So
:46:49. > :46:54.everything that can reasonably done to keep relationships reasonably
:46:55. > :46:57.happy, and don't let's have a fairy tale ideal about long-term
:46:58. > :47:01.relationships, whether they be married or not, should be done. And
:47:02. > :47:05.the current level of breakdown, which as you rightly say, is miles
:47:06. > :47:10.too high, needs to be addressed and tackled. And the government, all of
:47:11. > :47:15.us, individual organisations like ours, needs to focus people 's minds
:47:16. > :47:19.on the damage they are doing to their children. I can think of
:47:20. > :47:23.nothing worse than staying in a relationship for the sake of staying
:47:24. > :47:27.in that relationship. But do people walk away too easily, if there was
:47:28. > :47:31.more, if not pressure, being put on them, but if there were more
:47:32. > :47:35.agencies working with people to keep people together, would that not be
:47:36. > :47:39.better? I think that is the worst possible thing you can do for women
:47:40. > :47:42.and their children in particular. Many women are worst intermarriage.
:47:43. > :47:47.We just have to look in the UK, never mind elsewhere, where was the
:47:48. > :47:52.early marriage, chartered marriages, forced marriages, where within are
:47:53. > :47:58.trapped because of religious organisation. -- childhood marriages
:47:59. > :48:02.was the state is involved it is far more difficult to win in to leave,
:48:03. > :48:12.and that is the last thing we should be doing, piling more pressure on
:48:13. > :48:16.them. The view that women are shackled to that household has to be
:48:17. > :48:21.very bad for the children. What about this idea of single parents,
:48:22. > :48:26.in this whole debate, they are going to feel that people in the family
:48:27. > :48:29.division do not regard them as being able to provide a loving,
:48:30. > :48:33.division do not regard them as being able to provide stable home? And
:48:34. > :48:36.that actually the only option is the institution of marriage? We have
:48:37. > :48:42.never said that, I have never said that. But is that not the
:48:43. > :48:49.implication? Well, I am very sad if it is. Single women do a fantastic
:48:50. > :48:54.job. Single men, for that matter, though it is mainly single
:48:55. > :48:58.job. Single men, for that matter, children know what an
:48:59. > :49:02.extraordinarily arduous task it is, over many, many years and it is very
:49:03. > :49:07.much more difficult to do it on your own. So, of course, they should be
:49:08. > :49:15.given every plaudits are doing what they do. Are you advocating,
:49:16. > :49:19.though, judicial activism here? Do you think it is right for a judge or
:49:20. > :49:24.someone in a position to be advocating a moral standpoint, if
:49:25. > :49:30.you like? It has nothing to do with it. I am not interested in people 's
:49:31. > :49:33.morals. If they don't have children, they can have as have as far as I am
:49:34. > :49:39.concerned three relationships a week. That is nothing to do with
:49:40. > :49:44.what we are about. We are about children and the best outcome for
:49:45. > :49:48.them. He has had experience in the family division of the misery that
:49:49. > :49:53.has caused. Is it not worth listening to him? It still wants
:49:54. > :49:57.people to stay married despite the misery. Interestingly, your
:49:58. > :50:00.organisation was against equal marriage for lesbians and gay
:50:01. > :50:04.people, when I think the reason they have been invited to join the
:50:05. > :50:08.institution is because it is a failing one, with numbers dwindling.
:50:09. > :50:12.We have to look at not just child sexual abuse and domestic violence
:50:13. > :50:18.is a cause for the breaking of relationships, but the fact that men
:50:19. > :50:23.within marriages are doing so little more housework and childcare than
:50:24. > :50:30.they ever were. One minute per day per year for the last three decades
:50:31. > :50:32.increase. No wonder so many women are unhappily married.
:50:33. > :50:35.Let's get more on the reshuffle and our Deputy Political Editor, James
:50:36. > :50:44.Give us the latest details. There is a brief lunchtime hiatus going on
:50:45. > :50:49.here but in the last half an hour, we have had a string of women MPs
:50:50. > :50:53.coming in with big smiles, and leaving that door with even bigger
:50:54. > :50:57.smiles. By my count now, we have eight Wigan who have been promoted,
:50:58. > :51:01.three obviously to the Cabinet that we have seen earlier in the day, we
:51:02. > :51:10.have seen Anna superego she has been promoted, now a mid-ranking defence
:51:11. > :51:21.minister. -- Anna Subri. And Rudd is an environment minister. Preeti
:51:22. > :51:24.Patel Is joining the Exchequer. George Osborne's team. There is a
:51:25. > :51:28.bit of redemption going on here. We talk about the women but we should
:51:29. > :51:33.not forget that men have been promoted too. There are two new male
:51:34. > :51:38.faces in the Cabinet, Michael Fallon and Stephen Crabb, and a lot of
:51:39. > :51:46.other men being promoted too. What about the political impact, as we
:51:47. > :51:49.stand now? I think the rest of Whitehall is sitting down, having
:51:50. > :51:51.its lunch, thinking what does that mean? Clearly there will be a huge
:51:52. > :51:54.presentational change in the way the government presents itself to the
:51:55. > :51:59.outside world. We will see an awful lot of Michael Gove on our channels,
:52:00. > :52:03.an awful lot of these female MPs who have been promoted to the front
:52:04. > :52:06.stage. Will it change policy, and I think that is more of a subtle
:52:07. > :52:12.question and one we will have to wait a while to see. But clearly the
:52:13. > :52:16.Prime Minister wanted to do a reshuffle, hates doing them, this
:52:17. > :52:20.time he has wanted to try and be bold, so he can try to break through
:52:21. > :52:23.the Westminster bubble, to try and impact on some of the voters out
:52:24. > :52:27.there who might just be engaging with this, to say there is a bit of
:52:28. > :52:31.change, a bit of freshness. That is his aim. Whether the public respond
:52:32. > :52:36.like that, we will have to wait and see. We are joined by the Sun's
:52:37. > :52:39.political editor, Tom Newton Dunn and by Steve
:52:40. > :52:48.Richards from the Independent. welcome to both of you. Tom Newton
:52:49. > :52:52.Dunn, much more radical, much more different than any of us predicted.
:52:53. > :52:57.Will it make a material difference to what we see in policy terms, or
:52:58. > :53:06.is it all about presentation? Almost certainly not, this is effectively
:53:07. > :53:10.cosmetic. Dramatically cosmetic, a lot of interesting faces, but it is
:53:11. > :53:14.also not just the female element. There is also the rise of the
:53:15. > :53:18.regional accents, to put it another way, the toffs are slightly down,
:53:19. > :53:22.those with a more modest background are up. That is very important for
:53:23. > :53:26.David Cameron to present this new, slightly softer face to the country.
:53:27. > :53:31.They have been well aware now for a year or two fine, they have sorted
:53:32. > :53:34.out the, tackling the deficit Benchley, they have done the hard
:53:35. > :53:40.stuff, the numbers look good. But they have not translated the feeling
:53:41. > :53:44.to victories. This is all about cosmetics. How could you change
:53:45. > :53:47.policy, if you think about it? All the big reforms through, Iain
:53:48. > :53:53.Smith's universal credit, free schools, there is not much new
:53:54. > :53:57.legislation. It is how you present the legislation that is already
:53:58. > :54:01.there. Do you think it will work, if we take what Tom Newton Dunn has
:54:02. > :54:08.said, this is an election footing, clearly moving across to next May,
:54:09. > :54:13.Lynton Crosby perhaps has a singer Prince all over this, the election
:54:14. > :54:16.strategist? No, because in the end in British politics, certainly in
:54:17. > :54:21.the build-up to an election, as far as voters notice things at all, they
:54:22. > :54:25.might notice the leader, the Chancellor, if he or she is lucky,
:54:26. > :54:29.and a couple of others, but not much beyond that. And we still have the
:54:30. > :54:35.same leader, we still have the same Chancellor. If these moves have
:54:36. > :54:38.happened in year one, there could be big policy applications, but I
:54:39. > :54:43.completely agree with Tom, there will be no policy implications. The
:54:44. > :54:47.strategy is decided at the very top and that strategy is in place. It is
:54:48. > :54:53.about communicating the message, isn't it? Will that not be more
:54:54. > :54:57.effective now? Although Michael Gove has alienate it a huge number of
:54:58. > :55:02.people in the education world, he is a brilliant interviewee. He has the
:55:03. > :55:08.art of the political interview back down to a fine art. Seeing more
:55:09. > :55:13.within on the television at the margins will make a slight defence.
:55:14. > :55:17.Otherwise, this will have very little practical consequence. This
:55:18. > :55:24.charge, Tom Newton Dunn, that this has been the cult of the pale, male
:55:25. > :55:28.and stale, has it been overstated? Cheryl Gillan said it had been a
:55:29. > :55:32.long time coming, David Cameron should have done this a long time
:55:33. > :55:37.ago, promoting able women to these positions. He was just answering the
:55:38. > :55:40.charge that there were too many posh boys in the government and in
:55:41. > :55:46.Cabinet, and they should have been more women promoted before now.
:55:47. > :55:51.Because they have never had them. She and the Chancellor are both
:55:52. > :55:55.correct. Don't underestimate, 17 ministers went last night, half of
:55:56. > :55:59.them sacked. Owen Paterson did not want to go, Dominic Grieve did not
:56:00. > :56:02.want to go, Damian Green did not want to go. These are to a greater
:56:03. > :56:07.or lesser extent, the posh ones, the old ones, people who are not quite
:56:08. > :56:10.as electorally presentable as perhaps they should be in this
:56:11. > :56:18.modern day and age was that I agree with Steve, but I would not
:56:19. > :56:21.underestimate the repeated effect of Esther McVey, Liverpool born and
:56:22. > :56:25.bred, brilliant TV performer, and Michael Gove, the Mr and Mrs of the
:56:26. > :56:28.TV studios and that they will have their own seats, you will have to
:56:29. > :56:35.write their names on the back of the seats for the next nine months. That
:56:36. > :56:40.seeps in. You think it will have cut through? It will to a certain
:56:41. > :56:44.extent. David Cameron's problem is he is a terrible toffs and he is out
:56:45. > :56:48.of touch, so say the polls. This will help, to a greater or lesser
:56:49. > :56:52.extent, but it will help. Ideological aeon Europe, what do you
:56:53. > :56:59.make of the changes, looking at that prism? It has become slightly more
:57:00. > :57:01.Eurosceptic. We have a Foreign Secretary who has publicly
:57:02. > :57:07.contemplated the idea of leaving the European Union. It is not that much
:57:08. > :57:11.more right wing than the previous cabinet that Cameron led, but if you
:57:12. > :57:15.compare it to the last time they won an overall majority in 1992, when he
:57:16. > :57:19.had Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd and Michael Heseltine might at the top,
:57:20. > :57:23.it is way to the right and more Eurosceptic than that major Cabinet
:57:24. > :57:27.that won an overall majority in 1992. Cameron has not changed his
:57:28. > :57:32.party, which is what he started promising to do. I wonder honestly
:57:33. > :57:39.whether being Eurosceptic is right wing any more. What has changed
:57:40. > :57:43.policy wise is that it is a more Eurosceptic Cabinet and it perhaps
:57:44. > :57:47.ever has been under the Tories but look at the Labour benches. What is
:57:48. > :57:52.Labour's response to this, Stephen Richards? I don't know, haven't they
:57:53. > :57:59.put out a line that it has been the purge of the moderates. This should
:58:00. > :58:03.be frightened on one ground, ASH macro they should be, what they need
:58:04. > :58:09.to reflect on is that Cameron, at times, can do the leader role. He is
:58:10. > :58:14.utterly ruthless. He has sacked a lot of people. He has brought about
:58:15. > :58:18.sweeping change. It won't make any practical difference or electoral
:58:19. > :58:25.difference, but he has shown he can rise to these legally challenges, --
:58:26. > :58:29.leadership challenges, and that is one star that Cameron can cling to
:58:30. > :58:33.after all of this. Apart from that, it hasn't made much difference. Has
:58:34. > :58:37.he stored up any trouble for himself, David Cameron with these
:58:38. > :58:41.people going on to the backbenches? Not really. They will make some
:58:42. > :58:45.trouble. Owen Paterson will shout about climbing change but not
:58:46. > :58:49.really. Thank you for being the guest of the day, Paul Coleridge.
:58:50. > :58:54.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:55. > :58:57.Andrew and I will be here at 11.30 am tomorrow with Prime
:58:58. > :59:00.Ministers Questions, and all the big political stories of the day.