02/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Theresa May's Government

is thrown in to crisis

following the resignation

of the Defence Secretary,

Michael Fallon.

I realise that in the past may have

fallen below the high standards that

we require at the Armed Forces. I

have reflected now on my position in

government and I am therefore

resigning as Defence Secretary.

Mr Fallon announced his departure

from Government last night

as stories about sexual impropriety

and harassment in Westminster

continue to surface.

In a surprise move,

Gavin Williamson -

until now the Government Chief Whip

- is announced as the

new Defence Secretary.

It means a mini reshuffle

has been underway.

We'll have the latest.

A Parliamentary victory

for Labour as they call

on the Government to publish

its Brexit impact studies.

So, will ministers now have to put

them in the public domain?

And is Boris Johnson's brand

of humour an important

foreign policy tool,

or a bit of a joke

on the diplomatic circuit?

All that in the next hour.

And with me for the whole programme

today is the Conservative MP

and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs

Select Committee Tom Tugendhat.

Welcome to the programme.

So, in the last couple of hours,

Number Ten announced that

Gavin Williamson is to become

the new Secretary

of State for Defence.

He replaces Sir Michael Fallon

who announced his departure

from Government last night

as the row over sexual impropriety

and harassment continues to sweep

through Westminster.

Well, Laura Kuenssberg -

our political editor -

Joins us now. You interviewed

Michael Fallon and broke the story

he resigned.

Has again is he to he was one of the

main people for Theresa May's and

footer he had huge experience. He

has been pretty well liked and

respected in Westminster and Theresa

May did rely on him to some extent.

The cabinet has been very delicately

balanced, not just in terms of

Brexit and backwards and forwards

club are also in terms of experience

and the generations. For her to lose

somebody who was vital in the

critical balance and someone who has

been around with real presence

certainly is a loss. In the roller

coasters of politics, he was always

meant to be Mr reliable.

The safe

pair of hands as he used to be

called.

He is more used to defending

errant colleagues than himself.

But,

he is gone. In a big surprise to

some people, Gavin Williamson, also

in a key role in terms of managing

the minority government, has now

been promoted into the Cabinet. He

is the new Defence Secretary.

What

is the reaction? It is pretty mixed.

Gavin Williamson is seen as a smart

man. He's a very effective operator.

He was the PPS for Cameron and the

connection between the backbenchers

and the Prime Minister. He knows the

1922 inside out and the backbenchers

and everyone's secrets he was the

manager of Theresa May's leadership

campaign. He has been in a very

important position for a long time.

He is smart and talented and

ambitious. However, some people I

have spoken to this morning are

furious. He has never been a

minister before. Some people said it

was appalling. Theresa May is so

weak that she has allowed Williamson

to appoint himself. Another minister

has said it is outrageous to put

into this plum job particularly at

such a crucial time, not only when

the Government does not have a

majority but when they are in the

middle of the harassment allegations

mess as other political parties are

trying to do with some more of their

number are going to have to quit

their jobs as well.

As a former Army

officer, is he suited to the job of

Defence Secretary?

I think he is.

Laura made some interesting points

but I would disagree. This is

evidence that the Prime Minister

takes defence seriously. She has put

in one of her most trusted aides,

most trusted advisers, into a

crucial job, as her time when she

realises there are critical

decisions coming in about the

defence. The MoD is getting its case

heard at the highest levels of

government.

What is his experience

in that role? Mr Dunnett has

questioned the appointment. He backs

it broadly but questions whether he

is suited to that role. We can just

hear what he had to say.

I would like to have seen one

of the junior ministers in the

Ministry of Defence promoted to be

the Secretary of State for Defence,

because coming from a defence

background they knew the big issues

which are really critical to defence

at the present moment.

But all that said,

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She's got the job of

leading our country.

She needs support in the Cabinet

and therefore I fully

respect her decision

to appoint her former Chief Whip

as the next Secretary

of State for Defence.

I wish him well in

that difficult task.

But as well as supporting his

Prime Minister, he has to make sure

he really battles hard for defence

and probably argue, as sir Michael

Fallon has started to do,

from what his increase

in the defence budget.

He does not sound convinced. He

knows extremely well the technical

experts in the MoD wear uniform and

the politicians are there to take

the political decisions. What he

will be surrounded with, the new

secretary of defence will be

surrounded with our people like the

Vice Chief and the CGS and the first

Sea Lord and the chief of the air

staff who will come up with

absolutely essential advice he will

listen to and he will be making the

political decisions. He is not a

technical expert will stop

The

implication what she did it from a

position of weakness and not

strength.

There are positives and

negatives with this appointment. He

is a smart and talented guy who is

very loyal to Theresa May. There

will be people in the Tory Party who

are very unhappy about. This

decision is not risk free. She could

have taken a safety first decision

and promoted someone from within the

of defence and moved someone across.

-- the Ministry of Defence. No

surprise move might have big

benefits but it is not just a safety

first move. Remember right now, the

Tories, like other political

parties, cannot be sure there will

be other people who have to move.

They have taken a calculation right

now they can do this limited one up,

one out and a few other things

around the edges with Julia Smith

and estimate they being promoted at

it is not a safety first decision at

a time when the Government cannot

know it is out of danger. When it is

a precision reshuffle. It did not

want to do a wide-ranging reshuffle.

--

It is a precision reshuffle.

Gavin Williamson has become Defence

Secretary and Julian Smith has

become Chief Whip. He has been

promoted and will attend Cabinet.

Estimate they, the newly elected

Tory MP, re-elected, has become

deputy Chief Whip. Gavin Williamson

has vacated the role of dealing with

the ongoing sexual harassment and

Brexit and Universal Credit in a

minority government that is fragile.

Very tough. Julian Smith has been

Gavin Williamson's Deputy. MPs are

not going to be an used to having

Julian Smith text in them, knocking

at the door and saying, come on,

this is what you will do. It is not

a huge move for him to go up but for

Esther McVey to go back into that

senior position in terms of party

management is a big jump. Looking at

the three of them lined up, it is in

part perhaps a bit of an answer to

some of the problems that many

people in the Tory Party has, partly

about the younger generation but

also about geographical reach.

Victory for Yorkshire today and

promotions for Julian Smith and

Gavin Williamson. That is one of the

other factors, it will change the

look and feel of the Cabinet.

Perhaps a woman could have become

the Chief Whip. For Defence

Secretary. And Chief Whip. You said

at one stage would be great to be

Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary.

It would be great to serve in any

position.

You are talked about as a

potential Defence Secretary amongst

your colleagues. We waiting by the

phone for a phone call?

I have been

getting on to be chair of the

Foreign Affairs Committee. Esther

has a rare talent. He is of two

intakes and that is important. She

spent the first few months getting

to know us and again with the second

intake. She really does reach across

the party in a particular way. That

is a fantastic appointment.

We have

discussed this before but it is a

really important feature of the Tory

Party. The 2015, 2010 and 17 intakes

are now in the majority. People in

the context of the emerging scandal

around harassment and the

allegations around them, the

generational difference and shift in

the power base really matters in

terms of that context. There are

more people in the 1922 now who see

allegations which have been swirling

around as obviously unacceptable and

from a different era. They are the

ones who are increasingly in charge

of the party. We will discuss that

in a moment. Thank you very much.

So, as the revelations continue

to come, senior politicians

in Westminster are scrambling

to get their house in order.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote

to all the other party leaders

in the Commons inviting them

to a meeting next Monday

to come up with the

serious, swift, cross-party response

this issue demands".

Mrs May went on to call for a

"common, transparent independent

grievance procedure"

for all those working in Parliament

and said a dedicated support team

should be available to all staff

that would recommend

all criminal allegations be

reported to the police.

The proposals come after further

revelations appeared in the press

including a former parliamentary

intern telling the BBC

that he was sexually assaulted

by a former MP in 2012, and a report

in the London Evening Standard

about a woman alleging

she was sexually assaulted

by the Conservative MP

she worked for.

Meanwhile, First Minister Damian

Green, who's been accused

of inappropriate behaviour

is being investigated by the Cabinet

Secretary over whether he broke

the ministerial code.

However, there are claims some MPs

are being unfairly accused.

Conservative MPs Rory Stewart

and Dominic Raab, whose names appear

on a spreadsheet of unverified

accusations, both went public

to deny the allegations

levelled against them.

Speaking earlier today,

the former Conseravative

leader, Iain Duncan Smith,

said the culture of Westminster

had to change.

At the end of the day, yes,

there are sexual issues

and there are some charges that

are not as powerful as

other charges, but the key element

here is about abuse of power and I

think that's a book

point to dwell on.

In any organisation that people use

power to coerce people to do

things that they would not normally

do, that is offensive behaviour and

that is what this is really all

about, which is to say, you know,

even if that was sort

of tolerated in the past,

it will not be tolerated

from here on.

I'm joined now by the Shadow Women

and Equalities Minister,

Dawn Butler, and by the Conservative

peer, Ann Jenkin, who founded

the Women 2 Win campaign which aims

to elect more Conservative women

to Parliament.

Michael Fallon said when he resigned

that what was acceptable ten, 15

years ago is clearly not acceptable

now. Was it ever acceptable and you

first started out in Parliament?

That is a good point. I started

working in Parliament in 1976. Like

many of the young women who are

there today. I was hit on pretty

regularly. There was definitely

nobody could have gone to, nobody to

talk to. But the point I am very

struck by is that in those days

there were 4% of women MPs, 27 women

in total in Parliament, and it was

sort of an acceptable way of

behaviour. Cecil Parkinson and all

that happened around my date.

Was it

acceptable tolerated?

I was never

really assaulted in a way I felt

deeply upset about.

You were

harassed.

Asked to go back to MPs

houses but I would not have dreamt

of doing that. We slapped them down

and moved on. I'm not suggesting

that some bus stuff is really

serious but with more women in

Parliament, which has been Theresa

May's a as well, not only other

better decisions but a better

environment and culture.

Except it

still goes on. Not all the

allegations are historic. Some of

them are relatively recent. Do you

think there has been a sense that no

one wants to rock the vote in the

past and that is why people have

been, to some extent allowed to get

away with it?

It is difficult for me

to say. I don't hang about the

sports and social club and do not

think that is the case. I would like

to make the point about these

allegations. I was contacted by

young woman who found herself on

that list totally innocently. No

inappropriate behaviour. This list

is ruining peoples lives. Whether

you deny it or not, you Google

somebody in their careers are going

to be destroyed as a result of this.

There is a difference between

allegations on the kind of swirling

innuendo and rumour that

everybody... We are just in the

middle of this sort of terrible

period. We have to calm down and

sort out the difference between

proper predatory behaviour, rape

allegations and so on, and the kind

of touching of a knee and consensual

acts, which are also on that list.

Do you think this list which has

been doing the rounds with various

MPs on it, Tory MPs, do think it has

been helpful when a lot of the

allegations, they are not

allegations they are about

extramarital affairs or sex between

two consenting adults?

I'm not sure I would describe it as

being "helpful." Obviously to the

whips it is the way they operate in

terms of these are the situations

that might embarrass the Government,

so they keep a list and so I

understand that to happen all the

time in the Whip's Office. I used to

be a whip. We did haven't a list

like that. I wouldn't say it's

helpful. I do agree with Ann in

terms of if it's consenting adults,

then that's different from predatory

behaviour, which needs to be tackled

and it was never acceptable. It

might have been that women didn't

feel they could speak out about it,

but it was nevering acceptable in my

opinion.

Has the bar been set too

low in judging politicians and

whether they have behaved

inappropriate or does "zero

tolerance" need to be enacted hooer?

I think it will be going forward.

Maybe things people thought they

could get away with will no longer

be the case, not just by the action

the Prime Minister is taking with

the speaker and so on, I think the

fear now will make a difference.

That is the way we break the culture

in Parliament. It was never

acceptable. I think the Prime

Minister has been slow to react, to

be honest. I think she should

suspend her ministers who haven't

denied some wrongdoing.

For example?

Stephen Crabb. Once an investigation

has taken place, then I think MPs

should be suspended while this

investigation takes place. I think

that should be standard practise. I

will be at the meeting on Monday

with the Prime Minister. I look

forward to working across all

parties. I also think there's a

valuable role for trade unions and

the role that they play in

Parliament that's often overlooked

and dismissed maybe too easily.

You

mention Stephen Crabb - he's not a

minister. Do you think Damian Green,

the First Secretary of State being

investigateded by the Cabinet

Secretary, should he be suspended or

resign while this is going on?

I

cannot comment on it until I hear

the results of the investigation.

These are allegations at the moment.

But Dawn is right. It was never

acceptable for people to be afraid

for any reason to go into a

workplace to demonstrate the

fullness of their talents. It is

something which has held back the UK

that people have not been feeling

comfortable in workplaces over

previous years. They should do now.

We should all feel safe and express

oural lents whatever they are.

Are

you frustrated by the some of your

older colleagues? Do you think

there's a generational issue in the

Houses of Parliament that behaviour

that some of your older colleagues

in the House might think was

acceptable, for you and your

contemporaries is not?

It would be

absolutely unfair to blame an older

generation, most of whom are

blameless of this. And the action

the Prime Minister has taken has

been very quick because she realises

that this is not only

unacceptable...

Except Michael

Fallon said what happens what was

acceptable 10-15 years ago is not

now. What did you think of that?

Michael Fallon has resigned. I will

not comment on his statement. The

Prime Minister has answered it. What

I will say is...

What does it say

about that generation?

His comments

on his generation are for him to

make. The comment I am making is

that generation wasn't all guilty it

would be wrong...

It is about a

difference of behaviour in how you

actually set new standards and

whether it will be possible.

Do you think there'll have to be

more resetting in order to reset

impropriety?

The new conduct which

is coming will be very clear.

Anybody can now make allegations

about anything. I mean they could

make completely false ones. They

could say I was in a lift with

someone and he pressed up against

me. You have to be careful going

forward.

Do people have to have

someone they can speak to?

Yes.

Because of how MPs are self-employed

you can not go to anybody apart from

the managers who are political in

that strict sense of the word and

they will do what they can to

protect, wrongly,s many people

think, their own side.

That is

exactly what's going to be sorted

out going forward.

If you are

looking ahead and the line which has

to be drawn, do you think, Dawn

Butler, now that anything like hands

on knees, which was the allegation

and the claim made about Michael

Fallon, that all of that now has to

stop and will stop?

I think if it's

not consensual it's harassment. Not

whether you put your hand on their

knee, whether it is with permission.

If you brush that arm away and say

whatever to that person, that is not

the point or issue. That is how we

break the culture. We break the

culture by tackling all of the

harassment cases. If you don't start

with the little things, it makes it

harder to deal with the bigger

things.

There have been fairly

serious allegations that obviously

Labour are having to deal with.

Firstly the case of Jared O' Mara.

He has lost the whip. Aallegation

made against a Labour Party

official. What is Labour doing at

this point? ?

As you said Jared has

been suspended from the whip while

the ingestgation takes place.

How

long will it take?

I don't know.

It's an investigation. So we have to

let the investigation take its

course. The Labour Party has very

strong, robust procedures, which

it's had for years. But it's been

improved oh d over the last 12

months. This week there's been a bit

ratified by the executive committee.

We take this very, very seriously.

We have worked with the trade

unions. We have worked with ACAS,

with leading legal experts to make

sure our policy is robust. In

relation to Bex Bailey, who had

confidence to talk about

herpublicly, she talks about the

independence of our policies and

reviews, and there is independence

built into our policies. We are

looking how we make it even more

independent. As you said, you need

to feel comfortable and that it will

be taken seriously.

The allegation

was horrendous, but the other part

of her story was she went to speak

to somebody within the Labour Party.

Someone senior. She didn't feel her

concerns were taken on. In fact,

quite the opposite. She was told

that her career may be harmed. What

do you think about that as a woman

in the Labour Party?

I'm devastated

that could ever happen. But the

policy that the Labour has now and

the procedures wasn't in place then.

Are you saying it could never happen

now?

I'm certain the policies in

place now would ensure that wouldn't

happen. But what happened needs to

be investigated. We're going to be

breaking the culture of, you know,

that we tackle whatever happened, to

make somebody think it was OK to

give that information.

If someone

came to you now saying they had been

sexually harassed, what would you

say to them?

I think now the

procedures will be in place.

Actually, it's more likely I'm

getting people at the moment who say

I haven't been andvy the highest

respect for the MP I work for and we

find ourselves in this terrible

storm. In the old days, before there

were new procedures I would have

gone to the Whip's Office and made

sure that whoever it was that was,

who had the allegations made against

them was properly looked into.

Do

you this I the people who feel they

have been wrongly accused and there

is some anger and fear, will they

take legal action? Do you think we

will see action taken?

I hear

rumours there might be. Of course

that is very expensive and there are

probably not many MPs in a position

to be able to do that. We have to be

really careful about getting this

right and that people who are

innocent and are not going to be

witch-hunted as well as the people

who are guilty.

Thank you very much.

Now some breaking news. As we came

on air, the beaning confirmed that

interests are to rise by 0. 25% to

0.5%. That is a significant moment.

This is the first increase in just

over a decade. And it had been

speculated about over the last few

months. What will it mean for

mortgages and saving accounts,

inflation exchange rates. I am

joined now by Simon Gompertz.

It is the first rise in over 10

years.

It is a big moment. Interest

rates have doubled to just half a

per cent. So they are still very

low. It's been eight years since

they started being ultra low. During

that time since the financial crisis

the Bank of England judged the

economy needed cheap money to prop

it up. Recently unemployment's been

very low. Inflation's reignited. So

they have decided this is the moment

to push them up. And it's a

watershed. But in the financial

markets, first of all there was an

increase in the pound. Since then

it's been up and down. That is

because it's not just the increase

in interest rates that they are

looking at, it is the sub text,

what's written behind that and what

the bank has said is that further

increases will be gradually in their

pace and limited in their extent. So

once the markets look at that, the

pound fell back again. It's all

about what sort of return you get

from holding your money in sterling

and they are thinking perhaps that

won't rise very fast, that limited

extent and in some of the forecasts

that the bank has issued, it seems

to indicate that there might be

another increase, but a small one,

another 0. 25% next year and we

wouldn't get to 1% interest rates.

Still very low in historic terms

until about 2020.

It is still low in

historic terms. Obviously over the

last ten years that has been the

status quo, if you like and people

have got used to it. And there'll be

many people who will worry about

going, mortgages going up, about an

increase in their monthly payments

and that will spread a certain

amount of concern, won't it?

It

will. You can say well mortgages are

cheap in historic terms because

mortgages are so low, but so many

people have bought assuming their

mortgage rate will be low so they

have borrowed more. If interest goes

up they could be up against this.

This small increase of 0. 25%, there

are around 17 million people with

mortgages. Around nine million

actual mortgages - a lot of those

are couples. The people with

variable rate mortgages, the ones

affected might see an increase of

around £12 a month. So some people

say that that's the straw that

breaks the camel's back. For others

it will not be very big. What they

will look at is whether there are

more coming along. That is a concern

for many people. You have savers -

45 million savers in this country

will hope that after years of small

returns on their savings they will

get more back. The ISA is around

£10,000. The average interest rate

would have got you £30 a year on

that. With this increase, maybe £50

a year. So, some light at the end of

the tunnel for savers there.

Thank

you very much.

Do you welcome this rise?

I welcome

the fact the Bank of England has

taken this decision. I think it is

right to recognise that the economy

is progressing well. And that

therefore a bit of a rise in the

interest rate...

There will be many

people who say, actually from their

perspective, the economy is not

progressing well in terms of wage

stagnation and the fact that

inflation has reached 3%. They will

say that 0. 25% will make it harder

to meet monthly payments.

As Simon

Gompertz just said, a lot of people

are savers and it will make a big

difference for them. Of course we

now have record employment levels

and a record low unemployment level.

So for many the indication of a

strong economy are definitely there.

Ministers are under fresh

pressure to publish a series

of Brexit impact studies

following a Commons

debate yesterday.

Some Conservative MPs joined Labour

in calling for the 58 documents,

which focus on different sectors

of the economy, to be put

in the public domain.

Labour is seeking to use an arcane

Parliamentary procedure,

known as a 'humble address',

to try to force

the Government's hand.

Ministers say they will now consider

the matter although they have argued

that publication could undermine

the ongoing negotiations

with the EU.

Here's a flavour of

last night's debate.

Looking at the list, which I have

here, two things are obvious.

The first is that in many ways it's

unremarkable and could and should

have been published months ago.

The second is that the wide range

of sectors analysed demonstrate why

it's so important for members

of this House to see the

impact assessment.

It is normal for Select Committees

themselves to request

information, not to get

the opposition, the official

opposition, to do it

on their behalf.

This is gameplaying.

Every time, every time

somebody raises a legitimate

question, it's suggested

that somehow they're

frustrating or undermining

the process.

The House will appreciate the more

information for that is shared more

widely, the less secure our

negotiating position and the harder

it becomes to secure the right deal

for the British people.

The House has the right

to require the

release of documents,

but I sincerely hope

in what is requested in terms of how

they guarantee the

necessary confidentiality

going forward and how much

is requested by the opposition

spokesman, the Select

Committee and the House will be

mindful of the job that ministers

need to do.

That job is to secure the vital

national interests of the

United Kingdom as we negotiate our

departure from the European Union.

THE SPEAKER: Traditionally,

such motions have been regarded

as binding or effective, consistent

with that established pattern

and tradition.

I would expect the address to be

presented by the Vice

Chamberlain of the Household

in the usual way.

However, I would add that I think

it's sensible for us, for

the House, to wait for

the Government's response.

We're joined now by

Matthew Pennycook, who's

a Shadow Brexit Minister.

Welcome. What do you think we will

learn from these impact assessments?

Hopefully we will only impact of

different Brexit scenarios on a

range of sectors of the economy that

this covers. Covering 29 million

people at work, 88% of the economy.

That is why to assemble and that the

select committee has sight of them.

They need to have more grip around

the process and look at what the

impact would be for businesses,

communities and individuals.

Why

doesn't the Government just

published them?

I spoke to my whip

yesterday and said I was encouraging

him to do so. He listened and

acknowledged it.

I do think it is

important to be open about this?

Has

much as possible we should be

opened. We are representatives are

not rulers will are here to try to

make the best decisions we should be

as open as possible. We should not

be so open that we damage

negotiations that we are conducting

damage any form of secrecy that

protect the nation. The lives it is

not that, I am in favour of

openness. -- so long it is not that.

They say it will undermine the UK's

negotiating position? Sign that is

why the Government has agreed to

publish it with certain reductions.

They might say their hands are

bound.

We have always said, and we

accept the principle, you should not

reveal anything where a case could

be convincingly made that it

undermines the national interest. If

the Government felt so strongly

about it, it was their defence if

they felt publication of these

assessments in any form would have

compromised the negotiating

position, they should have voted

against. They accept the principle

that the report should go to the

select committee. I welcome the

moves that were made this morning.

He has spoken to the chair of the

select committee. They will come

together and decide how the select

committee publishes it in a format

does not undermine negotiations.

Surely the Government would have

opposed the vote.

David Davis has a

long history of campaigning for

human rights and the rights of

Parliament and the rights of the

British people. I'm sure he will

take the right decision in there.

Hilary Benn is of high integrity.

I'm sure they will come to the right

answer that reveals as much as

possible, which is important but

also make sure negotiations are

protected.

In terms of redacted

information, if so much of it is

blocked out that we will not learn

very much, will we?

I think the

select committee, the Brexit select

committee, should get the studies in

full. It should be up to them to

decide how it should be published in

a wider sense. The Brexit select

committee has a government majority

and serious parliamentarians who

have been scrutinising the whole

process in minute detail they should

be odd to see the studies. It is

about us representing our

constituents and only impact of

different scenarios and being able

to make a considered judgment on

their behalf. It is about Parliament

taking back control of the process.

There were reports that the Queen

would have to make a statement on

the issue.

I read that story myself.

A government source suggested that.

As Jacob Rees Mogg said yesterday, a

long-standing, Parliamentary power

that we exercised last night to

court papers and information

forward. This should not have been

controversial. The Government, as in

many aspects of the process, has had

to be dragged, kicking and

screaming, rather than taking it on

board as a critical friend and

taking the information which could

legitimately have been seen by the

select committee.

You said you would

like to see these documents

published. Do you think the

Government is not giving Parliament

generally enough say on Brexit?

We

seem to be speaking about Brexit

every day and for several hours each

day. It is not including not only

the Brexit select committee which is

covering very specifically the

negotiations actually the Defra

committee, the home affairs

committee and many other committees

which are covering other elements

within the process.

You have had

success. The Government did not

oppose the vote and the documents

will be published. I don't know the

timescale. Do except what is being

said in general that Parliament is

having a substantial say over

Brexit? Parliament is having a lot

of discussion about Brexit. Whether

the select committee has the

information it needs to have a

thoughtful debate about the economic

impact of different scenarios,

Brexit, on different sectors, that

is what last night was about. We did

not have that the forefoot of it has

been going on since late last year.

The Government has been forced by

parliament last night, people joined

with us to say this have to happen.

This humble address will make sure

it has. We will look forward to

speaking to you or Hilary Benn about

the contents of those assessments.

Since we have been on and the Prime

Minister has welcomed her Australian

counterpart to Downing Street.

He's in the UK to mark

the 100th anniversary

of the Balfour Declaration -

the pledge by the then

British Foreign Secretary

which paved the way

for the creation of Israel.

Israel and Jewish communities view

the pledge as momentous,

while Palestinians regard it

as a historical injustice.

The UK has rejected calls

to apologise and has said

it is proud of its role.

We'll discuss all that in a moment,

but first Elizabeth Glinka reports

on the significance of the Balfour

Declaration.

The modern state of Israel was born

in 1948. For the Jews, the

realisation of a dream. For

Palestinians, the great catastrophe.

Many see the roots of that birth in

a short letter that was written here

at the Foreign Office 30 years

earlier, on 2nd of November, 1917.

The then Foreign Secretary Arthur

Bower for road to Rothschild, a

leading member of the British Jewish

community is then the Government

would give its best endeavours to

create a homeland for the Jewish

people in Palestine.

It was the

moment that then most powerful

country on earth, Britain, when it

still had an empire, just before the

end of the First World War,

recognised the right of the Jews to

a national home in Palestine. It was

then part of the Ottoman Empire and

was about to be occupied in

conquered by the British.

As the war

on the Western front raged, it

fulfilled a political necessity to

fill the void created as the Ottoman

Turks withdrew. It allowed men like

Balfour and the Prime Minister,

David Lloyd George Glad to act on

the digits convictions, supporting

idea that the Jews might once again

make their home in the promised

land. While a significant number of

Jews were living in Jerusalem, 90%

of the population in the rest of the

territories where Palestinians. They

think persecution elsewhere, the

declaration meant the rate of Jewish

migration sped up. By the time the

league of Nations approve the plan

in 1922, more than 100,000 Jews had

arrived in Palestine. And yet, the

language of Balfour's to does not

begin and end with support for the

Jewish state was it does not use the

words Jewish state at all. It

includes qualifications that nothing

should be done to prejudice the

rights of non-Jewish communities and

that it should not affect the status

of Jews living in other countries.

The majority view amongst

Palestinians is that the declaration

spells catastrophe. Some argue that

need not have been the case.

If

Britain had here to the language of

the Balfour Declaration, in my

opinion things would have been very

different. The Middle East and

probably the world at large would

have been a happier place. I want to

acknowledge that while we cannot go

back, we also have a moral

obligation to do something, to make

things better.

The birth of a much

longed for homeland for people

persecuted and despised elsewhere.

All the root cause of destitution,

suffering and destitution. Hundreds

of years later interpretations of

the Balfour Declaration are as

divided as the conflict itself.

To discuss this, I'm

joined now by the former

deputy Secretary-General

of the United Nations

and former Foreign Office Minister

under Gordon Brown,

Mark Malloch-Brown.

Welcome to the studio. Is the

Balfour Declaration of 1917 piece of

British foreign policy that should

be celebrated?

Strangely it is two

claims that it should be a home for

Jews in the Middle East even though

it is not described as a state and

yet the rights of the Palestinians

and other Arab groups should be

protected actually remains an

extraordinary consistent framework

for policy. There have been many

deviations from it in the years

between. I am sure that Balfour,

when he wrote the 67 word letter,

had no idea how it would echo down

the years and beset the

consequential document 100 years

later. So, it has had its ups and

downs and it should be recognised as

a significant document.

You don't

see that it was in some ways

duplicitous because of the promise

also to the non-Jewish communities

and the other ethnic groups that

were there at the time, that their

rights should not in any way be

marginalised. And yet has never

lived up to that.

Policy has not

lived up to the promise of the

letter at all. There have been a

hundred years of duplicity go much

wider than this letter. The other

thing to be understood as we look at

it through this narrow frame of a

letter to Lord Rothschild from the

British Foreign Secretary, as though

it was cooked up in the Westminster

bubble of the time, and the

financial bubble in the city at the

time. In fact, it was really

produced by much broader issues, the

collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the

potential division of Labour between

France, or division of influence

between Britain and France in the

Middle East. There was a lot more

cooking behind that letter than just

protection of the rights of Jews.

Right. Do you agree with Mark

Malloch Brown in the sense that the

promises that were in the letter, it

is a piece of British foreign policy

which has not lived up to what it

intended to happen?

I agree

absolutely with Mark Malik Branfoot

gets written at a certain time in

the First World War, at time when

Britain was fighting for national

survival and was not at all sure of

winning on the Western front and was

looking for allies and friends

everywhere. That is why it is a

piece of paper that is written in a

very careful way. As lord Malik

Brown puts it, with competing

interests. It is a moment when, for

the first time, the United Kingdom

government recognises that the

people of Israel, the Jews, have a

right to self-determination and a

homeland in that sense it is a very

important document.

Some say it is

very important for there to be a

homeland, the state, for Jews to go

and live. There are those who say

the Balfour Declaration was a

mistake, are they saying that Israel

doesn't have a right to exist?

It is

two things. I would hope there are

very few left to claim that Israel

does have a right to exist. I know

there remains the outstanding

diplomatic issue of how the

Palestinians fully recognise and

acknowledge that. I think, to be

honest, today's to system is much

more about the other half, the

promise of protecting the rights of

Palestinians and the failure to

deliver on that. It is a tragedy

that on the one hand you have the

one Democratic state of the region,

Israel, and yet, the cost of that is

5 million Palestinians in their

fourth or fifth generation of Exxon

living in camps and an unsolved

tragedy.

Do you agree with Jeremy

Corbyn, the Labour leader, he won't

be attending the dinner tonight,

that not enough has been said by

successive British governments about

that tragedy?

If I were invited to

dinner, I would certainly go. It is

in every way a significant event. If

one went, it would be to remind

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of

Israel that he cannot turn his back

on finding a solution to this

crisis. Frankly, the problem today

is of the impetus for a negotiated

solution to the Palestinian issue

being much less than it has been for

some decades. We are at a moment

where it has frankly been beached

and put aside.

Isn't that then a

strong statement being sent by the

Labour leader that he does not want

to grace this dinner because of his

opposition to what he says is

obviously occupied territory,

expansion of illegal settlements in

the West Bank? That that is a

stronger signal to send to Benjamin

Netanyahu?

The signal that Labour

has been sending to the Israeli

people of the last few years has

been concerning. I'm sorry that he

has decided not to attend the

dinner. It would have made a for

some of the incidents we have seen

in recent months. I think we should

recognise that many of the soldiers

I had great privilege to serve with

in Afghanistan and Iraq are alive

because of Israeli technology and

counter IED is they shared with us

as allies and friends.

How do you

view the Israeli, Palestinian

conflict in terms of the wider

geopolitics?

It is quite clear it is an important

important issue to resolve. We have

to recognise that we are one of many

countries now who have a voice in

the region, but not the colonial

over-Lord we were pre-1947.

You

wrote the Arab-Israeli conflict

didn't matter in terms of the Arab

Spring.

Exactly.

What did you mean

If you went to Cairo and to other

places around the area, if you saw

Beirut they didn't talk about

Israel. They talked about

self-determination, economic

empowerful. The word Israel never

crossed the mouths of people.

Do you agree some way, politically,

in parts of the Arab world, that

that conflict, which so many people

want to see resolve is often used to

deflect attention away from very

serious issues within the countries

that Tom Tugendhat has talking

about?

I do, actually. I would say

that the seeds of all the problems

in the Middle East, strangely, or

many were set in the same period as

this declaration where we have got a

whole set of sort of half-baked

national borders through the region.

The whole issue of national

determination and the

self-determination in the Middle

East is much wider than just

Israel-plain. We have a dangerous --

Israel Palestinian. We have

dangerous conflict and behind it

conservative regimes failing to sort

of embrace and include their ever

younger, larger larger demography.

It faces jeopardy from a very

dangerous neighbourhood.

Do you

think, are we ever going to see a

Palestinian state in the next sort

of ten years?

As I say, I think

temporarily at least the goal has

been set one. There will not be one

which does not include a Palestinian

state among other political things

which have to be achieved as well.

Thank you.

Let's return to our main story:

the appointment of Gavin Williamson

as the new Defence Secretary

following the resignation

of Michael Fallon last night.

I'm joined now by Tom Newton Dunn,

political editor of The Sun,

and Kate McCann, political

correspondent for

The Daily Telegraph.

Welcome to both of you. Your

reaction to Gavin Williamson. Were

you surprised?

Yes. Intensely

surprised. No other way of putting

it. It is a fascinating appointment.

High risk. We have seen some quite

verbous reaction from people within

-- vicious reaction from people

criticising it. It is the sort of

move a Prime Minister makes knowing

very well that the first thing we

all end up writing about is House of

Cards comparisons. Is he plotting a

secret rise? To do that and go

through that Theresa May has to be

quite sure this is going to work out

in the long-term. I think there's a

lot of interesting reasons. Brexit

negotiations is an important one.

The Defence Secretary has a key seat

on the Cabinet negotiation sub

committee, which will decide what

happens, what we ask for. It is

those long-term long-term

calculations.

Gavin Williamson has

been put in post, promoted from

Chief Whip to that role of Defence

Secretary. Were you surprised to

hear Michael Fallon had resigned

last night?

Yes. We were surprised

last night and again this morning.

There were some surprised noises

come from the press gallery

corridor. Michael Fallon is an

interesting case. The Sun's

front-page looked incredibly bad for

him. There's not been anything else

come out since then. What was

interesting listening to friends of

Michael Fallon last night saying

maybe some of his behaviour from 15

years ago, which at the time might

have been seen as flirting may not

be seen the same way now. If that is

enough for a senior Cabinet minister

to resign their position what does

it mean for others on this list?

What does it mean for the other

high-profile names that we are

asking questions about that? This

might be the start of something

bigger. There are definitely

questions for people like Damian

Green, who is facing an

investigation himself.

The that is

the bar which has been set from what

we know and from what Michael Fallon

he himself has said about this

unacceptable behaviour as seen

through today's prism, do you think

there'll be other Cabinet ministers

resigning?

I think there will be

other ministers resigning, but I

don't think for that reason,

strangely enough. The bar hasn't

been lowered. Michael Fallon went

not because he touched a knee 15

years ago at a drunken dinner. There

are worse examples of inappropriate

behaviour by him. He went for that

reason alone. I think we may find

out in the next few days exactly

what those further allegations were.

I am now sure there are further

allegations. That doesn't

necessarily mean any other ministers

have to go for mildly inappropriate,

still wrong behaviour. I do think

there are at least one or two

ministers, who we know the names of

and you know the names of two, who

are known for this sort of

behaviour. The proof hasn't emerged

yet. I will be amazed if the proof

doesn't emerge and they end up

going.

There could be a further

reshuffle. This was done as a

precision reshuffle so there didn't

have to be a wide-ranging moving of

the chairs. But in the end Theresa

May have to do more. . She may well.

There have already been some

questions about, previous to this

and previous the Westminster assault

allegations which have come out

whether there might be some movement

there. I think what people have been

saying in the background is the

decision she's made today may

encourage some other people who have

allegations or who have, you know,

things have been said about them, to

come forward. Gavin Williamson has

been moved from the Whip's Office

into a Government department. That

could shake things up and mean that

Theresa May will have to make more

big changes. Thank you to you both.

In the grey world of politics,

Boris Johnson brings

a flash of colour -

so his fans say.

And in the serious world

of international diplomacy,

the Foreign Secretary brings humour.

Tom Tugendhat claimed that his brand

of humour is not translated on to

global stage.

Yesterday Mr Johnson was asked

by an MP on Tom's committee

about promoting English wine

and was then challenged over jokes

about Italian prosecco.

I think, actually, telling jokes

is often very effective way

of getting the message across.

I'll just say that in parenthesis.

Sometimes, actually...

Sometimes people greatly appreciate

that you're are talking

to them in that informal way whilst

subtlety getting your point across.

I think that's actually a bit

condescending to think they don't

get the point.

Where does Boris Jonathan stand in

your mind?

Well, he's the current

Foreign Secretary.

How would you

view him against the -- view him

against the giants of the Foreign

Office?

He doesn't have

responsibility Brexit, not for trade

N that sense, the Foreign Office is

doing a lot less than those Foreign

Secretaries were doing.

Is that a

good thing?

It is a reality because

the focus on Brexit has to be so

entire that a single minister has

taken it on.

How do you see him as

defending joke telling as diplomacy?

We have different perspectives on

this. My views have been made clear.

My views having spoken to people in

Paris, Rome and other parts, who

have received some elements of the

humour than others. -- less than

others. It is to influence and get a

positive outcome. I am always

cautious we should do so in the most

a dishous way possible.

Do you think

he has stop the jokes? . It is not

for me to tell the Foreign Secretary

how to conduct his foreign policy.

It is for me to advice on areas I

think it could be improved. You have

said it is not working - it is not

judicious. You are the chair, and

you are to scrutinise the Foreign

Secretary. Is he an effective

ambassador in the middle of these

negotiations?

He's not doing the

negotiations.

You have spoken to

people in the European capitals.

That is why I welcome David Davis is

doing the negotiations. He is a

steady pair of hands and done well

over the last year in making sure

our relationship is good.

Do you agree with Boris Jonathan

that it's condescending to think our

foreign allies cannot understand or

take a joke.

I read their papers and

respond accordingly.

Is it damaging

Britain's standing in the world

having Boris Jonathan behaving this

way?

He's a man with a great passion

for the UK. A way of communicating

which carries further than many

other people. With that comes a

responsibility to...

Does it concern

you that the Foreign Secretary

reaches so readily for what people

call insulting stereotypes?

Well,

those are not the terms I would use.

That is the point I am making.

Would

you prefer him to be a host of have

I got news for you?

It's not for me.

You must have a view. The great

privilege

Vy to serve my country

over the last 15 ways, occasionally

in diplomatic roles. I am merely

saying how I would do it and expect

Foreign Office officials to do it.

Are you embarrassed by him.

I am

very pleased we have a Government

with a lot of talent.

In European capitals, do you think

they consider him a a foon?

I cannot

-- bafoon? I can not tell you what

people tell me. We have a range of

ministers who can speak effectively

to our European partners.

That's all for today.

Andrew will be on BBC One

this evening for This

Week, where he'll be

joined by Michael Portillo,

Harriet Harman, Shazia Mirza,

And I'll be back at noon tomorrow.

Bye-bye.