:00:10. > :00:14.Marriage is such a fine institution it should be available to all, the
:00:14. > :00:18.Government line on its plans to make gay marriage possible is
:00:18. > :00:21.trumpeted loud, not so fast, say figures like the head of the Roman
:00:21. > :00:25.Catholic church in England and Wales, who claims that marriage can
:00:25. > :00:28.only be marriage if it is between a man and a woman.
:00:28. > :00:32.Why has the coalition Government picked this fight with an enemy
:00:33. > :00:38.which includes many of its supporters and MPs. We are going to
:00:38. > :00:42.hear all sides of the argument. One other issue tonight.
:00:42. > :00:49.Hello love. What have you got for nose bag, I feel like a steak and
:00:49. > :00:53.kidney pudding. You are beginning to look like one, salad, victims.
:00:53. > :00:56.Is it time police pay and conditions got a current shake-up,
:00:56. > :01:00.what about making sure to start with they are all reasonably fit
:01:00. > :01:10.and competent. The author of this subversive idea is here with a
:01:10. > :01:12.
:01:12. > :01:16.If you know cause or just impediment you have 12 weeks to
:01:16. > :01:18.speak your mind or forever hold your peace, not that doing so will
:01:18. > :01:23.make much difference, mind. The consultation announced by the
:01:23. > :01:26.Government today is only about how to make gay marriage local in
:01:26. > :01:32.England and Wales, not about -- legal in England and Wales, not
:01:32. > :01:39.about whether to do it at all. This, say opponents, is absurd, since it
:01:39. > :01:45.wasn't in any manifesto before the last election. On the one side is
:01:45. > :01:53.the political establishment, and on the other, the churches. We asked
:01:53. > :01:57.our correspondent why the Government had picked this fight.
:01:57. > :02:05.I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I
:02:05. > :02:08.support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.
:02:08. > :02:14.Marriage is an institution that has served this country very well for
:02:14. > :02:18.nearly 2,000 years, and I think we should change it at our pour Rhyl.
:02:18. > :02:22.Modern day "middle England" in a town built in the Middle Ages, and
:02:22. > :02:28.one the Government believes is ready to accept gay marriage.
:02:28. > :02:33.This ancient ward city is represented by Julian Brozier, he
:02:33. > :02:37.is one of the Tory MPs critical of the party leadership's bill to
:02:37. > :02:42.finally go for it and legalise gay marriage. The Conservatives want to
:02:42. > :02:46.do that because they think it emblematic of the journey its party
:02:46. > :02:49.has been on, in touch finally with Britain. Some don't get it. They
:02:49. > :02:51.don't understand why the party would spend time on something like
:02:51. > :02:56.this. The Prime Minister makes this
:02:56. > :03:01.argument, he believes in marriage, in all its forms.
:03:01. > :03:06.But it then means redefining marriage, it also means rather
:03:06. > :03:10.impartial. Does it really? They are not religious ceremonies, civil
:03:10. > :03:14.partnership has redefined marriage. You have to ask yourself what
:03:14. > :03:20.marriage actually is, it has traditionally been between two, in
:03:20. > :03:23.some ways restricted people, they had to be a man and a woman, not
:03:23. > :03:29.related, and what we are talking about here is not only a big step,
:03:29. > :03:34.but it is also a partial step. Why gay marriage and not Sharia
:03:34. > :03:37.marriage. In 2005, the then Labour Government
:03:37. > :03:40.legislated to bring in civil partnerships, now David Cameron's
:03:40. > :03:43.team want to put down their own contribution towards modernising
:03:43. > :03:47.Britain. And so, they have started the
:03:47. > :03:52.process of bringing in civil gay marriage, by opening a consultation
:03:52. > :03:55.to cheering from some of their MPs. I have looked at three studies that
:03:55. > :03:59.show children being brought up in strong relationships, whether they
:03:59. > :04:04.be between men and women, or men and men, or women and women, do
:04:04. > :04:09.just as well as each other, so it is important that we, not despite
:04:09. > :04:15.being Conservative, but because we are Conservatives, support the
:04:15. > :04:18.equalisation of civil marriage. So we are in Canterbury, what is
:04:18. > :04:22.your feeling about your constituents, how would they want
:04:22. > :04:26.you to vote? I have made my own mind up, because it is something
:04:26. > :04:30.that I feel strongly about. But, in fact, the bulk of the
:04:30. > :04:34.representations I have had so far, all but one of them, have been
:04:34. > :04:38.against this measure. And what was the one person who was
:04:38. > :04:43.in support of it, why did they say they support it? On the rights
:04:43. > :04:46.point, on the point of equal rights. It seems to me that rights have to
:04:46. > :04:52.be balanced against the wider needs of society.
:04:52. > :04:57.So how did Julian Brozier's opinion fare on his streets. On the
:04:57. > :05:03.religious angle I have a bit of a problem there, I'm not particularly
:05:03. > :05:06.religious, but on the human rights angle I suppose you can't deny it.
:05:06. > :05:15.I really haven't got strong feelings either way. I don't agree
:05:15. > :05:21.with it at all. Why not? I don't think marriage is for not two
:05:21. > :05:26.fellas or two girls, it is male and female. Even though you have civil
:05:26. > :05:30.partnerships? Civil partnerships, not marriage. Don't they deserve
:05:30. > :05:34.equal rights? In a diverse society it is fine. You have an MP who
:05:35. > :05:39.thinks it is the opposite, he thinks it shouldn't be allowed?
:05:39. > :05:42.He's being a bit of a dinosaur then. Quick-fire tests like these are
:05:42. > :05:45.normally a fool's game, but on this question the Government has
:05:45. > :05:47.certainly put thought into where opinion lies.
:05:47. > :05:51.Downing Street think that the number of people at the next
:05:51. > :05:55.election who will vote against them because of policies like this, well
:05:55. > :05:59.they are minuscule, all three party leaders will be voting in the same
:05:59. > :06:02.way. So as a way to decide your vote it won't be very helpful, in
:06:02. > :06:05.the round the Conservative leadership has decided there is
:06:05. > :06:09.more to be risked from not going for something like this, than going
:06:09. > :06:13.for it. There is something else, if you get from the 37% of the vote
:06:13. > :06:18.that the Conservatives got at the last election, to the 44% they need
:06:18. > :06:21.to win a majority, you have to go for Labour and Lib Dem votes, they
:06:21. > :06:25.think on policies like this they can do that. For the Prime Minister,
:06:25. > :06:29.while there is a lot of principle involved, there is also a lot of
:06:29. > :06:33.polling. Issues like gay marriage, et cetera, are things that could
:06:33. > :06:37.make a difference. But to be honest, they are swamped entirely by things
:06:37. > :06:40.like basic competence on running the economy, crime, this isn't an
:06:40. > :06:44.issue that everybody in Britain is champing at the bit and getting
:06:44. > :06:47.excited about. It is hard to find a more Godly
:06:47. > :06:51.dwelling than Canterbury, and on this issue the church is ranged
:06:51. > :06:55.against the Government. Writing this morning, the Home Secretary,
:06:55. > :06:59.May, sought to reassure, she pledged the Government won't touch
:06:59. > :07:04.religious marriage in any way. Churches, she insisted, keep their
:07:04. > :07:09.right to preach that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
:07:09. > :07:12.Son the Canterbury, Chaucer, told many tales about the trials and
:07:12. > :07:19.tribulations of marriage, David Cameron, on the other hand, is a
:07:19. > :07:25.much more pang losian chap, and on this occasion, he's xet dent he
:07:25. > :07:30.won't be left at the at -- competent he won't be left at the
:07:30. > :07:33.alter. Nick Herbert has been watching that report, this wasn't -
:07:33. > :07:37.- altar. Nick Herbert has been watching that report, this wasn't
:07:37. > :07:42.in the Lib Dem manifesto or the Conservative manifesto, it is a
:07:42. > :07:44.major social change, what authority have you done to do it? It will be
:07:44. > :07:48.done with the authority of parliament, if that is what
:07:48. > :07:51.parliament will decide to vote for. I believe they will. When we were
:07:51. > :07:55.consulting about the extension of civil partnerships a couple of
:07:55. > :07:59.years ago, we realised that a lot of people were saying that this is
:07:59. > :08:06.something that they believed in strongly. It is, fundamentally,
:08:06. > :08:11.about the kind of society you want to build, and the important
:08:11. > :08:14.principle of equality, it is also about strengthening an institution.
:08:14. > :08:18.As David Cameron said, from the Conservative point of view it is
:08:18. > :08:20.not in spite of being a Conservative that we want to ensure
:08:20. > :08:24.equal marriage, it is actually because we are Conservatives, and
:08:24. > :08:28.believe in that institution. know the Lib Dems are claiming
:08:28. > :08:32.credit for this, public low claiming credit for it? I don't
:08:32. > :08:36.think -- publicly claiming credit for it? I don't think it is about
:08:36. > :08:39.claiming credit. There has been enormous strides in equality in our
:08:39. > :08:45.society in the course of the last few years. That has been important,
:08:45. > :08:49.but there is more to do. There are now far more, for instance, gay
:08:49. > :08:54.members of parliament, of which I am one, there are people now who
:08:54. > :08:58.can have civil partnerships, I am one of them. But we still have a
:08:58. > :09:02.situation in this country where you have young people who are being
:09:02. > :09:07.bullied in school because they are gay, where we have a tremendous
:09:07. > :09:12.problem in sport, in particular football, in relation to homophobia.
:09:12. > :09:16.We have homophobic abuse around the world, and the idea that actually
:09:16. > :09:20.we can rest on this issue, I think is wrong. Symbolically, therefore,
:09:20. > :09:24.as well as on the merits itself, I think it is incredible important,
:09:24. > :09:28.that we should, as a society, be saying that the valuable
:09:28. > :09:32.institution of civil marriage, is available to all. I should just
:09:32. > :09:39.emphasise, it is civil marriage we are talking about. This is not
:09:39. > :09:43.affecting, or has anything to do with religious marriage, which is
:09:43. > :09:46.untouched by the prososals. Much of the running on the debate is
:09:46. > :09:49.running with religious figure. With what are you saying with your
:09:49. > :09:56.colleagues, on the same side of the fence? It is complete and utter
:09:56. > :09:58.claptrap I have to say to the minister, to be polite. This is no
:09:58. > :10:01.nobody's manifesto, it was not in the manifesto and there is no hint
:10:01. > :10:05.of it. If you are going to change something that is 2,000 years old,
:10:05. > :10:11.put it in your manifesto, see if people vote for you, and then bring
:10:11. > :10:14.it forward after the next parliament. This sham of a
:10:15. > :10:19.consultation, 12 weeks when you have decided to do it, makes the
:10:19. > :10:22.party look appalling. It is a disastrous policy. What do you tell
:10:22. > :10:28.your constituents? My constituents have written in to me since I got
:10:28. > :10:32.involved in it, and 80/20 they agree with me. Although it is your
:10:32. > :10:36.party that is doing it? It is not my party that is doing it, hang on,
:10:36. > :10:40.it is not my party. It is the coalition Government. As you said,
:10:40. > :10:44.this is because of a dirty deal with the liberals behind the scenes.
:10:44. > :10:48.Nick Herbert denies that? I think actually the surveys are showing
:10:48. > :10:54.that most of the public think this is a change that is being made.
:10:54. > :10:59.They don't, 88%, get this right. think it is the right thing to do
:10:59. > :11:03.in any case. In the end parliament will decide. Will it be a free vote,
:11:03. > :11:08.Nick, a genuine free vote, where ministers will be able to vote
:11:08. > :11:12.against the Prime Minister? sure it will. Certainly in our
:11:12. > :11:15.party we have always had a free vote on these issues of conscience.
:11:15. > :11:18.I do think it is important to realise this is affecting the
:11:18. > :11:24.majority of marriages which are actually civil marriages, we have
:11:24. > :11:27.made it absolutely clear that this is not something that should affect
:11:27. > :11:31.churches, religious marriage, we should not be tell them what to do.
:11:31. > :11:36.They are, as I said, the people making much of the running on the
:11:36. > :11:40.moral aspects of this, the most vociferous voice of opposition to
:11:40. > :11:43.the gay marriage scheme has been that of the Catholic Church. A
:11:43. > :11:46.little earlier I sat down with the Archbishop of Westminster, head of
:11:46. > :11:51.the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales.
:11:51. > :11:55.Archbishop, no-one is going to require you to conduct a gay
:11:55. > :11:59.marriage, so why have you got anything to say about it? This is
:11:59. > :12:03.not a debate, actually about religious freedom, this is a debate
:12:03. > :12:06.about the nature of marriage. That is why it is very helpful, I
:12:06. > :12:11.believe, that this consultation has now started. I hope that the debate
:12:12. > :12:16.can be measured and reasonable, and really pay attention to the central
:12:16. > :12:19.point, what do we mean by marriage, what do we understand it to be. Why
:12:19. > :12:24.is it an important institution in this land?
:12:25. > :12:28.You believe marriage to be beneficial to hetrosexual couples,
:12:29. > :12:32.why isn't it beneficial to gay couples? I think you have to say,
:12:32. > :12:36.marriage is beneficial to society, because of the complex features
:12:36. > :12:40.that come together in marriage. is presumably you also believe it
:12:40. > :12:43.is beneficial for the man and woman concerned? Of course it is.
:12:43. > :12:47.isn't it beneficial for the two men or women involved in the gay
:12:47. > :12:51.marriage? Let's put it this way, marriage is about bringing
:12:51. > :12:55.difference together, different sexes, sometimes different families,
:12:56. > :12:59.sometimes different tribes, it has been used to bring kingdoms
:12:59. > :13:03.together. It is about bringing difference together, out of which
:13:03. > :13:07.comes a new life and start. And the gender difference is, in your
:13:07. > :13:17.judgment, absolutely essential to that? The gender difference is
:13:17. > :13:20.essential, for its creativity and its compliment arity. You have
:13:20. > :13:25.consistently redefined marriage, you cited marriage as a political
:13:25. > :13:28.device, to bring about some sort of different relationship between
:13:28. > :13:33.different tribes, why can't we redefine it again? No, I think what
:13:33. > :13:36.you are talking about is different uses of marriage, different
:13:36. > :13:39.purposes to which it is put, not the definition of it. If this
:13:39. > :13:43.debate was simply about extending marriage, I would be not bothered,
:13:43. > :13:48.but it is not extending marriage, it is about redefining marriage.
:13:48. > :13:51.That is the crux of it. So far in this conversation you have not
:13:51. > :13:54.mentioned what most people believe marriage to be, which is a
:13:54. > :13:59.statement of commitment between two individuals, don't you believe
:13:59. > :14:04.that? Of course it is a statement of commitment between two
:14:04. > :14:08.individuals. It is valid between two gay people as hetrosexuals?
:14:08. > :14:13.is not only that. We esteem marriage in our tradition and law,
:14:13. > :14:17.because it is also the place where the next generation is produced. To
:14:17. > :14:24.me it is utterly astonishing that in the whole consultation document
:14:24. > :14:28.that the Government has put forward today, on marriage, there is not
:14:28. > :14:32.one mention of the word "child", there is no reference to children
:14:32. > :14:37.at all. That shows that the vision of marriage contained in the
:14:37. > :14:41.consultation document is reduced. It is excluding things that are
:14:41. > :14:46.actually of the very nature of marriage. You would, marry, would
:14:46. > :14:51.you, a man and a woman who knew themselves to be infertile? I would,
:14:51. > :14:55.as long as their intention was to live as man and wife. And you know,
:14:55. > :14:59.as I know, that sometimes there is permanent infertility, sometimes
:15:00. > :15:04.there is not. But the fundamental point is the shape of marriage is
:15:04. > :15:09.respected in that union. What about two lesbians who wanted to marry
:15:09. > :15:13.and would conceive a child by artificial insemination? They would,
:15:13. > :15:17.it would not be naturally their child. So it is about the nature of
:15:17. > :15:22.sex they practice? It is about, in this case, it is about who the
:15:22. > :15:26.parents of a child are. And what society says, I believe, is that
:15:26. > :15:29.the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children
:15:29. > :15:32.is the partnership between the two natural parents. That is what it
:15:32. > :15:37.says, and I think that is why the law is there to protect marriage.
:15:37. > :15:41.That is why the change of the definition of marriage affects
:15:41. > :15:45.everybody. But the politic Catholic Church recognises civil marriages,
:15:45. > :15:48.doesn't -- Catholic Church recognises civil marriages? It does.
:15:48. > :15:51.Why not recognise civil gay marriages? Because what is proposed
:15:51. > :15:55.is a change in the definition of marriage. You have a view on it,
:15:55. > :15:58.others have other views? I hope we can debate it calmly and well in
:15:58. > :16:02.these three months. I hope that people will pay attention to the
:16:02. > :16:07.first question in the consultation, which is, "do you want this change
:16:07. > :16:12.in the law or not?". I hope that too will be part of the debate.
:16:12. > :16:17.want to stop it? I think it is not good, it is not in the long run a
:16:17. > :16:22.good idea to change, to shake that fundamental idea of marriage, in
:16:22. > :16:26.which a man and a woman call each other husband and wife. And if a
:16:26. > :16:31.gay Catholic couple came to you and said we want to marry, and we want
:16:31. > :16:34.it to be recognised by the church, within the confines of the church,
:16:34. > :16:40.respecting religious belief, what would you say to them? I would want
:16:40. > :16:44.to sit down with them, I would want to say to them that I understand
:16:45. > :16:48.their desires, that I understand that their experience of love is
:16:48. > :16:53.vitally important in their lives. I would want to say to them that they
:16:53. > :16:57.are called, in my view, in the Channel Tunnel's view, to a very
:16:57. > :17:01.profound -- church's view, to a very profound friendship in life, I
:17:01. > :17:05.would want them to be respected, but to have a vision in themselves,
:17:05. > :17:11.that what they are called to is not marriage, but a profound and
:17:11. > :17:16.lifelong friendship. Let's discuss this further with the
:17:16. > :17:21.minister, hush Nick Herbert and the rest of my guests, who represent
:17:21. > :17:26.many sides of the debate. Why isn't the profound friendship enough?
:17:26. > :17:30.is a sad misunderstanding of the relationship gay couples have if he
:17:30. > :17:37.thinks it is a profound friendship, it is akin to the union between a
:17:37. > :17:40.man and a woman in a hetrosexual marriage. And what is wrong with
:17:40. > :17:43.wanting to show a commitment towards someone to say you will
:17:43. > :17:49.spend your life with somebody, that you will look after someone, that
:17:49. > :17:52.they will look after you. I don't seek to dictate to the bishop what
:17:52. > :17:57.happens inside his church, and what standards he sets, and what he
:17:57. > :18:01.seeks to do, it would be wrong for me and the state to seek to do so.
:18:01. > :18:04.Equally, I wonder why he should seek to dictate the institution of
:18:04. > :18:08.civil marriage outside of his church, which is not a matter for
:18:08. > :18:11.the church. I think if it is, what he's really saying is he's in
:18:11. > :18:15.support of civil marriage for straight couple, but he can't
:18:15. > :18:18.accept it for gay couples. I think we have the measure of this
:18:18. > :18:20.consultation exercise, you are not going to listen? We are clear this
:18:20. > :18:23.is a consultation about how to do something that the Government
:18:23. > :18:26.believes is the right thing to do, parliament can then decide. It is
:18:26. > :18:30.not a consultation about the principle, we believe in the
:18:30. > :18:33.principle, we believe in equality. We have another bishop, an Anglican
:18:33. > :18:39.bishop, did you agree with everything the Archbishop said?
:18:39. > :18:42.think there is a problem about the catagories here, the report we have
:18:42. > :18:45.before us is intellectually dishonest, it tries to say that
:18:45. > :18:49.there is two sorts of marriage, civil marriage and religious
:18:49. > :18:53.marriage, that is not true. The law of England has one thing called
:18:53. > :18:57.marriage, solemnised in churches and registry offices, the ministers
:18:57. > :19:01.have been going round for the past few weeks talking in rather loose
:19:01. > :19:04.terms about civil marriages as if it is a different thing. It is not.
:19:04. > :19:07.The reason why the churches are concerned, not merely because of
:19:07. > :19:11.their own religious beliefs, it is about the fact that we believe that
:19:11. > :19:15.marriage is a good for the whole of society, and you don't just lightly
:19:15. > :19:19.change the nature of marriage, by saying, well, of course we know
:19:19. > :19:21.people who are in committed partnerships, let's be nice to them,
:19:21. > :19:27.because actually being nice to people is not a good reason to
:19:27. > :19:30.change the law. Why are you shaking your head? We have got into the
:19:30. > :19:35.situation where we have said the churchs are against it. There are a
:19:35. > :19:37.number of bishops who are, on the ground, in the pews it is entirely
:19:37. > :19:43.different situation. I'm afraid the bishops are out-of-touch with the
:19:43. > :19:47.majority of people. A great many of us want it to happen. You are an
:19:47. > :19:50.Anglican Clergyman, is there any reason why two men or women could
:19:50. > :19:54.not get married? No. One of the problems with this thing from the
:19:54. > :19:59.Government, it doesn't go far enough. It won't allow churches to
:19:59. > :20:05.have gay marriage, even if they want to. So the state is dictating
:20:05. > :20:08.to the churches, if the church or synagogue decides it wants to marry
:20:08. > :20:11.two people of the same-sex, it won't be allowed to do it. The
:20:11. > :20:16.state is saying to the churches, even if you want to do it, you
:20:16. > :20:18.can't do it. It is a distinction we shouldn't be making, it is a
:20:18. > :20:22.discussion about the nature of marriage we haven't had. The
:20:22. > :20:25.Government has said we will do it any way, here is a called
:20:25. > :20:27.consultation document, they are not allowing us to talk about the
:20:27. > :20:31.nature of what it is we are changing. There is something about
:20:31. > :20:34.the nature of marriage that hasn't been discussed, that is where the
:20:34. > :20:38.Archbishop was right. The Government is just saying let's
:20:38. > :20:41.reinvent it as we go along, let's make it up, let's be nice to gay
:20:41. > :20:45.people, who do need to be able to have their commitments recognised,
:20:45. > :20:49.but let's do it without thinking about the impact upon the whole of
:20:49. > :20:53.society. Sitting behind you and shaking his head, Milo Yinnopoulos,
:20:53. > :20:58.you are a Catholic and also gay? am, let me explain briefly the
:20:58. > :21:03.problem I have. First of all, this doesn't sound like a Tory minister
:21:03. > :21:08.to me, I'm confused about why David Cameron is doing this at the moment,
:21:08. > :21:14.I think he -- I know, it's because he's sucking up to people who won't
:21:14. > :21:21.vote for him any way, that is patronising. As soon as this hits
:21:21. > :21:25.the statute books we will be besieged by test cases, seeking to
:21:25. > :21:28.force churches, whatever the churches say, we will be besieged
:21:29. > :21:33.with test cases that are seeking to force churchs to perform these
:21:33. > :21:37.ceremonies. What will happen, can tell you one thing, the Catholic
:21:37. > :21:41.Church is never going to perform a gay marriage, because the priest
:21:41. > :21:45.involved, and the two people involved would be instantly
:21:45. > :21:48.excommunicated, nor is any mosque, you are setting up something very
:21:48. > :21:52.dangerous. It is all very well to say gay people should have these
:21:52. > :21:54.unions and be respected and all of rest of it. I don't see any
:21:54. > :21:59.difference between that and civil partnership. You are setting the
:21:59. > :22:03.churches and the gay establishment against one another, my worry is.
:22:03. > :22:07.You are saying all the churches think the same they won't. My worry
:22:07. > :22:13.as someone with a foot in both camps is we will start a war here
:22:13. > :22:15.that nobody can possibly win. gay Catholic you decide, do you,
:22:15. > :22:20.that your religious belief is greater to you than your sexual
:22:20. > :22:25.identity, fall in love with a man and wish to marry him, you would
:22:26. > :22:30.not seek to do so within the church? I would not, no. It is not
:22:30. > :22:34.my personal beliefs, my worry with this perpetual drive for equality,
:22:34. > :22:37.we will drive people apart. Can I make a very simple point. I would
:22:37. > :22:42.like to say, because somebody has to say this, look, there will be a
:22:42. > :22:46.lot of people debating over the next few weeks and whatever this
:22:46. > :22:49.issue, people will be talking about theology and legislation, and
:22:49. > :22:52.people like yourself will be arguing with people like him
:22:52. > :22:56.because he's aligning himself with something progressive you don't
:22:56. > :23:02.believe in, all these discussions will take place. I'm really keen to
:23:03. > :23:06.say that I think we should probably acknowledge that at times like this
:23:06. > :23:11.it does unforth Natalie give a voice to people who just --
:23:11. > :23:15.unfortunately give a voice to people who clearly hate homosexuals
:23:15. > :23:20.who have deep rooted fears of themselves. He doesn't like the
:23:20. > :23:27.idea of gay marriage and he's gay. That is a sweeping accusation you
:23:28. > :23:32.have no way of justifying? I'm not talking about Milo.
:23:32. > :23:39.Can I finish this point. Let me bring this these two guys here?
:23:39. > :23:43.would like to hear why Peter feels so angry about Nick's support.
:23:43. > :23:47.is not about Nick's support it is the democratic deficit. His point
:23:47. > :23:54.was, as he clearly stated, that it was not in the manifesto of either
:23:54. > :23:58.party in the coalition Government, therefore no-one had voted for it?
:23:58. > :24:02.Let me bring in you two, you are a couple? We have been together for
:24:02. > :24:07.25 years this April. Monogamous couple. Have you got children?
:24:07. > :24:11.have five children together, our oldest two are 12, an eight-year-
:24:11. > :24:15.old and It Takes Two-year-olds, healthy, well balanced, well
:24:16. > :24:18.adjusted children, in our family relationship. You are in a civil
:24:18. > :24:22.partnership? Our children are baptised, we are practising
:24:22. > :24:27.Christians in the local church. I want to get married in my church.
:24:27. > :24:32.With my Reverend who wants to marry us, but legally can't do it. It
:24:32. > :24:38.goes back to your comments, we have a vicar in our parish in Essex, who
:24:38. > :24:41.wants to marry us, but legally can't do it. This takes us into the
:24:41. > :24:44.key area of the relationship between the state and the church.
:24:45. > :24:50.Nick Herbert I will ask you in a second, you heard him say he's not
:24:50. > :24:57.seeking to compel any church to do this. Maybe you should? Maybe you
:24:57. > :25:00.should. He's compelling them not to. We can't compel the churches to do
:25:00. > :25:05.something they don't want to. Neither the Anglican Church nor
:25:05. > :25:10.Catholic Church would want to do this.
:25:10. > :25:14.I accept there is an issue with the some denominations. They will not
:25:14. > :25:21.do that, a very simple thing. want the same right as every other
:25:21. > :25:25.man and woman in this country. Please don't all talk at once.
:25:25. > :25:29.gay man, we are the only section of society, and you are a gay man too,
:25:29. > :25:35.sitting here, that are locally discriminated against. If I was
:25:35. > :25:41.black, anything else, it is ridiculous. My mother and father.
:25:41. > :25:46.If we throw it over to men and men, why not let people have six wives.
:25:46. > :25:51.Some people do. You don't find that abhorrent.
:25:51. > :25:56.Don't all speak at once, please. (all speak at once) Hang on, you
:25:56. > :26:00.have made your point, one at a home. I don't want six wives, I want the
:26:00. > :26:06.same as a straight couple. Stop, let me say this. You have made that
:26:06. > :26:10.point. Stella. For a start, you keep, Newsnight has been doing it
:26:10. > :26:13.all day, talking about gay marriage, it is not gay marriage, it is
:26:13. > :26:19.marriage. Equal marriage is what we are asking forks equality under the
:26:19. > :26:22.law, the minute you add "gay" to it, you quantify it. It is simply
:26:22. > :26:28.marriage. That said, what would be brilliant is if the church would
:26:28. > :26:31.listen to itself, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. And stop
:26:31. > :26:35.interfering what is going on in the rest of the world and go back to
:26:35. > :26:41.its work. The gospel will tell you to butt out.
:26:41. > :26:44.This lacks any sense of history, what we have in this country is a
:26:44. > :26:49.judeo-Christian tradition from which we have inherited marriage,
:26:49. > :26:52.you can't just write that could have. We have had only priests of
:26:52. > :26:57.marriage for 500 years. You are shar I don't know James, you speak
:26:57. > :27:00.for the traditional view of marriage. What do you make of this
:27:00. > :27:05.conversation? I think that talking about religion is actually side
:27:05. > :27:10.tracking the issue, I would like to move the discussion completely away
:27:10. > :27:13.from religion, and say that the consultation and the ministers say
:27:13. > :27:16.that introducing equal marriage, if you want to call it that, will
:27:17. > :27:20.strengthen the marriage institution. Let's look at the evidence in
:27:20. > :27:26.countries that have introduced, as we call it here, equal marriage,
:27:26. > :27:33.the first thing, the marriage culture has been weakened. In the
:27:33. > :27:38.Scandinavian countries that have introduced it, rates of childbirth
:27:38. > :27:42.outside marriage have increased. The Netherlands have introduced it
:27:42. > :27:47.and the next thing legalising threesomes, in Canada they have
:27:47. > :27:51.taken the term "natural parent" out of the legal system and there is
:27:51. > :27:55.pressure for group marriage. Marriage culture is weakened.
:27:55. > :27:59.Suggesting that it will make marriage better, the evidence says
:27:59. > :28:04.otherwise. When you hear a couple here at the back talking about, you
:28:04. > :28:12.know, it's a very dually conventional life in many respects,
:28:12. > :28:17.they have lots of children, they are committed, why not get married?
:28:17. > :28:23.In that case why did the biggest gay rights group in the country not
:28:23. > :28:28.come out in favour of gay marriage until 2010 they are the biggest gay
:28:28. > :28:32.rights lobby, they said up until 2010 that the rights given by civil
:28:33. > :28:37.partnerships are sufficient, and still gay couples say that. What
:28:37. > :28:41.does the minister make of that argument? I don't think the
:28:41. > :28:44.argument that some how having equal marriage has undermined the
:28:44. > :28:48.institution would be a question of cause and effect. The truth is
:28:48. > :28:52.marriage is an institution that has been systematically undermined by
:28:52. > :28:56.lots of things. Over many decades. Actually, I'm one of a number of
:28:56. > :28:58.people, and it is the view actually in my party at the moment, and of
:28:58. > :29:01.the Prime Minister, that marriage is a really important institution
:29:01. > :29:04.that we should be seeking to strengthen. Our starting position
:29:04. > :29:08.is not to seek to undermine it, but that it is an important institution.
:29:08. > :29:11.In a funny sort of way isn't it great to talk about how we
:29:11. > :29:16.strengthen that institution, there is a disagreement here about it.
:29:16. > :29:21.That is what we want to do. I think that it does come down to really
:29:21. > :29:25.quite a straight forward proposition, which is why when a
:29:25. > :29:28.straight couple are able to have a civil marriage, and a civil
:29:28. > :29:33.ceremony, which is outside of a church, is that not available to a
:29:33. > :29:36.gay couple as well. Yes we can have a civil partnership, I'm incredibly
:29:36. > :29:41.grateful that was possible. But to me and thousands of other people it
:29:41. > :29:46.is not the same, it makes us feel different. It makes us feel that we
:29:46. > :29:51.are not treated equally to others, and we want to share, and be part
:29:51. > :29:56.of an institution that has been so important in our country.
:29:56. > :30:00.Gay relationships are not the same as straight relationships, it is
:30:00. > :30:05.ridiculous to say they are. A man and a man loving each other is the
:30:05. > :30:09.same, I love my husband the same as my mother loved my father. That may
:30:09. > :30:13.be your view. The only difference is I'm male and he's male. I can't
:30:13. > :30:18.believe as a gay man you feel that way. I believe the relationship
:30:18. > :30:22.between a man and a man and a woman and a man are completely different.
:30:22. > :30:27.When you hear these protestations of genuine affection, and a desire
:30:27. > :30:31.to be treated merely the same as everyone else, don't you feel a
:30:31. > :30:34.bigot? Not at all, because there are actually gay and lesbian people
:30:34. > :30:40.who say that civil partnerships give all of the rights that they
:30:40. > :30:44.require, and they do not want to see the tradition of marriage
:30:44. > :30:48.redefined, they believe marriage is good for society. This is the
:30:48. > :30:52.second time you have done to quote what you say gay and lesbian
:30:52. > :30:55.organisations say, I'm interested in your personal feelings are, it
:30:55. > :30:59.would make me feel uncomfortable? Not at all, I believe marriage
:30:59. > :31:02.predates the state and church, it goes right back, it is a natural
:31:02. > :31:05.institution between men and women, and the majority of people in this
:31:05. > :31:10.country think you can respect the rights of gay and lesbian couples
:31:10. > :31:15.and live in a tolerant society, we all want that. And also. It is not
:31:15. > :31:19.about being tolerated, I'm not second class to anyone else.
:31:19. > :31:24.Why is the gay and lesbian community clamouring for this?
:31:24. > :31:27.Clearly they are not clamouring. We would like equality. It is very
:31:27. > :31:34.simple, only asking for equality. agree with Stella, what's the big
:31:34. > :31:39.deal, don't we all, listen, bottom line, actually cross-party, the
:31:39. > :31:44.current state of the world, OK, human beings are actually the most
:31:44. > :31:48.depressed, medicateed, anaesthised they have ever been, there is a
:31:48. > :31:52.massive crisis. We think we live in a happy world. We should be moving
:31:52. > :31:56.towards being more compassionate, and being more open-hearted and
:31:56. > :32:00.accepting, we should all be moving towards equality. It pains me to
:32:00. > :32:04.want to agree with anything that comes out of a Conservative's mouth,
:32:04. > :32:07.at the same time, can I just point out a quick contradiction, I hope
:32:07. > :32:10.you will be applying this great compassion for equality to all the
:32:10. > :32:14.people who are losing out with all the massive public cuts you are
:32:14. > :32:19.making and the health service and all the working-class people.
:32:19. > :32:24.to the point! The point is that all of us should be moving forward in a
:32:24. > :32:27.truly open-hearted way, where we would like equality. Now, if people
:32:27. > :32:31.like yourselves, you know, extremely right-wing stories,
:32:31. > :32:35.members of the church, and marriage coalition whatever it is called, if
:32:35. > :32:39.all you guys think that marriage is so great and so special and it is
:32:39. > :32:44.the ultimate place, which it is not, by the way, because human
:32:44. > :32:50.relationships are complex. OK, OK, OK. Why not allow gay people who
:32:50. > :32:53.want to join that. You can explain this? Peter why
:32:53. > :32:56.shouldn't I be able to marry my partner of 25 years. I have got the
:32:56. > :33:00.message, I just think it is a very simple case that marriage is
:33:00. > :33:04.between a man and a woman, it is rather like saying an apple is a
:33:04. > :33:14.pear, it is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that has
:33:14. > :33:17.
:33:17. > :33:23.been for 2,000 years. Tauring about tradition. Thankfully things change.
:33:23. > :33:27.(all talk at once) Things move on. Absolutely you can redefine
:33:27. > :33:31.marriage, but you can't do it if there is not a democratic mandate
:33:31. > :33:37.for it. You can read anywhere, you can read any of the manifestos
:33:37. > :33:40.there was not a hint this was coming on, that is my view.
:33:40. > :33:45.I think the reason there is so much heat in these discussions is
:33:45. > :33:50.because many of us believe that the arguments people present against
:33:50. > :33:55.equal marriage are actually a cover for homophobia, actually that is
:33:55. > :33:59.what really is going on. That is a very serious accusation to make.
:33:59. > :34:03.is Jeremy. That is what many people feel, that, I mean, it may not be
:34:03. > :34:06.in certain circumstances, but actually in a number of
:34:06. > :34:11.circumstances. Bishop are a homophob? I don't think it does any
:34:11. > :34:15.credit to this to play the homophobia card. It is not. Hear
:34:15. > :34:19.him out. What you need is a serious discussion about the nature of
:34:19. > :34:23.marriage. I would be quite content for us to be having this
:34:23. > :34:28.conversation at length, 12 weeks of a consultation, called, that says
:34:28. > :34:30.we are going to do it any way, how do you want us to do it. That is
:34:30. > :34:34.not a consultation. A serious debate in society about the nature
:34:34. > :34:37.of what we believe in marriage, such that you can convince people
:34:37. > :34:41.like Peter if you want to, that actually it might be worth thinking
:34:41. > :34:44.about changing it. That would be a rational thing for us to do. This
:34:44. > :34:49.is a thoroughly rushed, irrational bit of playing to the gallery that
:34:49. > :34:53.is going on. Is any of this going to make a difference? Yes because
:34:53. > :34:58.it is a consultation about how we do something, and big issues that
:34:58. > :35:01.we haven't talked about, like how civil partnerships are affected. It
:35:01. > :35:05.is important that we continue to listen to views. This is something,
:35:05. > :35:15.as I say, that the Government wants to do, and then parliament will
:35:15. > :35:18.decide. All those gam rouse police officers on TV are fiction. It
:35:18. > :35:24.turns out large numbers of police have enough trouble getting out of
:35:24. > :35:28.their chair in the canteen. The exmost extensive review of the
:35:28. > :35:32.police in England and Wales, suggests they should be tested for
:35:32. > :35:39.fitness and suitableness for conditions, and should have pay cut
:35:39. > :35:43.if they don't measure up. The police trades union responds
:35:43. > :35:48.that their's is not happy lot. Good evening all, I'm the mug
:35:48. > :35:52.tonight. Faced with what's being called the biggest change to
:35:53. > :35:57.policing since George Dickson was a lad, Andy Young isn't happy, it
:35:57. > :36:02.took him 21 years to go from beat Bobby to inspector. He doesn't like
:36:02. > :36:05.the plan, part of today's proposals from the lawyer, Tom Winsor, that
:36:05. > :36:08.talented newcomers could get his rank on entry to the force. I want
:36:09. > :36:13.officers who understand what the role of the job is, and their
:36:13. > :36:16.personality in temples of being able to be decisive and -- terms of
:36:16. > :36:19.being able to be decisive and empathise with the members of the
:36:19. > :36:23.community they work with, are more important than qualifications.
:36:23. > :36:27.There is a lot about the Winsor review he doesn't like, in the
:36:27. > :36:32.words of one who drew it up, they are not looking for supermen or
:36:32. > :36:37.comic book heros, on Winsor's evidence, that is just as well. He
:36:37. > :36:42.has found 52% of male officers in the country's biggest force, are
:36:42. > :36:46.overweight, 1% are morbidly obese. Winsor says there should be fitness
:36:46. > :36:52.tests and disciplinary action for those who fail. Winsor says current
:36:52. > :36:57.starting pay at over �23,000 is too high, 15% above similar grades in
:36:57. > :37:03.other emergency services. Inspector Young sun impressed. You can be be
:37:03. > :37:07.-- is unimpressed. You can be expected to work extended hours for
:37:07. > :37:11.short notice. Pretty good reason? Reasonable for what we do. Winsor
:37:11. > :37:19.wants to cut starting pay to �19,000, it is claimed all of this
:37:19. > :37:23.could save a total of �1.9 billion by 2017, most of that, �2.1 billion
:37:23. > :37:29.would be used to increase the salaries of the most skilled stpe,
:37:30. > :37:33.a switch to performance re-- officers, a switch to performance
:37:33. > :37:42.related pay. Don't you think it is a good idea
:37:42. > :37:47.to cut that pay and given to those performing well? If you cut the
:37:47. > :37:51.starting pay you won't get the quality of officers that the police
:37:51. > :37:55.are trying to attract. The Conservative Party always
:37:55. > :37:58.portray themselves as the party of law and order. From the start of
:37:58. > :38:02.this Conservative-led coalition, the Government has been seen as
:38:02. > :38:06.determined, one way or another, to take the police on.
:38:06. > :38:10.There is history here, David Cameron was adviser to the then
:38:10. > :38:14.Home Secretary, Michael Howard, when the Sheehy report on police
:38:14. > :38:19.reform was considered and dumped. That was in 1993. And the politics
:38:19. > :38:24.were different. The police were very united in
:38:24. > :38:28.their opposition, and frankly, they had bigger fish to fry, they had a
:38:28. > :38:31.prisons' crisis to deal with. Here we are 20 years later, some of the
:38:31. > :38:35.same analysis, a lot of the same recommendations and the Government
:38:35. > :38:39.this time round will see it through, I think. The economy squeezed, the
:38:39. > :38:43.police are falling in public popularity, and this time, ACPO,
:38:43. > :38:46.the Chief Constables, rather like the idea of greater flexibility in
:38:46. > :38:51.handling staff. So the Government have the police management on their
:38:51. > :38:55.side, and the shop floor, like the Police Federation's Inspector Young,
:38:55. > :38:59.on his late shift, are facing a struggle. What about this
:38:59. > :39:03.suggestion that 52% of officers in the Met, for example, are
:39:03. > :39:08.overweight, 1% morbidly obese? Technically I'm overweight. What
:39:08. > :39:15.are you going to do about it? That's another issue. But we need
:39:15. > :39:18.to be careful on the way that is implemented, especially if there is
:39:18. > :39:24.disciplinary powers behind it or consequences. Another five minutes
:39:24. > :39:30.to sign off. Then the fun will start, night blokes will get the
:39:30. > :39:40.lot. Hold it, customer. George Dixon served his time, and then
:39:40. > :39:43.
:39:43. > :39:47.some, the actor was 80 when he left Dixon of Dock Green. In the real
:39:47. > :39:52.world they will have to shape up. Are you entirely comfort of
:39:52. > :39:56.producing a picture of the police that presents them as overpaid, not
:39:57. > :40:00.sufficiently competent, and unfit? That is not the picture that time
:40:00. > :40:05.painting. That is the implication of the recommendations? No. They
:40:05. > :40:09.are not overpaid, I'm not making recommendations. Why are you
:40:09. > :40:15.suggesting their pay be cut? not, I'm suggesting the starting
:40:15. > :40:20.salary for new constables, not existing ones, is lowered, because
:40:20. > :40:25.there is not a recruitment crisis, and we can get the same calibre of
:40:25. > :40:30.officers for the lower salary. I'm suggesting the pay scale remains
:40:30. > :40:38.where it is, and people go up the pay scale faster. You believe in
:40:38. > :40:42.payment on merit? Payment for stree performance and the acquisition --
:40:42. > :40:47.satisfactory performance, and acquisition of skills. How can you
:40:47. > :40:54.be against that? We are not against payment for perrite, we are against
:40:54. > :40:57.this being a complete attack on police officers pay. This is a
:40:57. > :41:01.cost-cutting exercise, Tom Winsor took �300 million in the first
:41:01. > :41:05.report, and �800 million here. It is not about reform but cost
:41:05. > :41:09.cutting. There is no shortage of recruits, is there? Just because
:41:09. > :41:14.you have a lot of people who want to be police officers, you justify
:41:14. > :41:17.slashing their pay by �4,500, because you want people to be
:41:17. > :41:21.police officers. You have heard of supply and demand, presumably?
:41:21. > :41:25.There is a supply and demand. We should be saying we want the best
:41:25. > :41:30.people to be police officers. The average age of a police officer now,
:41:30. > :41:35.joining is 27. You have got 40% of them with degrees, they are coming
:41:35. > :41:39.in with skills we need. They will not come in for �19,000 a year.
:41:39. > :41:44.Where will they go instead? They won't join. They will not join the
:41:44. > :41:49.police service. If you have a degree you will join on �21,000 a
:41:49. > :41:57.year, and not �19,000, you will go up the pay scale faster, there is
:41:57. > :42:00.no pay grade for existing officers, and new officers will go up the
:42:00. > :42:05.scale faster. You concerned about what is mentioned in the report,
:42:05. > :42:07.the fitness of the police? That is a real concern. The police will be
:42:07. > :42:12.surprised to know that after initial training there is no test
:42:12. > :42:15.of physical fitness unless you are in a specialist part of the police
:42:15. > :42:22.like firearms. That is staggering? There are many officers who do have
:42:22. > :42:28.to take fitness assess thements. 52% of the Metropolitan Police --
:42:28. > :42:31.Assessments. 52% of the Metropolitan Police? They are
:42:31. > :42:36.erroneous figures. They are the Metropolitan Police's own figures.
:42:36. > :42:39.I have met with 800 police officers part of the TSG group. Tactical
:42:39. > :42:43.support group? These are people told 50% of them are overweight,
:42:43. > :42:47.these are very fit police officers, they are big police officers. Now
:42:47. > :42:52.that just points out, whatever the figures are saying, they are
:42:52. > :42:57.erroneous, these are big, fit, individuals. We are not saying that
:42:57. > :43:04.every division of the Metropolitan Police has 50% of its compliment
:43:04. > :43:09.overweight. That is not what it is said, and the Metropolitan Police
:43:09. > :43:13.gave us -- it is their figures. What about fitness testing, we are
:43:13. > :43:16.not against it, an average force of 4,000 officers, how would they
:43:16. > :43:24.assess 4,000 officers and the remedial work toe get them fit and
:43:24. > :43:30.do it again every year, the cost of that will be probibive. 15 --
:43:30. > :43:33.Prohibitive. It takes 15 minutes, given at the same time as officer
:43:33. > :43:38.safety training. 15 minutes a year will be bureaucratic? You have to
:43:38. > :43:43.get people to assess them, remedial work. They are the ones who have to
:43:43. > :43:47.get fit, not the force.Less's on the ones unfit and overweight
:43:47. > :43:51.with health issues. Let's not put every police officer through a test
:43:51. > :43:54.that is pointless. We rather expect when we pay police officers that
:43:54. > :43:58.they will be able to do what we expect police officers to do, if
:43:58. > :44:03.that requires them to be fit, why aren't we entitled to expect that?
:44:03. > :44:09.The majority of them are fit for the role they now carry out. Most
:44:09. > :44:12.officers are fit. We need them all to be fit. It was said today the
:44:13. > :44:18.majorbt of police officers are fit. What is that majority, we want them
:44:18. > :44:21.all to be fit. Let's focus on the ones not fit. We will just waste
:44:21. > :44:25.time and money. How determined do you think the Government is to push
:44:25. > :44:28.through your reforms? That is a matter for the Home Secretary. I
:44:28. > :44:33.think these ministers in this Government do have a significant
:44:33. > :44:37.political appetite for reform. It is the last unreformed public
:44:37. > :44:43.service. This is a pay structure designed in...I Don't know why you
:44:43. > :44:46.are shaking your head, it is unreformed? He using a mantra and
:44:46. > :44:50.report from decades ago with no substance. I have been an officer
:44:50. > :44:56.for 30 years, everything has been changed by my terms and conditions.
:44:56. > :44:59.The last time we had a change to our pay was in 2004. I'm not saying
:44:59. > :45:03.there is no reform, but the structure was established in 1920,
:45:03. > :45:06.it was last majorly reformed in 1978, it has been tinkered with
:45:06. > :45:11.ever since, but the fundamentals of just being paid for turning up,
:45:11. > :45:15.those have not been reformed. We will leave it there. Thank you
:45:15. > :45:20.both very much. Budget Day next week, and no end of speculation as
:45:20. > :45:24.to what horse trading may go on between the coalition partners. In
:45:24. > :45:28.tomorrow's Guardian a report that the coalition is ready to scrap the
:45:28. > :45:31.50p top rate of tax when the Chancellor gets to his feet next
:45:31. > :45:35.Wednesday. The Liberal Democrats, it is claimed, recognise they are
:45:35. > :45:41.unable to stop the move. Our political editor is here. What do
:45:41. > :45:45.you know about this? I think we are actually at long last nearing the
:45:45. > :45:50.end of George Osborne's fight to get rid of the 50p rate of tax.
:45:50. > :45:53.think he will do it? There is a phone call that most of the big
:45:53. > :45:57.players are in at the moment. There is a phone call tomorrow, a meeting
:45:57. > :46:02.on Monday ahead of Wednesday's budget. Osborne has been pushing
:46:02. > :46:09.since almost he came in to get rid of it. They are worried even more
:46:10. > :46:13.so because they have been seen to be banker-bashing with new stories
:46:13. > :46:20.on Goodwin and Hester, they have to do something to say Britain is open
:46:20. > :46:23.for business. He has been pushing and pushing. The most interesting
:46:23. > :46:26.thing is it is not just Liberal Democrats who have been reluctant
:46:26. > :46:30.to let him do what he wants. The Prime Minister himself is really
:46:30. > :46:36.queasy about it. When talk to people in Downing Street, they say
:46:36. > :46:40.hold on a second, we have to have big numbers to make the case
:46:40. > :46:44.finally on this, the opinion poll is so uncertain. The public don't
:46:44. > :46:50.yet want to slash this rate. indeed they will ever want it. What
:46:50. > :46:55.will the Lib Dems get in return? They are going to say they will get
:46:55. > :46:59.this tycoonry, some action on tycoon tax. My feeling is when we
:46:59. > :47:03.did the David Laws interview, he said the most critical move we want
:47:03. > :47:07.is the move on the personal allowance, the move up to �10,000,
:47:07. > :47:13.we will have to see how much they get that, they have got one
:47:13. > :47:18.increase and we will have to wait and see how much over. Bits on
:47:18. > :47:28.tycoonry were never going to get what they were after. More tomorrow,
:47:28. > :47:32.
:47:32. > :47:36.Another grey murky start to the day tomorrow. Mist and fog around. Rain
:47:36. > :47:39.for parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Heavy bursts too, edging
:47:40. > :47:44.its way down into the more north western parts of England and Wales
:47:44. > :47:49.later on. Further east, much of the Midlands and eastern England,
:47:49. > :47:52.broken cloud and sunshine through the day. It will feel pleasant with
:47:52. > :47:56.temperatures into the low to mid- teens. We can't complain,
:47:56. > :47:59.reasonably mild for the time of year. Cloud down towards the south
:48:00. > :48:04.coast and much of the south west will be overcast. Rain knocking on
:48:04. > :48:09.the door of west Cornwall, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan Bay.
:48:09. > :48:12.Further east across Wales it will probably stay dry through daylight
:48:12. > :48:15.hours. For Northern Ireland after a wet start to the day, things will
:48:15. > :48:19.brighten up, a few showers left behind. That is the story for the
:48:19. > :48:22.more north western parts of Scotland. Early rain clearing
:48:22. > :48:27.through, sunshine arriving later on. Down towards the border it will
:48:27. > :48:30.stay cloudy and damp. Locking ahead to the weekend, as you can --
:48:30. > :48:34.looking ahead to the weekend, you can see showers around. Cold enough
:48:34. > :48:38.for the showers to fall as snow, up over the high ground, where as
:48:38. > :48:42.further south, we could see prolonged rain as we get into
:48:42. > :48:46.Saturday. Some of that rain could be heavy and possibly thundery. The