05/02/2013 Newsnight

400 MPs say yes to gay marriage, and make history. But the majority

of David Cameron's Conservative Party didn't back him. One member

of the cabinet tells us some Tories have further to go than others.

Sometimes parts of the Conservative Party move, but they move more

slowly, or a few paces behind prevailing social attitudes, or the

centre of gravity of social attitudes. I will speak to the

woman who was married in the world's first same-sex ceremony.

Deputy heads will roll in the LIBOR rate-fixes scandal, as RBS stands

to pay �4 billion. We speak exclusively to France's

Front National, Marine Le Pen, she tells us she supports David

Cameron's aim of renegotiation in Europe. And: A lot of his people

think he know what type of man he is, I have a clear picture of the

type of sense of humour he has. Fans of the cross word writer,

Araucaria, were left lost for words after solving one of his clues, we

speak to him. Good evening, same-sex couple also

soon enjoy the same rights to get married as they have in a dozen

other countries. Following this evening's Commons vote, Britain is

now in the vanguard of equality. But David Cameron's desire to

modernise the country has split his party. More Tory MPs voted against

the bill than for it. Including 18 members of the Government, two of

them cabinet ministers, with dissenters talking about risking

the life chances of British children, and pining that marriage

should not be seen through the merciless prism of equality. On

this controversial issue, might the cost to David Cameron outweigh the

gain. Here is our political editor. The beauty of marriage, said the

Education Secretary at the weekend, was about that moment between two

people when they go from thinking about me to we. But today David

Cameron was confronted with no such mind meld. A reminder that many of

his MPs are far from thinking of "we" not "me", when they regard

their party and their party leader. The aye to the left 400, the nos to

the left, 175. The ayes have it. In that vote of a few hours ago,

more Conservative MPs disagreed with the Prime Minister than agreed

with him. They didn't agree with this. There is something special

about marriage. It is not about religion, it is not about morality,

it is about commitment. By the way, I think it matters, and I think it

means something, whether you are a man and a woman, or a woman and a

woman, or a man and another man. They debated all afternoon. One of

the most important figures on Cameron's backbenches did not feel

he had assurance that those who did not want to marry gay couples would

not be overruled by European Courts. I will vote against this measure

tonight, not because I think the world will end if we see it pass.

But because I have serious misgivings that in spite of the

minister's commendable efforts, recognised by the Church of England,

as has been commented earlier in the debate. It is impossible to

guarantee that religious freedom will not be compromised.

couldn't give a guarantee that people would be protected.

their religious freedom would be protect, because it is impossible

to guarantee it T will be taken to the European Court, and if we pass

this measure, then it will be taken to the European Court.

If the Government is serious about this, take it away, abolish the

civil partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil

union bill, that applies to all people, irrespective of their

sexuality or their relationships, that means brothers and brothers,

and sisters and sisters, and brothers and sisters as well. That

would be a way forward. This is not. It is a sad day for me, Mr Deputy

Speaker, it is my saddest day as a member of this House, when my party

brings in a bill which I'm fundamentally opposed to. Why is my

view, or the loader of my party, any more important than the person

in the Dog and Duck in Wellingborough. So what is the

opinion in Bone's constituency, this isn't the Dog and duck, but it

is the Hind Hotel, we brought together three Conservatives and a

gay couple. Call me old fashioned, but as a Christian I believe that

marriage is for the procreation of children, and it is between a man

and a woman. And I really think we're in a very dangerous situation

when we let the state change religion or change faith. I think

the Government has been very careful, overly careful, they have

got a quadruple lock on this, they have banned the Church of England

and the Church of Wales. That is bizarre in itself. Apparently they

weren't consulted to any great degree. Other faiths are allowed to

opt in, which is perfectly right. If a faith looks at its

congregation and say we are all happy with blessing same-sex

marriages, the Quakers want to and the liberal Jewish sects want to,

that should be allowed. I don't think it necessarily stems, with

respect to Barbara from religion, I think it stems from a disbelief

that something as fundamental as marriage could be tinkered with,

whether or not it may seem to you that it is unfair at the moment. I

think for many of us we feel that it's, if you are going to interfere

with marriage, what about interfering with death and birth.

Many Conservative rebels feared that religious organisations, due

to have to opt in if they want to hold gay weddings, would actually

feel coerced. One Unitarian church up in North London is already gung

ho. Up here in Newington Green, historically outside the City of

London, they have made up their own rules, Tom Pane and people like

Benjamin Franklin worshiped here. And 300 years on they want to let

gay couples married. David Cameron might feel he's more in the role of

Edmund Burke, but on this he feels a radical, he wants gay couples to

marry because he's a Conservative, not despite being one. This former

minister in David Cameron's Government agrees. Entering a civil

partnership was the most important thing I have done in my life. When

I was born, homosexual conduct was a crime, not so long ago it was

possible to sack someone because they were gay. People did not dare

to be open, thank goodness so much has changed in my lifetime. Others

took on their Conservative colleagues, and indeed, the Church

of England. We may have gone two steps forward, but I fear we have

also gone one step backward. The modernisation of the Conservative

Party is not yet complete. My party should never flinch from the

requirement that we must continue this prosession. Otherwise we may

end ourselves up like the Republican Party, who lost an

election last year that they could have won, were it not for their

socially conservative agenda. And belatedly, only this weekend, the

Church of England has finally admitted that it is not realistic

or likely that churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings.

I made that point earlier. But so easy to say that now, isn't it,

when practically every person I meet, who doesn't follow the

deliberations of political detail in great detail has said to me,

it's about weddings in churches for gay people, isn't it? But with the

issue spliting the Conservatives, and uniting most of Labour, but by

no means all of Labour, the Shadow Home Secretary had fun. We all love

the idea of a wedding, we all support the idea of a strong

marriage. We all clearly like a good party, I notice from the

impact assessment that the department has produced passing

this legislation they reckon could lead to �14 million extra spent on

celebrations. Which is a lot of confetti and rubber chicken. Mr

Speaker, I don't think it will be quite enough to boost the economy

and deliver Plan B, but I guess the Chancellor needs all the help he

can get. The Conservatives will run a very

presidential campaign ahead of the next election, they will ask you do

you want to vote for this man, David Cameron to be your Prime

Minister next. In order to do that, they will need to emphasise

personal decisions he has taken. Included in that will be gay

marriage, especially because he's done so with considerable

opposition. To get up to the 43% that are a majority for the party,

they have to get Labour and Lib Dem voters. Tonight the Prime Minister

will be elated he is one step nearer to becoming the Prime

Minister who legaliseed gay marriage. But his Attorney-General

abstained, and two other cabinet ministers went against. The idea of

a united party front is more in sickness than in health.

Shortly after that vote I spoke to the Cabinet Office Minister, Reggie

Maudling, widely seen as the -- Francis Maude, seen as the high

priest of Tory modernisation. There will be same-sex marriage in spite

of Conservative backbenchers. think the Conservative Party

divided roughly like the country does, a lot of people on one side

and the other. It has gone through parliament with a big majority,

that is fine. As a modernising PM, which is very much what David

Cameron sees himself as, he hasn't been able to carry the party on a

key plank of his modernisation of the Tories? It is a free vote, MPs

make their own mind up. If they had wanted to, they would have backed

him as a moderniser, to show a party in touch with the 21st

century, they turned their back on him? They didn't turn their back on

him. This is very overemotional reaction to it. This was a free

vote, where MPs are encouraged to exercise their judgment. On

something which isn't a party matter. Yes, but when I'm just

giving you a couple of phrases here, Gerald Howarth, one map, "this bill

is about risking the life chances of British children", another one,

Edward Lee, "marriage should not be seen through the merciless prism of

equality", someone saying it is almost Orwellian what you are

asking to do. What message does it send to the country about the

Conservative Party? Not a strong one in any direction. I don't agree

with my colleagues who have expressed themselves in that way. I

and many Conservative MPs, and many members of the Conservative Party,

are completely relaxed about giving the benefits of marriage, making

them available to all couples, whether they are different sex or

same-sex. We think this is not about making a dogma out of

equality, but the benefits of marriage should be available to

everyone. But you feel very strongly about this, and you talked

of your regret that you had voted for Section 28 many years ago. But

it was also informed by your brother's sexuality. So you have a

personal stake in this? Yes. I think I'm broadly the same

Conservative I was in the 1980s, when I started my long and

checkered political career. I'm a fiscal Conservative, I'm an

economic liberal, I believe in open markets, I'm a moderate realistic

euro-sceptic, but I'm more socially liberal than I was. But the country

is more socially liberal than it was, we're a much more tolerant

society. We understand and respect the way in which people live their

lives more than we Z that's good. At the time when Section 28 was

voted through, and I do regret that I supported that, I regret that the

Government then put it through, and I didn't understand then the way in

which it came to be seen by gay people as a sort of emblem of

hostility. We were right, subsequently, to repeal it. But, I

think you have spoken movingly about had there been more tolerance,

your brother may not have had the same fate that he had. His

sexuality had often to be hidden, and was a thing that was not to be

discussed, and that perhaps drove him into areas he wouldn't have

otherwise gone to? I think that was less about law than about

prevailing social attitudes. these social attitudes are still

there, among many Conservative MPs. This is many years later? Among

some. Over 140 voted against? an indication of the way in which

things move is that many Conservative MPs who voted against

the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004, now support

civil partnerships. So sometimes parts of the Conservative Party

move, but they move more slowly, or a few paces behind prevailing

social attitudes, or the centre of gravity of social attitudes. Which

have changed, and will probably continue to change in ways that it

is hard to predict. But we get there. Maybe at different speeds.

It would be presumtious of me to assert that, but it may well be

that some of those who voted against equal marriage tonight will,

in yours to come, change their view, I don't know. Social attitudes have

changed, people's views change on some of these issues, and they

change at different times, and some people's views will never change.

That's fine too. These are issues of conscience, and people exercise

their judgment in the way that they think right. I wouldn't criticise

people for that. But it has been characterised, you have your George

Osborne and William Hague and Theresa May extoling the vote.

Obviously you had David Cameron championing it, I wonder the jeer

that this is really the Notting Hill set, and there are two Tory

Partys, and they are so far behind you? It is nonsense and doesn't

reflect any reality I see and live with in my daily life. What is your

reaction to the fact that it is a Conservative Government, who has

managed, or will have managed, to have made sure that same-sex

marriage, in Britain, is common place? I think it is a good thing

to have done. I don't think it is massive change. I think public

opinion, again it is, what I say about social attitudes, they have

moved, they have changed. This will be seen, by most of the public, as

a relatively uncontroversial thing, particularly among younger people

who say, yeah, so what? That's a healthy thing. I think this will be

seen to be something that will look in years to come, as a kind of

relatively natural step, which people will not find, will struggle

to understand why it was controversial at the time. Thank

you very much indeed. From Maastricht in the Netherlands

we talk to our guest who got married in 2001 in the world's

first same-sex ceremony. Thank you very much for joining us, you

married your life partner Ellen, why did you want to get married,

rather than stick with your civil partnership? For us, in the

Netherlands, marriage is the only legal bond that commits third

parties as well. And I want to show everybody this is the person I want

to share my life with. But do you accept that some people, for

perfectly good reasons, religious reasons, and other reasons, will

always be implacably opposed to what you have done and been able to

do? I sometimes find that difficult, because I'm not different to anyone

else, it is just a human right to choose to take care of someone you

love, and to take care of your family, that is what I want.

that right to take care of them, and to be a family, is different

from saying we can only do that, or only feel able to commit to that

properly within, some might say it, the confines of a marriage? It is

not that you only can do that, you can take care of one another

outside of the marriage, but it just gives you a legal bond, and

that's a commitment for life. It is also making it possible that Ellen

could adopt the children. For us that was very important. Because

that gives her and the children legal rights to one another.

course you are, as it were, the birth mother of your two children.

What challenges have you faced in the last 12 years, or has it all

been plain sailing? No, no, no. I wish it was true. You always have

to explain your family situation, not only as adults, but also the

children. If they move schools, move house, they have always got to

explain in what kind of family they live. That can be difficult,

sometimes. But on the other hand, it is the way it is. We live it and

live with it. Have people expressed their disapproval to you? Yes,

unfortunately they have. What happened? They just tell you that

they don't approve of your marriage, they don't recognise the adoption

of the children, if they do it to me I discuss it with them. If they

do it toe my children, I'm really offended -- it to my children, I'm

really offended, they didn't choose to live in our family, they have

been born into it. For us, that is the main thing. Sometimes, when it

comes close, like family members, that hurts, but otherwise, we're

just an ordinary family. It's their problem, not our's. Perhaps you

heard, speaking to the minister Francis Maude there, his view was,

that in several years it might just be common place, that this will not

have been seen to be such a major thing. He was suggesting through

the next generation, do you see, in the 12 years since you have been

marriage, a general change in attitudes in society in the

netherlands? It's getting more common. It is one of the options.

Sure, you have to explain, everybody asks you, are you married,

and then what is the name of your husband, when you say it is my wife.

They say, that is a possibility as well. In that meaning, people

change, their attitudes changes. In the next generation, where more

countries have opened up marriage, it makes it more common, so, yeah,

I think he's right. Can you explain, from your point of view though, how

you begin to explain to people how you make it, as it were, less

threatening to people, perhaps, who are religious, and feel it is

actually an attack on their religion? I'm not attacking their

religion, it is their religion, it is not mine. That's first and for

all. As I see it, I always learned from my parents that God is love.

That's the only thing I do, I love my partner, and I love my children.

What's wrong with that. You are also religious? Yes, we are.

You are religious, and within your church, has there been an

acceptance that you didn't expect, or has there not been an acceptance,

how has it operated within your church? They are fine with it. It

is not a problem at all. It is not an issue. Although for us it is not

possible to get married in church, at the moment. It is not an issue

that we are lesbians and having kids and we have a legal marriage.

Thank you very much indeed. Still to come, Marine Le Pen tells

us David Cameron has it right on Europe, and...Cancer Is a word that

people are still reluctant to use, and I thought the more public it

got the better. The cryptic crossword that left solvers lost

for words. Two days ago state-owned bank RBS was warned by the

Chancellor that their payment for their part in the LIBOR scandal

must come from bonuses from investment staff. That fine could

be expected as �400 million, who will take responsibility at the

bank, are heads going to role? Will heads role? A deputy head will

role. The head of the investment banking, he will leave the bank, it

will be confirmed tomorrow. He's also going to be denied his bonus

for 2012 he will be striped of the built-up bonuses of the three years

worth before, which is �4 million. It is a kind of punishment. It

seems to be a sacrificial offering to many. He wasn't directly or

indirectly linked to the LIBOR- fixing traders. It appears they

picked an abitary point. He wasn't linked to them at all? Yes, but why

should he go, why should the deputy chief executive go, not the chief

executive, Steven Hester, why shouldn't the chairman Government

they have decided to pick one individual. Peter Neilson, head of

markets, he's staying, he was rumoured to go. One guy is going.

At the heart is all about LIBOR and the rate-fixing scandal. Traders

six or seven pay grades beneath him decided to make money by fixes the

rate, the fines will be astronomical, Barclays �2. 9

billion, and a �400 billion for Barclays, three-quarters of which

will go to the other side of the lafrpbtic. After PPI, outlandish

bonuses and investments that caused the financial crisis, LIBOR seemed

to top them all. Colluding to set the rate of interest which sets how

much people for for homes, brought the banks to an all-time low, LIBOR

is a key interest rate used all over the world, and it can affect

major investments, derivatives and/or mortgages. Here is how it is

set. A poofl banks, based in London, tell the British bankers

association, how much they have made to pour row -- British

Bankers' Association, how much they have paid to borrow money from

other banks. They strip out the highest and lowest numbers and

reach an average figure for that day, which is published. The

scandal developed when it emerged that some banks tried to move the

LIBOR bank up or down to make a profit. Traders would call up

colleagues, who submit the rates to the BBA, and urge them to submit an

inaccurate rate on behalf of the bank, in order to skew the average

figure in the preferred direction. So, if you shave one tenth of one

per cent off the interest rate on a �1 billion bond, it could be worth

�1 million to someone. That was unearthed by British and American

regulators last summer, initially at Barclays, and subsequently at

UBS, now the taxpayer-controlled RBS. It will show others banks were

at it for the period of 2005-2010. Because we have no clear evidence

of what the LIBOR rate would have been without the manipulation, the

fines being imposed by regulators are for willful abuse of the system,

rather than a specific amount earned as a result of it. Now RBS's

investment banking boss will be the sacrificial offering, even though

he had no direct or indirect knowledge of the rate-rigging by

traders working under him. There is definite pressure, we know there is

pressure from the regulator, probably from the Government

directly that, with RBS, they want to see scalps, and various people

fired. What I think is interesting is that the fine is being paid by

the entire bonus pool of RBS staff. 95% of them did not indulge in

manipulating LIBOR, and yet they are paying for the pain. I firmly

believe culture is set from the top of an organisation, and if you set

the culture that encourages wrongdoing, you need to leave. But

I also think the individuals need to be held accountability.

fines for LIBOR abuse are set to be Most of the fines will go to

American regulator. That prompted the Chancellor to

intervene and say that fines had to be paid from RBS's bonus pool, as

well as clawbacks from previously paid bonus. We all know there are

LIBOR investigations on going into RB in both the UK and the US. Any

UK fine will benefit the public. When it comes to RBS I amer a clear

that the bill for any -- I am clear that the bill for any US fine,

related to this investigation, should be paid for by the bankers

and not the taxpayer. That is in marked contrast to 2011, when Mr

Osbourne said that RBS would be run on a hands-off, commercial basis.

When it comes to the banks where we have a shareholding in, like the

Royal Bank of Scotland, look, we have run these at arm's length,

that is what the last Labour Government did when they set up the

arrangements, and put all the tax- payers' money in. As for RBS, it is

two-thirds the way to break-even point, its shares are 50% higher

than six months ago, and it is a leaner bank than before. It is on

the critical list, and removing key executives may hinder rather than

help the recovery. Britain is set to introduce draconian new rules

for bankers who done wrong in the City of London, which could affect

other financial hubs around the world. There is a danger you could

throw the baby out with the bath wart e tell that to families who

are potentially paying for more their mortgage today than they

would do had the bankers not manipulated the LIBOR rate some

years ago. The name Le Pen is synonymous with

the leadership of the far right in France. Marine Le Pen took over two

years ago from her father, Jean- Marie, who led the party since its

form yaiing. In last month's presidential election she secured

6.1 million voters, one in five of the population. I spoke to her at

the European Parliament in Strasbourg earlier today. Marine Le

Pen is the face of French Euro- scepticism. I asked her if she

supported David Cameron's atept to renegotiation the member -- attempt

to renegotiation the relationship between member states. TRANSLATION:

For several years we have seen the affect of the EU on the economy, I

have demanded a renegotiation of a certain number of treaties,

including, of course, Schengen, in order to control immigration. Also

treaties that prevent France from protecting a certain number of its

economic sectors. As a result I understand Mr Cameron, in his

desire for renegotiation, even if the consequences of that

renegotiation wouldn't be the same for Mr Cameron's Government, and

the Government that I would eventually lead.

Last month David Cameron offered the UK the prospect of an in-out

referendum on membership of the EU. So, is it something Le Pen and her

party covet for France? TRANSLATION: I want to do the same

thing as Great Britain, if I came to power tomorrow, I would decide

to organise a referendum within 12 month. I would give myself 12

months to negotiate the most important points with the European

Union. At the end of that 12-month negotiation period, I would ask the

French people to have their say, on the points that we manage to

renegotiate, and on the points that the European Union refuse to

negotiate. Yet, Le Pen herself is an MEP, her party doesn't sit in

the same group as the Tories in Brussels, but she believes they

have been influenced by a mounting Euro-scepticism here, in the form

of Nigel Farage's UKIP. TRANSLATION: But Mr Cameron still

believes in the European Union. I'm not ignorant of the reasons that

have forced him to call for a referendum. It is quite clearly

because he's under pressure from British euro-sceptics, who, we must

admit, are very close to our own position on the functions of the

European Union. I'm thinking, of course, of UKIP, who have developed

the same, firm Euro-scepticism towards the European Union and its

structures, that we ourselves defend. It is under pressure from

eurorealist, such as us, UKIP in Britain, the Front National in

France, the FBO in Austria, that we have managed to move the goal posts.

For that, of course, I congratulate myself. I'm completely convinced

that Mr Cameron would not have taken this decision, if the British

people had not turned in such a significant manner towards euro-

sceptic movements. The issue of immigration played a

prominent role in last year's election, during a campaign which

questioned the nature of French national identity. The Front

National campaign for legal migration into France, to be set at

10,000 people a year. TRANSLATION: Listen, I think we need to

profoundly change the rules around French nationality. Because the

problem with France is it automatically manufactures French

people, with all the well- documented problems of integration

that creates. For those foreigners legally in France, it is obvious,

either there is work, and at that point they work entirelyly normally,

they benefit from the social security that is associated with

their job, or, they are unemployed, and after a certain period of time

in unemployment, well we ask them to go back to their country of

origin. We can't meet the needs of extra unemployed people at the very

same time we have officially five million unemployed people in France,

and in reality, a further nine million people who aren't work as

much as they would like. I asked Marine Le Pen about the

party's advocacy of a system of French-first for jobs, and some

social services, such as accommodation? TRANSLATION: Yes,

yes, we have defended for a long time now the idea of national

preference, or national priority, as reverential access, not only to

jobs, but also to social housing. Charity begins at home, the

responsibility of the leaders of a country is first and foremost to

allow their own people to be able to work. To look after their

families and build up an estate. But, essentially, in France, would

you not be creating, as it were, second-class citizens, and is that

not of itself a rather dangerous idea? TRANSLATION: I completely

disagree with you. In every international treaty, it is

accepted that you can reserve preferential access for naturals in

their own country. When all else is equal, a French person will have

priority in a job f there is no-one of equal competence, a foreigner

can apply for that job. The presence of French troops in

Mali has revived the French. Mr Hollande has declared they will

remain as long as necessary does she support their involvement

there? TRANSLATION: We have a common history with Mali, we are

historical allies, we co-operate on defence, and so stfs only natural

that we responded -- it was only natural that we responded to the

Mali Government's call. That shouldn't hide the fact that we got

involved in Libya, not to advance the cause of democracy but Islamic

fundamentalism. I was the only one, for years, who denounced this

intervention in Libya, who denounced the fact that the Libyan

rebels, just like their counterparts in Syria, are in

reality corrupted, and at the behest of Islamic fundamentalists,

and their seizure of power, notably in Libya, where they immediately

imposed Sharia Law, would destablise the entire region, that

is what is happening in Mali today. The Mali operation follows France's

role, alongside the UK, in supporting the ref lug, which

overthrew the Gaddafi regime in Libya. But, for a party that

campaigns on anti-immigration, the upheaval caused by the Arab Spring

was unwelcome. Would she have preferred Gaddafi to have remained

in power? TRANSLATION: It would probably have been more effective,

whilst using diplomatic means of putting pressure on Mr Gaddafi to

introduce a not insignificant dose of democracy to his country, to

leave Mr Gaddafi in place. You must remember that has deplorable and

reprehensible a character Mr Gaddafi may have been in Libya,

like Mr Assad in Syria, these men fought against the rise of Islamic

fundamentalism, they contained it. So I asked her does that

endorsement of the status quo extend to the Assad regime?

TRANSLATION: I think that diplomacy, and notably Russian diplomacy has

made progress, that might allow an exit from the Syrian conflict. What

would be, on the other hand, utterly catastrophic, would be to

help Islamic fundamentalists to brutally overthrow the Government

of Bashar al-Assad. Because, once again, if they take control of

Syria, they too will immediately impose sariia law, and persecute

minorities who are part of the Syrian population. We can't just do

whatever we want in these countries, and breaking off relations with

Bashar al-Assad is senseless. On the other hand, guiding democratic

change in the country would be much more effective, much more

successful, and much less dangerous than what we are currently doing.

Before the end of the programme, we will have tomorrow's front page.

But first, paintings, books and plays, often contain clue as to the

artist or writer's state. What about a crossword? A master of the

art of the cryptic crossword, the Guardian's Araucaria, had something

very important to tell his legions of fan. So he put it where he had

might his life's work, in a crossword puzzle.

Ten across, Chile pine by a river has Roman database for a song, nine

letters. Araucaria.

To try to describe one of his puzzles, it is the wit, there is

almost always a clue or a couple of clues that will make you laugh.

Just with the sheer elegance of it, or the sheer wit of it. They can be

witty and make you laugh. People who don't do crosswords think is

most peculiar, the clue will make you laugh with delight, and

Araucaria is the master of that. If your form with a crossword

puzzle is a bit checkered, you may have fallen foul of the genius

Araucaria, the botanical name for the monkey puzzle tree, is the nome

de clu of the former vicar setting crosswords in national papers for

50 years. He sees clues everywhere, is it an affliction? It would be an

exaggeration to call it an affliction. It is there. You can be

reading a poem, and suddenly it would occur to you that those two

words together make an anagram, and then you are not appreciating the

poem because you are side tracked, that happens a lot, certainly.

One across, "periodical for crosswords and powder", eight

letters, "magazine". # Come see the privates on parade

# You'll say how proudly they're displayed

Simon Russell Beale, knocking them dead in the West End in Privates on

Parade, finds Araucaria's crosswords a nice change after all

that cross-dressing. The company I'm in at the moment,

there are four of us who regularly, through the evening, pop into this

dress dressing room. When you say, through the evening, not while the

show is going on? Oh yeah. Really? If there are gaps, you know. If you

have five minutes, come in here and do a clue. There is a direct

connection between a fan and Araucaria. I think a lot of his

solvers think they know what type of man he is. I have an absolutely

clear picture of the type of sense of humour he has. It is a one-way

process, because I don't get to know my solvers, but they get to

know me. And I don't understand quite how it works, but they do.

Obviously because I have been doing it for a long time, and you build

up a sort of relationship, it is an odd one.

That relationship changed dramatically after Araucaria

published a crossword with this master clue.

"Araucaria has 18 down of the 19 across, treated with 13, 15".

"cancer, oesophagus, palliative care". I started it and I got

cancer and oesophagus, and palliative care, and then, to be

honest, I didn't want to continue it. I didn't, I thought it was an

amazing thing to do. But I didn't feel comfortable continuing it

really. Many others were touched too.

Cancer a word that people are still reluctant to use, I thought the

more public the better. So it worked. But I don't expect the

results to stop, it has been incredible. People have written and

send me cards and letters, and e- mails. I didn't expect anything

like that. What sort of things did they say to you? Different things.

Nobody said I deserved it! They actually seemed, because at some

point they phrased it so that it said that I was dying of cancer,

which I'm not really. I mean I have Cannes, but it does not mean to say

you have plenty of time to die of something else. There is no knowing

how long it will take. But some people got rather upset by this,

and say we can't live without you, sort of thing. People say the most

lovely things. I'm sorry. It has brought tears to my eyes thinking

about it now. What do you think of the theatricality, if you will, of

announcing your illness, in this case, through the clues of a

crossword puzzle? That has a certain drama, does it? Yeah, good

for him. It has panache, and it is and has a self-mockery too about it,

I think. It is not making light of it, exactly, it is just appropriate,

you know. It is done with love and wit, it is done for his, what do we

call ourselves? Solvers? It is done for his solvers. I think he did it

with great elan. Contemplating the end of things, a

lot of us, crossword buffs and others, tend to draw a blank. Not

so the Reverend John Galbraith Graham. We are quite ridiculous, it

is absurd that we are trying to drag it on the way we do. We waste

an awful lot of time and money and anxiety giving people a hope for

letting go. I don't know how the church got itself into that idea,

years ago people thought heaven was more important than earth. I think

so. You think so. How do you see the afterlife? I think it is utopia.

Are there crosswords there? I have had this, it is a very interesting

question, I don't see how there can be, I'm sure, if I do, yes I do see

it, because it all transcends anything we can think about. No

doubt they will find some way of doing it.

Steve Smith and Araucaria has kindly composed a crossword

especially for Newsnight viewers, you will find it on-line on the

website. Tomorrow morning's front pages now.

They all go with the gay marriage Chris Huhne's ex-wife there on the

paper, apparently wanted to nail That's all from Newsnight tonight,

the Womanables first hit TV screens 40 years ago, today, surprisingly

they weren't strangled at birth. We leave you with a brief visit to

Wimbledon Common. Womanables theme tune)

-- Wombles theme tune. # The Wombles of Wimbledon are we

# Making good use of the things we find

# Things that the every day folks leave behind. No end yet to the

current cold spell. Tomorrow an Arctic wind to contend with, that

will make it feel bitter. Plenty of cloud to start the day. Across the

north of England, showers, sleet and hill snow. Further south

overnight wet weather clearing away from the south-east. Brightening up

for a time in the morning. Windy across the south-east and East

Anglia. Strong wind across western areas easing during the day. At

this stage blowing showers across south-west England. Some

winteryness on the high ground. Elsewhere we will see sunshine.

Sunshine to come eventually in Northern Ireland, there will be

some brightness around first thing. Still a few showers to contend with.

Icey patches possible here for northern England and across

Scotland. For northern Scotland snow showers here will begin to

accumulate to lower level, as will the wintery showers running down

eastern coastal parts of England during the day. The snow for north

York moors, mainly rain, sleet and hail. Increasing sunshine. It will

feel bitter in the Arctic wind, much colder than those temperatures