William Hague leaves Foreign Office in reshuffle – as it happened

Alan Rusbridger (see 11.18am) is not the only person on Twitter with a good ear for a reshuffle pun. Here's Lord Prescott.

Even the former Foreign Office minister, Alistair Burt, seems to think that the cull of middle-aged white men may be going a bit too far.

Here are some of the most interesting tweets I've seen from journalists and commentators about the reshuffle.

The Lib Dm MPs Jeremy Browne, like Labour's Michael Dugher (see 11.16am), sees the reshuffle as a victory for the Tory right.

Another human rights campaigner has expressed concern about the reshuffle. This is from Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty's director, says she is alarmed by the news that Kenneth Clarke and William Hague are both moving.

Liberty anticipates losing two of the greatest human rights defenders in the current Cabinet. Who in politics will stand up for our fundamental freedoms now?

Hague is not actually leaving the government. But, as leader of the Commons, he will probably have less influence on general policy than he has now.

However, given his reputation as a Commons performer, and a wit, business questions on a Thursday morning are going to become a treat.

As Michael Dugher points out (see 11.16am), Philip Hammond, the new foreign secretary, would be willing to see the UK leave the EU.

Hammond made this clear last year. After Michael Gove made it clear that he would vote to leave the EU if there was no prospect of reform, Hammond told the BBC he agreed.

If the choice is between a European Union written exactly as it is today and not being a part of that then I have to say that I'm on the side of the argument that Michael Gove has put forward.

William Hague is positively Europhile by comparison. As Daniel Finkelstein told Newsnight, Hague genuinely believes in Britain being "in Europe but not run by Europe", to use the phrase Hague popularised when he was Tory leader.

Until now Cameron has been reluctant to see explicitly that he could recommend Britain leaving the EU if his renegotiation fails. But Hammond's appointment will be seen in Brussels as a sign that this option is now very firmly on the table.

Long experience in the news industry has taught me that it's always a good idea to laugh at the editor's jokes.

ConservativeHome's editor Paul Goodman says Liam Fox is definitely coming back.

The Eye Spy MP twitter feed posted this earlier.

With Philip Hammond going to the Foreign Office, there is now a vacancy back at defence, where Liam Fox was defence secretary until forced to resign over the conduct of his aide, Adam Werritty.

On Newsnight Daniel Finkelstein, the Times columnist and a former aide to William Hague when he was Tory leader, explained a moment ago why Hague was stepping down.

It's about having a life. It's as simple as that.

Here is some Twitter reaction to William Hague's departure from the Foreign Office.

From Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children

From Jeremy Browne, the Lib Dem former Foreign Office minister

From Kevin Brennan, the Labour MP

From Denis MacShane, the Labour former Europe minister

From Sarah Vine, the Daily Mail columnist and wife of Michael Gove

From Lord Norton of Louth, the academic and Conservative peer

From Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative peer, and a close friend of Hague's

From Simon Fraser, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office

From John Baird, Canada's foreign minister

According to Newsnight, Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the civil service, is also leaving his post.

Here is Greenpeace's executive director, John Sauven, on Owen Paterson, who is reportedly losing his post as environment secretary.

So for now at least, the badgers have outlasted Owen Paterson. If history remembers him, it will not be kind. An ideological attachment to climate change denial saw him sack people working on flood defences just when we needed them most. When his own scientists tried to brief him, he refused to hear them out. Hopefully his successor will have an afinity for evidence-based policy-making. Mr. Patterson most certainly did not.

There was a 10pm embargo on the announcement of William Hague's departure from the Foreign Office.

But Lord Ashcroft, the former Conservative party deputy chairman, could not resist sending out a teaser on Twitter earlier.

Owen Bowcott, the Guardian's legal affairs correspondent, has sent me this about the departure of Dominic Grieve as attorney general.

Dominic Grieve's departure is a surprise that will recalibrate the delicate balance between Eurosceptics and Europhiles within the cabinet. The outgoing Attorney General, who has been in office since the coalition was formed in 2010, had been due to deliver a briefing to journalists tomorrow morning on unduly lenient prison sentences.

Widely respected within the legal profession, he is thought to have acted as a restraining influence on those ministers who have been advocating that the UK should withdraw from the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. A pragmatist who had tried to steer his colleagues away from unnecessary legal confrontation with Europe, Grieve, 58, who is the MP for Beaconsfield, had successfully avoided being associated with successive cuts to legal aid which have triggered unprecedented courtroom walkouts by barristers and solicitors.

Grieve, a QC, had also been shadow home secretary under Cameron in the final years of Tory opposition to the Brown government.

The Shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, offers some praise for Dominic Grieve on his departure as Attorney General:

Another (at this stage reported) casualty: Environment Minister Owen Paterson.

Adam Boulton at Sky News is among those reporting Patterson's departure, while Christoper Hope of the Telegraph has this already from the National Farmers Union:

On a lighter note, what of those pesky critters who Paterson last year accused of "moving the goalposts" when it came to the controversial badger cull?

Here are the latest departures at this stage in the reshuffle :

Who's out: Cabinet

Kenneth Clarke

Was: Minister without portfolio. Now: Leaving the government.

Dominic Grieve

Was: Attorney general.

David Jones

Was: Welsh secretary. Now: Leaving the government.

Who's out: ministers

David Willetts

Was: Minister of state for universities and science. Now: Will leave the Commons at the next election.

Damien Green

Was: Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. Now: Leaving the government.

Alan Duncan

Was: minister of state for international development. Now: Has reportedly asked to leave the government.

Andrew Robathan

Was: Minister of state for Northern Ireland.

Nick Hurd

Was: Minister for civil society.

Greg Barker

Was: Energy minister. Now: Leaving the government and will leave the Commons at the next election.

Another departure which may catch people by surprise: Energy Minister Greg Barker.

Barker, announced he was standing down from Government and would not seek re-election in Bexhill and Battle next year.

He said he was "very pleased" to have served in environment and climate change posts for 10 years in opposition and Government and had a "terrific time".

Barker, who was a key ally of Mr Cameron in his efforts to secure the party leadership, said:

For me it's time to seek new challenges. I remain 110% supportive of the Prime Minister and his ambition for Britain.

Among those expressing disappointment are some environmental campaigners. Josh Garman tweets:

According to Jim Pickard, Chief Political Correspondent at the Financial Times:

As my colleague James Ball notes, meanwhile, Barker had a tense relationship with a few of his officials, particularly in earlier days.

Ken Clarke has admitted he had been "demob happy" for some time and had spent more of the past week at the England versus India cricket test match than in his office.

He told ITV News:

I shall carry on being MP for Rushcliffe. I'm afraid I'm a lifelong addict to politics.

Clarke said he had enjoyed a "good long innings" in Government and would continue to be "largely supportive" of David Cameron from the back benches.

The former Welsh secretary David Jones addressed his departure, saying:

The Prime Minister is carrying out a reshuffle. He is reshuffling the team and he has asked me to stand down. I totally understand his decision.

My colleague, Patrick Wintour, reports that outgoing universities minister, David Willetts, will also step down as an MP at next year's general election.

Willetts has been MP for Havant, near Portsmouth, since 1992.

Eric Pickles, the secretary of state for communities and local government, has declined to say whether his job is safe when asked by journalists:

There are also reports that Nick Hurd, the minister overseeing the Big Society agenda, has left government.

From the Daily Mail's James Chapman:

And The Sun's Tom Newton Dunn:

Here's my colleague Nicholas Watt's story on Ken Clarke's exit from government:

Former chancellor Kenneth Clarke, who has held office in every Conservative government since 1972, is to resign as a minister.

The veteran MP, who recently celebrated his 74th birthday, was in jovial mood on Monday as he joked with colleagues that he was looking forward to enjoying more time watching his beloved cricket.

Clarke, who first entered parliament in 1970 and secured his first job as a whip in 1972 in Edward Heath's government, is so far the most high-profile minister to leave office in Monday's reshuffle. David Jones, the Wales secretary, has also left the government.

Tory sources have made clear that the prime minister wants the "old lags" to move on to make way for women and younger men. Esther McVey, the employment minister, Liz Truss, the childcare minister, and Nicky Morgan, the women's minister, are all expected to be promoted.

The resignation of Ken Clarke brings to an end a ministerial career which began in 1972 - when David Cameron was just five years old, notes Press Association political correspondent David Hughes:

He had already been demoted in the 2012 reshuffle, losing his post as justice secretary following a series of clashes with Home Secretary Theresa May.

Now the 74-year-old Nottinghamshire miner's son has quit as minister without portfolio, concluding a career which saw him hold government posts under four different Conservative prime ministers.

Mr Clarke's liberal attitude while justice secretary put him at odds with the formidable Mrs May, with Whitehall insiders describing the relationship as "Theresa locks them up, Ken lets them out".

Meanwhile, @ncvoaidan has compiled 24 pictures of Clarke wearing the same tie. It's a tribute, of sorts.

Former Tory leader Michael Howard paid tribute to Ken Clarke on BBC Radio 4's PM programme:

Ken has made the most extraordinary contribution to our public life. In particular I think he was an outstanding chancellor of the exchequer.

He always speaks his mind. We've been capable of maintaining a friendship over all these years despite the fact that we have quite often disagreed with each other on political issues. I think that says a great deal about the kind of person he is.

Hello, it's Josh Halliday here taking over from Andrew Sparrow as the government reshuffle gets underway in Westminster.

So far the only confirmed cabinet departures are Kenneth Clarke, the minister without portfolio who has held office in every Conservative government since 1972, and David Jones, the secretary of state for Wales.

And David Jones, the Welsh secretary, has been sacked.

David Cameron has started his reshuffle. And Kenneth Clarke, the minister without portfolio, is leaving.

Here's the Guardian video of Tom Watson welcoming Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down as chair of the child abuse inquiry.

Keith Vaz goes next.

Q: Do you still think you will get net immigration below 100,000 next year?

May says that remains her aim.

She returns to the question Ian Austin asked about the investigation into the Home Office allegedly funding PIE.

She says she has been told that the whistleblower agreed to be interviewed, but that he then gave a statement to the Metropolitan police instead.

Ian Austin says that's not his understanding. He thinks the whistleblower gave a statement, and then expected to be interviewed afterwards.

Q: On immigration, isn't it obvious that you will miss your target? And, by not saying so, isn't that the kind of thing that damages trust in politics?

May says what damages trust in politics is having a government that does not tackle immigration.

And that's it.

I'll post a summary shortly.

David Winnick goes next.

Q: What did the police say about water cannon after the riots?

May says the official reports said in some circumstances they could be helpful; for example, where there is a stand-off.

Q: What is your personal view?

May says she has to be careful what she says. After the riots, it was said they would help in the event of a stand-off, but that they would not help where small groups of rioters were running around.

Vaz says Sir Hugh Orde is on the record as saying he does not think they would help in mainland Britain.

Q: What are the latest Passport Office figures?

May says over the last two weeks the number of applications has gone down.

And the number of passports being issued as gone up, she says.

Michael Ellis goes back to water cannon.

Q: Boris Johnson did a survey. It showed public support for water cannon. What's your personal view on this?

May says, since she is about to take a decision on authorisiation, it is best if she does not give a personal view.

She cannot give a timescale. Further tests are required.

This was raised after the riots, she says. But the formal request from the police only came in in the spring of 2014.

Keith Vaz goes next.

Q: When did you become aware of this huge surge in passport applications?

May says the Passport Office had been looking at this for some time.

Q: Would you have got more information if the Passport Office had been part of the Home Office, not an agency?

May says Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary, will look at this.

Labour's Paul Flynn goes next.

Q: What will you do to ensure there is no repetition of the Passport Office crisis?Was it a mistake to cut the service by 20% between 2011 and 2013?

May says the goverment's decision to scrap ID cards led to jobs being lost.

As for the future, she has commissioned two reviews, she says.

Flynn says the Passport Office is engaged in "management by panic".

May says she does not accept that.

Julian Huppert goes next.

Q: I have spoken to officers. Although there are three water cannon, only one can be used at one time. Only a corner of a building can be protected. One officer told me having water cannon would put him in a worse position.

May says there are different views on water cannon.

Vaz turns to the police.

Q: Your speech to the Police Federation was uncompromising. Are they now on the right track?

May says she has spoken to the new chair of the Police Federation. They are on the right course, she says. But she will continue to watch what they are doing.

Q: Boris Johnson has ordered second-hand German water cannons. They are here now. You have not authorised the use of them yet. Will you?

May says she has not authorised their use yet. There are still scientific issues around their impact to be resolved.

Q: Wouldn't it have been better for Johnson to wait?

May says this is a matter for crime commissioners and chief constables to decide what they buy.

Q: So you will decide?

May says she will decide whether they can be used. Then forces decide whether or not they want to use them. With tasers, the take-up has varied from force to force.

Keith Vaz goes next.

Q: Is it true you are looking at a German deradicalisation model that involves trying to deradicalise people returning from abroad?

May says the Home Office is constantly looking at how other countries handle this problem.

Q: What are you doing about countries like Turkey that have become a hub for this activity?

May says she does talk to Turkey about this.

Nicola Blackwood goes next.

Q: How many cases currently being prosecuted depend on communications data? What would happen if there were a legal challenge?

May says 95% of serious criminal cases generally involve communications data.

Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions, said the Crown Prosecution Service was very dependent on this data.

Michael Ellis goes next.

Q: Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, head of the Metropolitan police, says this is a matter of life and death. Shouldn't this be proceeded with uncontroversially?

May says she would hope so. The opposition are supporting the bill, she says.

Q: Some MPs are opposed, for example David Davis, who wrote an article about this in the Mail on Sunday. Are you really saying this does not change anything?

May says this bill is to ensure that a "capability gap" does not open up. This is "simply replacing what exists at the moment".

Q: Would you consider changing the legislation to tighten the conditions for the retention of data?

May says a joint committee looked at the draft communications bill that proposed extending the powers to retain data. It considered that was appropriate.

Q: Why has pre-legislative scrutiny not applied to a bill with such fundamental civil liberties concerns?

May says she wants to ensure the police do not lose the capabilities they currently have.

David Winnick goes next.

Q: All emails can be retained?

May says this is about the metadata, not the content, being retained.

This is information that has consistently been used by the police and the security services to keep us safe. It is material that is essential, she says.

Q: What the difference between that argument, and the argument for 90-days pre-charge detention, or ID cards?

May says she opposed 90-day pre-charge detention. This government has cut the pre-charge detention time limit from 28 days to 14 days, she says.

Q: Have you published the information about the reduction in the number of public bodies able to access data through Ripa?

May says she thinks this will be published alongside the secondary legislation.

Q: Are there providers in foreign countries who have complied with Ripa [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] warrants?

May says she does not disclose who responds to warrants. And she will not say anything that will allow people to identify companies.

But the government has until now assumed Ripa has "extra-territoriality".

Q: Has any overseas company complied with a Ripa request? Yes or no?

May says that whether or not the power exists does not depend on a company complying with such a request.

Companies have complied with requests in the past.

Q: So overseas companies have complied. Why the rush? Why not wait until September?

May says the government wants to put this beyond doubt.

She does not want to reach a "cliff edge". (She calls him Dr Huppert, a sign that she is getting a bit tetchy.)

Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP, goes next.

Q: You says this bill will introduce no new powers. If it does, will you tell MPs about that?

May says legislation is often quite complex. But this is about taking powers available at the moment and putting them into primary legislation.

Q: So you would tell us if it emerged that the bill did extend powers?

May says she does not think the bill does extend powers.

Q: It has been suggested that this would authorise activities revealed by Edward Snowden. Would this have any effect on non-US underseas cable companies?

May says the intention is that this will not do anything other than enable existing powers to carry on.

Q: Why is this needed? The government has been able to carry on since the European court of justice ruling in April.

May says, in the light of the ECJ judgment, the government wants to put the legal position "beyond doubt".

Q: Why can't you do this in September?

May says it is important to act as soon as possible, before there is a legal challenge.

Keith Vaz turns to the emergency surveillance bill.

He says he was assured by David Cameron that this was not a "land grab".

Q: Have you got names for the proposed privacy and civil liberties oversight board?

May says this will build on the work done by David Anderson, the independent review of terror legislation. The names will be discussed with Anderson.

Michael Ellis, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Was there any delay in the release of the report about the Home Office funding PIE?

May says it was decided to put it out last week.

Vaz says the committee will take evidence from Sir Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam.

It had written to Lady Butler-Sloss inviting her to give evidence too, he says. But that invitation is no longer relevant.

Ian Austin, the Labour MP, goes next.

Q: Were you surprised that the investigator who investigated whether the Home Office funded the Paedophile Information Exchange did not speak to the whistleblower involved?

May says the investigator was looking at whether the Home Office funded PIE. There was no evidence it did.

Q: But how can you accept that when the investigator did not even speak to the whistleblower who said the Home Office did fund PIE?

May says she will write to the committee about this. The matter "is not quite as Mr Austin has put it to the committee", she says.

Michael Ellis, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: How were the missing files stored? If only child abuse-related files went missing, but not the ones either side, that would be relevant, wouldn't it?

May says she expects this kind of issue will be considered by the Wanless/Whittam review.

Q: And will this review look at whether MI5 have copies of those files?

May says she thinks the Wanless/Whittam review will consider if those files are available somewhere else.

Keith Vaz intervenes.

Q: Aren't you interested in how those files went missing?

May says it's not a matter of whether she is interested. Her concern is that matters are handled properly.

Q: Wouldn't you want to ensure that files like this don't go missing again?

May says these files are presumed destroyed. But that is not known for certain.

Keith Vaz turns to the internal Home Office inquiry into the missing child abuse-related files. He refers to this as the Sedwill review, after Mark Sedwill, the Home Office permanent secretary, even though it was actually carried out by an HMRC investigator.

Q: When you found out about the missing 114 files, did you ask the titles of those missing files?

May says she wants to leave this up to Sedwill.

She does not want to ask the names of those files, because she does not want to be accused of interferring.

Q: You did not even read the whole report?

May says that was because allegations against senior Conservatives were reportedly involved.

Vaz says May could have asked to see a redacted version.

Keith Vaz says he endorses what Blackwood said.

It is important for May not to rush these appointments, he says.

And he says it might be a good idea for the names of the panel and the chair to be announced at the same time.

The Home Office is in too much of a rush, he suggests.

Nicola Blackwood, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: Why not announce the whole panel at the same time, perhaps after consultation with the person appointed chair?

May says she will consider this. There is a case for doing this. But it would mean delaying the announcement.

Q: You have said the panel will see all government papers. How far back does that go? And how will you ensure that council papers are available? Can work on this start now?

May says she would hope to have the chairman in place within a "reasonable" amount of time.

The panel is being set up along the lines of the Hillsborough panel. It will be up to the panel to decide how it operates, she says. She does not want government to pre-empt that. It is important it is an independent panel.

Labour's David Winnick goes next.

Q: Would you have appointed Lady Butler-Sloss if you had known that the late Lord Havers tried to stop Geoffrey Dickens naming a paedophile in parliament?

May says it was known that Butler-Sloss was Havers's brother. A number of issues in relation to Havers had been raised in the past.

Q: But were you aware of that incident?

May says that was an incident raised recently. She knew Butler-Sloss was Havers' brother.

Keith Vaz intervenes.

Q: Did you know about that specific incident?

May says this issue has been raised in the last few days, as far as she is concerned.

Q: So that's a no.

May says she has answered the question in her own way.

Q: If this had been a court case,wouldn't a judge have resigned immediately?

May says there are rules about judges trying cases. But this was not a trial.

Vaz says it is not Butler-Sloss's integrity that is in question; it is May's judgment.

May says her judgment was about Butler-Sloss's integrity.

Vaz says he disagrees.

Everyone has great respect for Butler-Sloss's integrity, he says. But the charge is that May did not do "due diligence".

May says she had to look at the individual.

• May admits she did not know Lady Butler-Sloss's brother tried to stop an MP naming a paedophile in parliament when she appointed her to chair the inquiry.

Michael Ellis, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: It has been suggested a peer might not be suitable replacement, and that a judge might not be suitable. How long will it take to find someone?

May says she cannot put an absolute timetable on it. But she thinks she will find someone within "a reasonable space of time".

What matters is the integrity of the person appointed.

Labour's Ian Austin goes next.

Q: Will the inquiry look at the barring register. There has been a 75% drop in the number of people banned from working with children.

May says the way the barring register works has changed. It now focuses on people working with children. It will be up to the inquiry to decide whether to look at this.

May says there has been a lot of innuendo around Lady Butler-Sloss.

She is disappointed that she is standing down, she says.

She says she regards Butler-Sloss as someone of the highest integrity.

Q: We agree about that. But I asked Mark Sedwill last week if it was wise to appoint a parliamentarian to do this job. Who did you consult?

May says she consulted a number of people. She thought her experience with the Cleveland child abuse inquiry was particularly relevant.

Q: But, if you had asked anyone about this, they would have said she was a member of the Lords, and her brother was attorney general. The only person who was defending her last week was Nigel Havers, her nephew, an actor.

May says the Home Office was clear in its statements it was defending her.

She says the child abuse allegations cover people in all walks of life.

Q: But look how careful you were when presented with a report into missing Home Office files. You did not read it all because you were worried about a conflict of interest. [Conservative politicians had been associated with the allegations.] Do you regret your choice?

May says of course consideration was given to whether Butler-Sloss was suitable.

She says she still thinks Butler-Sloss is a woman of "impeccable integrity".

But she thinks Butler-Sloss would have done a good job.

Q: When will there be a new name?

May says she will not be "hanging around". But she does not give a precise answer.

Vaz says May should consult more widely on her next choice.

May says she would want to ensure that the person leading the inquiry is the right one.

The chair should help to choose the inquiry panel, she says.

Q: Why not appoint a panel and let them choose the chair?

May says she should appoint someone to lead the inquiry.

Keith Vaz is opening the hearing now.

He starts by congratulating Theresa May on becoming the longest-serving home secretary since Rab Butler in 1962.

Q: Did you celebrate?

No, says May. I'm someone who just gets on with the job.

Vaz is now running through a list of things that have gone wrong at the Home Office recently.

Q: Being home secretary is not a walk in the park. But this has been a surprise for a department that had seemed well organised. What has gone wrong? Why is it all unravelling?

May says she does not accept it is all going wrong.

On the Passport Agency, she says there has been a big increase in the number of people applying for passports.

Here is some more Twitter reaction from MPs to Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

From the Conservative MP Margot James

From the Labour MP Karl Turner

From the Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt

The Green party has welcomed Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down. This is from its leader, Natalie Bennett.

I welcome the decision by Lady Butler-Sloss to withdraw from the inquiry. It's the decision that I would have expected given her outstanding record.

The government is going to find it difficult to find an appropriate replacement. As Vera Baird said on the Today programme this morning, the head of this important inquiry, to have the trust of victims and the public, has to be an 'outsider'.

The fact that identifying such an individual with appropriate experience and standing is extremely difficult is both a reflection of the narrow circles from which top levels of the judiciary and civil service have been drawn, and the urgent need to significantly widen this for the future.

The Labour MP Frank Field told the World at One that he still thought Lady Butler-Sloss would have been a good chair of the child abuse inquiry.

She would have been outstanding ... There are pressures on people in public life which can so engulf you that sometimes the right candidate for the job won’t carry the job out and I think this is just one of those examples.

The inquiry has lost somebody who on her track record would show she is in nobody’s pocket; would have been massively focused on getting down to the truth and showed the report through the victims' voices.

I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.

Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP, told the World at One that Lady Butler-Sloss would have been "pretty much the perfect candidate" to chair the child abuse inquiry were it not for her relationship with her brother, the late Lord Havers.

Critics of Butler-Sloss's appointment have already highlighted Havers' role in defending a decision not to prosecute a paedophile diplomat, Sir Peter Hayman, and his decision to ask the late Geoffrey Dickens MP not to name Hayman in the Commons.

But Goldsmith highlighted a fresh problem. He said that Havers limited the terms of reference of an inquiry into abuse at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland so as to exclude allegations about VIP visitors to the home.

These kind of things are really big and it's inevitable that a proper, all-encompassing inquiry would find its way all the way to Kincora. It would look at who set the terms of reference. It would look at who was excluded, who was protected by the terms of reference. And that would lead to Havers himself, who was responsible for that.

So it did put [Lady Butler-Sloss] into a really difficult position.

Full details of the role Havers played in the Kincora inquiry are in a story on the Exaro News website.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who has played a leading role in campaigning for a child abuse inquiry, has welcomed Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

Danczuk was, I think, the first MP to say last week that Butler-Sloss was the wrong person to chair the inquiry.

Alison Millar, head of the abuse team at the law firm Leigh Day, has welcomed Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

Our clients are pleased and we are relieved that Lady Butler-Sloss has taken this decision to stand down. This was the only sensible decision to ensure that survivors and the public could feel confident that the inquiry was not going to be jeopardised by accusations of bias.

The issue was never the integrity of Lady Butler-Sloss or what she knew of her brother's actions as the chief legal adviser to the government, it was always the fact that she would ultimately have to judge those actions.

This would never have been acceptable for an inquiry which requires not only to be transparent but to be seen as such by those who have in the past been so badly failed by the establishment.

The Labour MP John Mann would like to see Lady Hale, the deputy president of the supreme court, chairing the child abuse inquiry.

Last week the legal blogger Richard Moorehead wrote a post predicting that Lady Butler-Sloss would stand down. He based his view on legal precedent relating not just to bias, but to the perception of bias. Here's an extract.

The normal test for a forced recusal in a court hearing is whether there is a real or apparent bias. As it was put in the Pinochet case:

…if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial, for example because of his friendship with a party. This second type of case is not strictly speaking an application of the principle that a man must not be judge in his own cause, since the judge will not normally be himself benefiting, but providing a benefit for another by failing to be impartial.

I should caution here that bias does not connote some sinister conspiracy. The rather simple question is whether a reasonable and fair minded individual would be likely toperceive that the judge may not be impartial. Reasonable people may differ on the view but I would suggest that, as Lady Butler Sloss reflects on the unfolding situation, she will return to the point that no judge who knew material allegations were to be made concerning a relative of his or hers in a trial – even if that relative were not a defendant – would sit on that trial. She cannot yet know whether or how material her brother’s involvement is in the handling of child abuse allegations within the ‘establishment’. But the risk that she will find herself in an impossible situation is significant enough for her, on reflection, I suspect, to step back.

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has played a leading role in demanding an inquiry into historical child abuse allegations, has welcomed Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down as chair of the inquiry. This is what he told BBC News.

It think it's the right thing and probably best for the inquiry. She has the highest integrity, she's respected by politicians on all side of the House and, as she said in her resignation statement, she doesn't want the media attention on her brother and what might have gone on in the past get in the way of a wide-reaching investigation, so it was the right thing.

I think it probably was [inevitable], particularly for someone who's got such a large record in public service. She would know that any controversy around her as the chair of the inquiry would cause difficulties and particularly with very vulnerable survivors who are nervous about speaking out, they need to be encouraged to do so, and any question mark over the inquiry would have been difficult. I just think it's testament to her own integrity that she's made that decision herself and gone very quickly.

I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.

Here is some reaction to Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

From parliamentarians

From Lord McConnell, the former Labour Scottish first minister

From the Labour MP John Mann

From the Conservative MP Lord Ashcroft

From the Green MP Caroline Lucas

From legal experts

From David Allen Green, the lawyer and legal blogger (aka Jack of Kent)

From Mark Elliott, a reader in public law at Cambridge University

From Richard Scorer, a leading child abuse lawyer

From journalists and commentators

Asked if the government would now be looking for someone with less of an establishment background to chair the inquiry, the prime minister's spokesman said:

The key thing around appointments will be getting a panel that has the right range of skills and expertise and credibility that gives and inspires confidence in it and its work.

The reference to "credibility" and "inspiring confidence" suggest that the short answer is yes.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has welcomed Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

I am not surprised by this decision - it is the right one.

As I pointed out to Mr Sedwill the public would be concerned that a member of parliament, not matter how distinguished, had been appointed to head this important panel.

The whole inquiry process is becoming shambolic: missing files, Ministers refusing to read reports and now the chair resigning before the inquiry is has even commenced.

At a committee hearing last week, Vaz questioned whether Butler-Sloss was the right candidate for the post, although he did also say that he accepted she was a woman of impeccable integrity.

Downing Street has indicated that we will not get the name of Lady Butler-Sloss's replacement as chair of the child abuse inquiry today. The appointment "may take a few days", the prime minister's spokesman said.

Asked if the government took into account Butler-Sloss's backround, and the factors that led to her resignation, when appointing her, the spokesman said it was no secret that her brother was attorney general.

But the spokesman refused to be drawn on whether officials and ministers had been aware of Lord Havers' involvement in decisions relating to certain child abuse allegations in the 1980s.

The Spotlight on Abuse blog gives more details about some of those Havers' decisions.

And here is Theresa May's statement on Lady Butler-Sloss's resignation.

I am deeply saddened by Baroness Butler-Sloss’s decision to withdraw but understand and respect her reasons. Baroness Butler-Sloss is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion and continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.

As she has said herself, the work of this inquiry is more important than any individual and an announcement will be made on who will take over the chairmanship and membership of the panel as soon as possible so this important work can move forward.

May will be taking questions on this when she gives evidence to the home affairs committee at 3pm.

Here is Number 10 on Lady Butler-Sloss's decision to stand down.

[Lady Butler-Sloss] has taken the decision to step down as chair of the panel inquiry. It is entirely her decision. The government's view hasn't changed, that she would have done a first-class job as chair. The reasons for her appointment still absolutely stand in terms of her professional expertise and her integrity, which I don't think has been questioned from any quarter whatsoever, and rightly so.

Here's an extract from Lady Butler-Sloss's statement.

I'm just back from the Number 10 lobby briefing.

Downing Street are playing down suggestions that we will get the name of Britain's next European commissioner this week. David Cameron is going to Brussels for a dinner with EU leaders on Wednesday night, but the prime minister's spokesman said this did not necessarily mean that a name would be announced by then. "I would just be a bit careful about over-expecting on Wednesday," the spokesman said. He said the Wednesday dinner would primarily be devoted to discussing who should be the next president of the European council and the next high representative for foreign affairs. Other commissioner nominations may not get decided until the end of the month, the spokesman said.

More later ...

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has announced plans to enable the NHS to recover 150% of the cost of a treatment from patients from outside Europe. Here's an extract from his news release.

Patients from outside Europe using the NHS will be charged 150% of the cost of treatment under new incentives for the NHS to recover costs from visitors and migrants using the NHS.

Visitors and migrants can currently get free NHS care immediately or soon after arrival in the UK, leaving the NHS open to abuse.

But now government is asking the NHS to clamp down by identifying these patients more effectively so costs can be recovered from them.

This will make sure that by the middle of the next parliament, the NHS will recover up to £500 million a year from treating foreign visitors and migrants.

The Treasury has announced a review of the tax regime for North Sea oil.

As you can see from the news release, the initiative is also designed to help persuade the Scots to vote against independence. Here's an extract.

Oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea are taxed at higher rates than other companies, to ensure the nation a share of the profits of production. Marginal tax rates are 62% or 81%, in comparison to the standard corporation tax rate which is currently 21%.

In recent years the government has introduced a number of tax reliefs to encourage investment, particularly in North Sea fields that are smaller or harder to access. These ‘field allowances’ unlocked £7 billion of new investment last year, according to the industry.

The government has also signed decommissioning relief deeds to provide certainty over the tax relief available for decommissioning North Sea infrastructure when production ends. These deeds are worth over £20 billion to the industry.

An independent Scotland would have to invest around £3,800 per head – over ten times more than when costs are spread across the UK – just to match the amount the UK Government has committed on decommissioning.

The government estimates that there are between 11 and 21 billion boe [barrels of oil equivalent] remaining in the UKCS [UK continental shelf] that could be economic to recover.

I'm sorry I'm late launching the blog today. For various reasons, I got held up at home, and I've only just got into the office. But I should be able to launch nice and early tomorrow, for the reshuffle.

Today's I will mop up any reshuffle stories around. But I will be focusing mainly on Theresa May's appearance before the Commons home affairs committee. It is a wide-ranging session, but much of the questioning will probably focus on the child abuse inquiry and the emergency data protection bill.

On the child abuse inquiry, as Nicholas Watt reports, there are renewed calls for Lady Butler-Sloss to step down. Here's an extract from his story.

Vera Baird, the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria who served as Labour's solicitor general from 2007 to 2010, said the home secretary, Theresa May, had made an error in appointing Butler-Sloss because her brother had served as attorney general in the 1980s.

Butler-Sloss, a former president of the family division of the high court,has faced intense pressure since her appointment last week because her brother, the late Sir Michael Havers, served as Margaret Thatcher's attorney general from 1979 to 1987. The Butler-Sloss panel would have to examine whether Havers played down allegations of child abuse during that period.

Baird told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday: "If she were in a court case presiding over it and her brother were mentioned as someone she may have to investigate, she would of course withdraw due to a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest is even bigger here where we have a vulnerable community of people who say that they have been not allowed to get justice.

"It is her task to look into it. It has got to be done by somebody who is an outsider to this, who is completely independent. Without wanting to descend totally to cliche, justice must not only be done but it has to be seen to be done."

Here's the agenda for the day.

11am: Number 10 lobby briefing.

3pm: Theresa May gives evidence to the home affairs committee.

As usual, I will also be flagging up any breaking political news, posting summaries with a round-up of all the day’s developments, and highlighting the most interesting political articles on the web.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.