26/03/2014 Newsnight

Ist keeping David Cameron in Downing

Street versus the man they say is most likely to get him kicked out.

The Liberal Democrat leader faces off against the UKIP leader. People

like Nick think we are not good enough, we have to give away control

to all of these things to somebody else who will do it for us, we are

too small to survive. I'm not prepared to see anyone lose their

job on the altar of Nigel Farage's anti-European dogma. Whilst the

sophologists scratch their head as to what it all means, we are heading

down the pub. Farrage goes for the twinkly smile that we have seen a

lot of, is this good or bad. Is this man, the President of Rwanda, having

his political enemies assassinated. What happened to the Britain which

had a horror of getting into debt. A long time ago it was stigmatised and

now it is normalised for every level of debt. Is it OK? It is not

something you can say is OK or not. It is a fact of life now. It

featured two men in grey suits and manage magenta ties, neither with a

bit of doubt. Tonight's debate with thor of the Liberal Democrats and

the leader of the UKIP party was supposed to be with the European

Union. Yet the repeated refrain from each man was that's simply not true.

Each preferred to pose a question and then to answer it himself. Who

had the best night. Nigel Farage admitted the invitation to debate

Nick Clegg had initially made him choke on his bacon sarnie, tonight

he was finding it a little easier to swallow. I have just been for a bit

of a dress rehearsal in the Westminster Arms and I'm fine. Nick

Clegg was the insurgent three years ago, the TV debates in 2010 served

him so well he came back for more. Now he's the incumbent, the deputy

PM, arguably the old hand. I'm looking forward to it. I'm Nick

Ferrari and welcome to the debate. Such an old hand that he opened

tonight's debate with rather familiar words. This debate is about

you, it is simple, it is about your job. Let's remind to 2010 to remind

you. Tonight's debate it about you. About your job... For a radio

broadcast it was all rather glam, high-definition TV and swanky set,

in a less swanky pub a few miles away, we caught the reaction of our

apt viewers. Now both Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg know the intricacies

of EU legislation well, they knew tonight was not the night for it.

This would be an evening of polarisation, in or out on Europe

and no no nonsense questions on Europe. Why don't the British

politicians trust the British public and give us a referendum on the

membership of the EU now. From time to time they offer a referendum,

they do it cynically, funnily enough at election time. And they say vote

for us we will give you a referendum and then do their absolute best not

to. It will never again happen over the heads of the British people.

Then the consent of the British people should be asked by way of a

referendum, that is what I have always believed, that has always

been my position, I have never wavered in that position. That is

why the last time the rules changed, something called the Lisbon Treaty I

said there would be a referendum. What did they make of those answers?

A trained politician who has spent years learning how to present how to

marshall facts, Nigel is more of an outsider. Then it was the turn of

John Connelly in the audience, why were our borders wide open he asked

to eastern Europeans who came to take jobs? It says here that 29

million Bulgarians may come to this country. There aren't even 29

million of Romanians and Bulgarians living in their countries it is

simply not true. You didn't answer the question. You tried to do

trickery with the 29 million, saying there aren't 29 million, you know

because two million have left around and they have gone to Italy and to

Spain. Nick you didn't answer the basic question, I'm not claiming 29

million people have the right to come to Britain. Yes you did. I'm

claiming 485 million people have the total unconditional right to come to

this country if they want to. And I think you are quite right. Let's

listen to the facts, let me have it. We are members of the European Union

we have the free flow of people, are you denying that? Yes it is not

unqualified. Would you deny that. It is not the case that anyone can move

to this country and simply claim benefits or live. I didn't mention

benefit, you keep doing benefits. And what of the economy without the

EU. Nick Clegg wheeled out his well-rehearsed figure. Who says we

are sacrificing any jobs. I hope he brings out the three million jobs

line. How many jobs are they prepared to lose, rely plea

estimated that three million jobs are linked to our position. When you

answer a question like that by saying three million jobs are at

risk, you show that like virtually everybody at Westminster you have

never run your own company, you have never had a proper job in the real

world, you are part of this political bubble that picked up a

piece of research that was produced ten years ago by a guy who himself

now said all he said was the jobs are linked to trade in Europe. The

issue of criminal justice took a curious turn as Nick Clegg accused

Nick Clegg of letting the British people down by failing to vote. You

may be left up to 18 months in prison without facing a charge. We

have a system of common law in this country, we have had for 800 years,

but it is based on the presumption of innocence before guilt, it is

based on habeas corpus and common law and we must defend it. Why did

you vote against. We must defend the principles of liberty, freedom and

justice. You should defend, we should all defend the rights of

British citizens. Why did you not do that. Taking over each other, they

all do it. Coming to a close the biggest question of all fro LBC

listener Beth. The one about lies. How can I believe your integrity,

Nigel you put your wife on your payroll and Nick you lied about

tuition fees. Trust is a rare commodity in politics these day,

because in the issues of referendum it has been taken out of the hands

of politicians like Nigel and mine. You are paying your wife? I have a

group in the European Parliament and political in this country. I never

said I wouldn't. I very much doubt that anybody else in British

politics has worked the hours and had so little fun as me over the

course of the last few years. I'm very sorry to hear that, I don't see

how paying your wife makes up for it? Because when you get home at

midnight, if you are lucky, you need someone there to say I have done

this I have done, that here are the documents for tomorrow, and without

having unpaid assistance from my wife for seven years, and paid in a

very modest way for five years I couldn't have done it. He still

can't answer the question can he. I thought he did answer it. No, he

didn't. From the moment the debate began the Twitterer war was on. Lib

Dems hammering home a phrase made famous by Gordon Brown. Nick Clegg

and Nigel Farage thank you for taking part. Even the Conservatives

were keen to home bomb Nick Clegg, the man who could slaughter the UKIP

beast for them. Who won? Nigel Farage spoke with clearer language

but looked uncomfortable. Nick Clegg less prone to exasperation, both the

PM and the Labour leader insisted they weren't watching, but there

will be lessons for them to learn from tonight's fight, thank God for

catch-up TV. George Parker is the political editor of the Financial

Times, Melanie Philips a journalist and social commentator, and Phil

Collins writes for the Times. Let as not try to call it one way or

another, nobody knows really. Was Nick Clegg wise to issue this

challenge first off do you think? I think absolutely, I think it is a

no-brainer for Nick Clegg, this is a party at the moment which is polling

around 10%, Nigel Farage's party is polling around ten pest as well.

They are two minority parties discussion an issue that people

don't care very much about and they are getting wall-to-wall publicity,

including on this programme, of course it is a no-brainer, he was

right to issue the challenge. The Liberal Democrats have set the bar

very low, they want to get the 8-9% up to 11-12% a level to which they

think they can save the 12 MEPs they have at the moment. At least Nigel

Farage didn't look completely nuts did he? I would imagine that anyone,

nobody would even possibly think he would look completely nuts. He did

get the edge on Nick Clegg, I thought some of the things he said

to Nick Clegg, some of the challenges he laid down Clegg did

not actually answer properly. The three million piece of research, the

three million jobs at risk you know, it is a pretty dodgy one. And Mr

Clegg did not come back on open borders, he didn't really answer

that question, going on and on about, I always wanted a referendum

with new rules, and everyone wants the referendum on the old rules,

that is the point. Mr Farrage fell down on the ECHR, he did not make

the point which Mr Clegg did make, that the European Court of Human

Rights, human rights law has nothing to do with the EU. I thought he

looked very shifty over "the wife" and the employment of the "the

wife". Overall I was looking at the overall messages that both men were

conveying and you see Nick Clegg was actually for a Lib Dem this is

really quite ironic, I thought that Nick Clegg was giving a kind of fear

message, you know, if we come out it will be terrible and was trying to

sort of scare monger over jobs and was basically saying Britain can't

go it alone. Where as Nigel Farage, curiously was the much more

optimistic of the two, much more attractive of the two. He was saying

Britain can do it again and we have to have faith in ourselves and we

have to take back control of our own Government. What did you make of

this? That is not entirely true on immigration for example, I thought

Nick Clegg gave a very clear liberal defence of immigration, which is for

all the apparent liberal elite that run the country you don't hear that

case made very often, he made it in a very full-throated way. He made a

clear liberal case on trade, I thought he was quite coherent. I

thought he won it may be because he represents views I hold. In this

sense Clegg won it, even if you take the YouGov figures for a Liberal

Democrat to win 36% in any poll is joy unconfined for them, that is the

point of this. It is nothing to do with the EU, on which nobody's view

would have changed, it is everything to do with changing your mind about

Nick Clegg, that was the point of him turning up tonight. In that

context was it wise for Cameron and Miliband not to be represent there

had? I think it probably was, they don't have quite the same imperative

as Clegg has, as George said before, to creep from nine to 12 might team

like a fairly small journey but it could be crucial electorally for

them. If UKIP can hold 12% they will do damage to the Conservatives.

Neither of the other two want to talk about Europe, if Labour talk

about Europe it is a danger their supporters go to UKIP, and Tory

splits again in if they talk about it. They are the losers. Who? David

Cameron and Ed Miliband, because they conspicuously did not take part

in this debate. This was a debate of surrogates, and you know, their

voices weren't heard and I think people will take away you know quite

a poor impression of them from that. Interesting too how Clegg embraced

the legislation to lock in a referendum if there is transfer of

power, which is not a Liberal Democrat idea. He has come pretty

late to that party. All of a sudden it was very useful for him to

describe that. And Clegg has gone on the journey from the outsider to the

insider and I thought he wore that quite well tonight. Farrage has come

from nowhere to be the outsider, it was a peculiar moment. A very

strange hour for us all to spend. Very strange. What are your

feelings, two of you have mentioned this is an issue people don't really

care about? Yes, well if you look at the opinion pollsters they say

typically Europe doesn't come within the top ten issues that people care

about in their day-to-day lives. And I think that's true, it is one of

the reasons why normally in European elections politicians talk about

hospitals and schools and potholes in the roads and don't talk about

Europe. But I thought the interesting thing this time was the

Liberal Democrats who are pro-European are actually saying we

have nothing to lose, we are going to say we are pro-European and send

out a message and their view is basically there is 35% of the

population who are pro-European and want Britain to stay in the EU, that

is the pool of voters that they are fishing in really. I don't think

people don't care about it, it is just not on the forefront of

people's minds, people are more concerned about the day-to-day

issues, as soon as you start talking about it then I think people do care

quite considerably. On one side or the other and they want to hear the

arguments. People certainly care about immigration? They do, that was

probably the most interesting part of the whole thing, where the

divergence was very clear. Farrage lapsed into some very peculiar

language at that point, I don't know if I live in the anglo--sphere, I

have never been there but Nigel Farage seems to inhabit it. Nick

Clegg was clearer, he didn't have a populist message, but for Clegg he

wants to show leadership and to be there for an hour on the television

being the leader on a big subject. That in itself is quite an important

politics calm currency for him. I thought Farrage had immigration and

Clegg had jobs. And I thought immigration worked about for Farrage

than the jobs -- better for Farrage than the jobs for Clegg. It happens

to be people's number two on the list of concerns after the economy.

Nigel Farage channelled that better than Nick Clegg did. He has the

easier gig in a sense. He has the more popular line, I thought Clegg

made a good fist of his line, it is not a particularly popular one. I

agree with Melanie about the jobs, that well-worn figure of three

million is plucked out of the air, as soon as that was interrogated it

is very flimsy indeed, that argument which Clegg began with, but this is

essentially by our economic future, I think there is some truth in that

argument, but I think he lost that part of the argument. This is also a

contest for plucky outsider, underdog, to the political process.

In the general election Nick Clegg scored so well because he was the

plucky outsider to the political process. Now Farrage is the new guy

on the block. And I think Farrage still has the edge. I think he is

still the chippy outsider and saying the things that politicians won't

say, you know, there were too many occasions where Nick Clegg was sort

of not caught out, but was clearly looking a bit sort of uncomfortable,

he didn't really answer the question. Ultimately after an hour

of Farrage he began to fade, diminishing returns set in for me

early, in the end he's not good enough, he's too small to survive.

Thank you very much all of you. It was a bit like the good old days

of the Cold War in Washington today with the British and American

defence secretaries worrying over what to do about Russia. After years

of improving relations the invasion of Crimea has reset the clock. It

has done so when almost everyone in NATO has less money to spend on

defence. Barack Obama on his first presidential visit to Brussels said

he had concerns about the diminished level of defence spending among

America as allies. He also found time for a pointed reminder of how

the last stand-off between east and west came to an end. For decades a

contest was waged, and ultimately that contest was won, not by tanks

or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians who

sparked a revolution. Polls in and shipyards who stood in solidarity.

Waging a revolution without firing a shot. Eastern Berliners who marched

past the guards and finally tore down that wall. The Defence

Secretary Philip Hammond met his US counterpart in Washington today from

he joins me now. In your assessment of this stand-off between Russia and

the west what would it take to move from economic sanctions to something

more serious that might involve NATO? NATO is involved already.

We're very clear that the preferred way of dealing with this situation

over the Ukraine and Crimea is through economic diplomatic and

political pressure on Russia. And President Obama has emphasised in

that speech you were carrying there today in Brussels that these are the

tools we will use in dealing with the crisis over the Ukraine. He was

very clear that there is not a military option around resolving the

crisis in the Ukraine. There is no military option? That's what the

President said in the speech and of course that will carry a great deal

of weight. But he also made the point that we have weapons of

economic, political and diplomatic sanction that will exact a very

significant price from Russia and if the crisis were to endure over time

it would make life very difficult indeed for Russia and the Russian

people. I read the text of a lecture you gave today in which you said you

became accustomed to hearing a certain amount of sniping in North

America about what the capabilities were of the European NATO allies.

What sort of things are they sniping about? Well I think Secretary Gates

when he was the Defence Secretary first set the perfectly legitimate

question, why would the US taxpayer want to spend their dollars

defending European countries that are unwilling to pay for their own

defence. That is a legitimate question and one which we in

European NATO have to answer. The sniping that I referred to was a

more specific sniping around the relationship between the UK and the

US in defence matters. Where there have been a number of commentators

on both sides of the Atlantic questioning whether Britain is able

to be a credible partner of the United States. And I was very

pleased this morning here to hear the Secretary of State of defence

Hagel saying clearly that Britain is a credible reliable and valued

partner. The United States has made clear that it's its future defence

plans will involve closer working with allies and I'm clear that

Britain is first in line to be the ally of preference for closer

working in the future and one of the things we have done today is to talk

about areas where we can do more together in the future, collaberate

more closely in the interests of both countries and of NATO and of

the free world more generally. Niece these snipers are right, we have no

operational aircraft carriers, the size of the army has been cut by a

fifth, the former chief of the general staff Lord Dannett thinks

that it has been cut far too far. They are right? Frankly I'm less

interested in what former chiefs and former generals think than the

advice time' getting from my current military chiefs and the current

military chiefs are telling me that we must invest in the frontiers of

defence, we must invest in cyber, we must invest in intelligence

acquisitions, surveillance, reconnaissance capabilities. These

are the things that we need to invest in. And with limited budgets

investing more in the new technologies to deal with the

threats that we will face in the future inevitably means spending

less on the old and familiar capabilities. On carrier strike, yes

we have accepted a gap in our carrier strike capability, but on

the 4th of July this year, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be launched at

Rosyth, a 65,000-tonne carrier, the largest ship the Royal Navy has had.

We are in the process of regenerating our carrier strike

capability with these new ships and the F-35 strike aircraft, one of the

world's most capable fighters. We will be back in that game with

avengence. Can I ask you a question about Ukraine, are there any

contingency plans for military action of any kind? Ass I have said

already we do not believe there will be an appropriate military response

to the crisis in the Ukraine. This has to be resolved by diplomatic

means and in the end there has to be negotiations between the Ukrainians

and the Russians. Ukraine is not a NATO member, it is outside the

alliance, we're very clear and President Obama has made clear today

that those countries that are inside NATO, including the Baltic states,

benefit from a very strong and clear military guarantee by NATO. We can't

extend that to countries outside the NATO alliance. Thank you very much.

Tony Blair thinks he's a visionary, Britain has given his country

millions upon millions in aid, Rwanda's President, Paul Kagami has

been a poster boy in these measures. 20 years since the genocide there

Rwanda's economy is growing at 8% a year, it comes at a price, Kagami's

opponents get locked up or worse, killed. So many opponents have fled

abroad. But even there they are not safe. The South African Government

has just expelled four Rwandan diplomats who they said were

involved in the murder and attempted murder of Rwandans in South Africa.

We investigated. New Year's Eve, Johannesburg.

Rwanda's former intelligence chief is on his way to an expensive hotel.

He's going to see an old informant. It was his friend, he used to come

and stay in his house many times. Patrick Karaga left his car in the

car park in Michelangelo Towers, and made his way up to suite 105, his

family would never hear from him again. His phones and everything

started going off from 8.00, 9.00, that is when they murdered him. The

friend, a man by the name of Apollo, was used as bait. The killers

themselves are thought to have rented a suite across the cor

templet we don't know how many of them there were. We do know that

Patrick Karaga seems to have put up a fight. The room was a mess, you

could see everything was a nightmare, we found the towel and

the towel was full of blood and the rope. He had marks all over. So

later they used the rope to hang him tight. His face had turned charcoal

black. Patrick was once one of the most powerful figures in Rwanda.

Paul Kagami's chief of external intelligence. He fled to South

Africa in 2008 after falling out with the regime. There he helped set

up an opposition movement called the Rwandan National Congress. His

friends family are in no doubt that he was murdered on the orders of the

Rwandan President. What I know is yes given his position, the way he

was and the way he did his job for all those years when he was part of

the Kagami regime, he may have known things and may have been in

opposition to those things. Almost certainly he would have known some

dark secrets, but his murder may have had more to do with whom rather

than what he knew. Patrick may have been an exile but he still had

friends inside Rwandan intelligence. To Paul Kagami those contacts could

possibly have constituted a threat. But to others they were an asset.

Newsnight has learned that from around the middle of last year Mr

Karagaya held a series of meetings with South Africa and Tanzania

military intelligence. The meetings happened at night and in secret.

They took place just as South Africa and Tanzania were sending their

troops to Congo to fight a Rwandan-backed rebel group. The

group was formed in early 2012, it called itself M 23. Within months

they had the much more powerful Congalese military on the run. The

United Nations said the rebels were receiving support from Rwanda. But

in mid-2013 a new UN brigade, made up of principally South African and

Tanzania soldiers began taking the fight to the rebels. And by November

M 23 were defeated. Their demise was swifter than their rise. Could

Patrick's late night meetings have contributed to the defeat of a

Rwandan proxy army, and could that in part at least explain his death.

Shortly after the murder Rwanda's President did little to distance

himself from the killing, while officially denying any involvement.

Patrick Karagaya's death served as a stark warning for exiles in South

Africa. Another high ranking official in Paul Kagami's entourage

was one. The general is understandably perhaps very cautious

about his security, about who he meets, about giving out contact

details. We have managed to get in touch with an intermediary and have

managed to range to meet them in a hotel outside Johannesburg. We will

follow you, we are in the grey Toyota. Wait for me. Thanks. Six

men, three of them Rwandan are currently on trial in Johannesburg

accuse of the attempted murder of a man in 2010. Since then he has

survived two more sassination attempts, the most recent earlier

this month. So the general is in hiding, living under South African

state protection. They ran away from danger, I ran away from somebody I

thought wanted my life, and that was the President of Rwanda. He said

that Patrick and I are like flies and if it requires him to use a ham

Tory kill a fly he will do it. You knew President Kagami well, would

you have called him a friend at one point? No, never. First of all he's

a very violent person. Have you seen that? Oh yes, many times, beating

people, very many times in my life. I have seen him doing that. In the

aftermath of the genocide in which 800,000 mostly Tutsi Rwandans tide,

Paul Kagami's army was accused of killing out mass killings of Hutu

citizens. He has always rejected that. But the General, Chief of

Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces admits that what he calls "excesses"

did occur. There was no deliberate intention against the Hutu, but

talking about people dying in war and undoubtedly they did. These

exercises of war are not just confined to Rwanda. Do you think

Paul Kagami could fear what you have to say about the killings or

excesses? You know what it is as you said nobody died, and yet a parent,

a wife or child died. The circumstances under which people

died should be explained. And if they explain them then they can have

consideration. In Rwanda we don't have angels and devils, what we have

is a situation inbetween. You are not an angel? Not at all. The South

African Government this month expelled four Rwandan diplomats,

linking them to the murder of Patrick Karagaya and the attempted

murder of the General. We were invited here to Pretoria to

interview the Rwandan High Commisioner, I have been inside and

the man seems to have changed his mind. He refused to comment on any

allegations of assassinations or attempted assassinations, and as to

my questions of whether somebody in this diplomatic mission had been

intimidating Rwandan exiles, he refused to confirm it or deny.

Almost every member of the Rwandan opposition we met spoke of being

threatened. One name came up again and again. That of one of the

expelled diplomats, first councillor Didi. I have told them they would be

eliminated. Didier doesn't hide his words when he's talking to Rwandans,

he's straight forward. When he says eliminate or wipe or silence he

means it. Other exiles have played this audio tapes in which they say

everything members of Rwanda's Armed Forces have been heard plotting to

kill Mr Karagaya. We can't verify the recordings but it is clear the

South African Government believes Rwanda was involved. It is not just

South Africa, over the years Paul Kagami's opponents have been

targeted in countries as diverse as Mozambique, Uganda, Kenya, even

Europe. Belgium, Sweden and indeed the United Kingdom. In 2011, three

Rwandan exiles were warned by British police that their lives were

in imminent danger from the Rwandan Government. We have spoken to one of

those exiles for this investigation who says he still remains in regular

contact with the Metropolitan Police. If Rwanda is trying to

silence crickets abroad, then the situation inside the country is

tougher still for those who oppose the Government. You know there have

been disappearance, executions, and nobody is talking. The police, the

intelligence is all over the place. That is terror. If nobody is talking

and people are terrorised, that is not peace. You have a brewing

conflict in Rwanda that is likely to develop into another conflict.

Rwanda has accused South African of harbouring terrorists, amongst them

the General and has asked for his extradition, that is unlikely to

happen. Despite the denials of official involvement, the message

from Kagami seems clear, oppose us and you are likely to end up dead.

Neither a borrower or lender be, the advice to the son in Shakespeare's

hamlet was once an -- Hamlet was once an item of faith in the UK. As

nation we currently owe ?1. 43 trillion. And a report by the

think-tank Demos, out tomorrow and seen in advance by this programme

identifies a further hidden debt. It often seems in the lives of many

British people the person who isn't a borrower is a mug! This is a huge

change in MRILT public attitudes which has rather intrigued us.

Sliding in and out of the red isn't unusual, but your bets of hanging on

in the black seem slimmer than ever. Our personal debts stack up to ?1. 4

trillion. More than twice what the Government spends in a year. And new

research seen by Newsnight suggests even more is hidden, nearly ?5

billion of arrears the official figures ignore. That is how Trevor

fell behind, he had to take time off work when he was ill. Housing and

utility bills he couldn't pay built up. So he went to different lenders

to cope. It is very easy to borrow, and I mean they are quick enough to

come to you and say, yeah, it is here if you want, ?1500, how much do

you want. It is easy to pile it on to you. But you wait until they

start asking for it back. It's like an addiction innit really. But it is

not just those in vulnerable situations taking their chances. The

research suggests 88% of us in Rwanda's in the red in some form,

mortgages, credit cards or something more risky. A quarter of households

rely on debt to get through the week. If you are under 30 you are

three-times more likely to have debts that are racking up and up.

The first year I would have eight hours contact. Around this table

just four students will rack ?150,000 of debt between them before

they earn a full-time penny. For all of you being in debt is perfectly

normal? Yeah. But unlike any of our previous generations, that is their

reality. A long time ago it was stigmatised now it is part of daily

life, every level of debt. Do you think that's OK? I don't think it is

something whether you can say is OK or not, because it just is, it is a

fact of life now. It is daunting thinking about it like that and

talking about it, but now that we are living here and we don't have to

pay it back at the moment, I'm putting it at the back of my mind.

If I can come to university I can take steps to get a well paid job to

pay off that when I leave university and just try not to think about for

the time being. There is not much sign of current or future

generations ever being able to escape. In fact, the Government's

official number crunchers predicted that we would be more and more in

hock. Approaching again the dangerous way in which we were

overextended when the financial system went pop.

And from controversial new pay day lenders who give decisions in

minutes, to doorstep debt collectors, it is big business.

Frank has been around the streets and knocking on doors for 40 years,

chasing up unpaid rent and bills. What kind of people get into debt?

Everybody. Have you got a mortgage? It could be you, it doesn't matter

whether it is credit cards or you can see from the figures, it is

enormous isn't T you know, it includes mortgages and everything

else. But yeah, debt is debt and it is still growing isn't it. We as a

country borrow God knows how much every day just to survive. So you

know. For us not to recognise it would be stupid wouldn't it. That

means that people in your position can make more and more money doesn't

it? I don't make a lot of money out of it. Let's face it, I do make a

few shillings and I employ a few people, which is basically what it

is all about, in this day of everything wanting everything. You

know children getting all the latest Playstations and everything else,

you know, it is not just people at the bottom of the food chain who are

suffering. It is people as you move into the middle market et cetera.

They are also caught up in it. Although the stigma of debt has more

or less gone, the potential to cause harm has grown. Think-tank, Demos,

who conducted this major new poll, believes lenders who do most damage

should be penalised. When it does go wrong, when debt does spiral out of

control, it can cause harm very quickly, that harm is what we are

interested in, that harmful section of the debt market. That is where we

think the Government and regulator should be tackling. A gentle

long-term mortgage shouldn't do much harm, but being in the red can ruin

lives. But with the recovery based on largely our own spending, debt

may land us in trouble but we would be in trouble without it too. Now

there is a minor moral panic taking off at the news of official advice

that teenagers in England and Wales, including those under the age of

consent, should be able to get hold of the morning-after-pill. The

National Institute for Health and care excellence is recommending they

be able to keep emergency contraception at home just in case

they need it. The justification is an attempt to shed this country's

reputation for having the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and

abortion in Europe. But when won't the possession of

morning-after-pills encourage promiscuity, and sexually

transmitted diseases. Our guests are both here. Is this a good thing do

you think? I think it could be a good thing, definitely. I mean, I

just don't think that it is going to change people's minds that much in

terms of people aren't thinking, if something's down the road instead of

in their house it is going to make them more or less likely to have

sex. What do you think? I don't think that they are emotionally

mature enough to handle the aftereffects of having sex. I think

that having the morning-after-pill so readily available will actually

not actually make a difference to pregnancy rates and things like

that, teenage pregnancy rates. Why not? I would say this because they

are not mature enough, they don't know the aftereffects, the pill

actually doesn't stop you from getting sexually transmitted

diseases and things like that. That's another argument, we will

come to that in a moment or two if we may. But on the pregnancy

question you really don't think it will make much difference? I don't

feel it will make any difference at all. It will be an excuse for young

people to have sex and then think OK tomorrow I will have the

morning-after-pill. What's wrong with that? I don't think that we

should be encouraging that, the Government should not be encouraging

young people to be having sex. It is not encouraging young people to have

sex, it is encouraging them not to get pregnant? Isn't it? Well I

wouldn't say so we already have things like free condoms and in

schools and universities being given out F they didn't want to fall

pregnant there are loads of means available of different types of

contraception to help them. Specifically the thing that is given

concern is the question of the morning-after-pill which, is

supposedly emergecy contraception after the event. Although if you

have a stockpile it is a predictable emergency. What do you think will be

the effect of that? I mean you say it is a predictable emergency, most

forms of contraception are 100%, I don't think any form is. The whole

point of this is when that fails, because you have to already be

taking some form of contraception to have access to this any way, it is

for people who are already taking contraception but need something to

fall back on sometimes because obviously nothing is ever 100%. The

difference between a morning-after-pill and condom or

something like, is that it doesn't protect you from sexually

transmitted infections, which are on the rise slightly any way. Don't you

worry about that? I mean people when they go to get this stockpile are

going to have to be educated about all types of contraception any way,

so I don't think people will become less aware of condoms or use them

less because that is the thing they will still have access to or still

be taught about. What is your anxiety about the rise, you

mentioned it a moment a a rise in sexually transmitted infections? I

think actually having this so readily available will actually

increase STDs, although people are not educated enough about sexually

transmitted diseases and things like that, so having this available is ju

going to be adding to the fuel it is OK for me to have sex, society says

it is acceptable, we're able now to get these things for free and it is

going to be fooling it. You think there will be a rise in infections?

Absolutely. As a direct consequence of this policy? I think people will

be turning to condoms less and use the morning-after-pill a lot more.

Do you worry about girls, particularly young girls, this is

applying to girls under the age of consent being more vulnerable to

pressure to have early sex now the young man says, well I haven't got a

condom but you can get those morning-after-pills no trouble? I

think generally people need to be educated more about relationships

and consent. I think that's part of a wider issue and it is all about

education. I mean obviously peer pressure has always existed and

probably will always exist, but the more we educate people in be this

stuff, the more likely that is it won't happen in the future. That's

it for tonight, we leave you with a viral video of the day filmed by

Karen Jones from Houston Texas, she recorded a fire in the building near

her home and the construction worker trapped near the edge of it. Oh my

God. Is that a construction guy? Yeah, he was inside there, do they

fricking see him. Oh God, oh my God, oh no, oh no. Oh my God. Hell, he

can jump from there, hell yes. Oh thank yes subjection thank you God.

Oh my God! (Screaming) oh no, my God! Oh!