:00:27. > :00:34.Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The moment of
:00:34. > :00:42.victory in Libya looks imminent. The new government there's on the
:00:42. > :00:50.brink of saying the country is clear Gaddafy's forces. Meanwhile,
:00:50. > :00:56.here at home, the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, is still under fire. Can
:00:56. > :01:01.you continue if the job? continuing to do what is needed,
:01:01. > :01:07.focusing on defence issues. Thank you very much. We'll have the
:01:07. > :01:12.latest. We'll also take a look at what's happened to crime in Croydon
:01:12. > :01:18.after the summer riots. Have all the arrests made an impact on how
:01:18. > :01:25.safe it is to walk the streets? And it's that time again - the
:01:25. > :01:33.Westminster Dog of the Year. We'll find out which pooch is top dog.
:01:33. > :01:40.There's no dog in the studio this year. I'm told that Foxy Knoxy's
:01:40. > :01:42.agent has been holding out for double money. All that in the next
:01:42. > :01:50.half hour. Joining us throughout the programme, the former MP for
:01:50. > :01:53.Tatton, war correspondent and now poet, Martin Bell. Good to be here.
:01:53. > :01:56.Published last week. But first, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague,
:01:56. > :02:01.is expected to make a statement in the Commons within the next few
:02:01. > :02:04.minutes. It's on the latest situation in Libya and there is
:02:04. > :02:07.speculation that he'll say that it is almost clear of resistance to
:02:07. > :02:11.the new government. Meanwhile, Liam Fox is still being staked out by
:02:11. > :02:17.half of Fleet Street here at home. Within the last few moments MPs had
:02:17. > :02:23.this to say about the Defence Secretary in the House of Commons.
:02:23. > :02:32.Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to look -- to publish a
:02:32. > :02:37.list of meetings with the Defence Secretary and Adam Werritty. When
:02:37. > :02:40.will this list be published? Following the BBC's revelations of
:02:40. > :02:45.secretive wealthy donors running a shadow operation at the heart of
:02:46. > :02:50.one of Whitehall's most sensitive government departments, what are
:02:50. > :02:54.the implications for accountibility and probity? On her first question,
:02:54. > :03:00.I'm sure the Prime Minister will honour the undertaking he gave
:03:00. > :03:07.yesterday on the list of visits to ministers. That is as soon as the
:03:07. > :03:10.information has been dealt with. On the earth -- other issue, the
:03:10. > :03:16.Cabinet Secretary is dealing with all issues and will complete his
:03:16. > :03:20.inquiry as soon as he can. George Young there. We are
:03:20. > :03:25.expecting the Foreign Secretary to make a statement probably including
:03:25. > :03:29.some in terms of declaring victory or at least Libya free. Is it
:03:29. > :03:35.difficult to determine that moment of victory, if you like, in these
:03:35. > :03:40.sorts of circumstances? Yes, I think in a long-running war, which
:03:40. > :03:45.doesn't necessarily involve regular forces, and a lot of rumours, but
:03:45. > :03:50.these ones are holding out. I think the moment of victory has just
:03:50. > :03:55.about arrived. As forceful humanitarian interventions go, I
:03:55. > :03:59.think this one has worked. Would you say you were a fan generally of
:03:59. > :04:04.a policy of liberal intervention? The Government will say it has been
:04:04. > :04:09.hugely successful and they did the right thing? Is it legal and
:04:09. > :04:17.proportion nailt and supported and doable? -- proportionate and
:04:17. > :04:22.supported and doable? This one has. It has not been America-led and the
:04:22. > :04:25.boots on the ground are those of the Lybians. That is the difference,
:04:25. > :04:30.looking back to Bosnia, boots on the ground become key or not as it
:04:30. > :04:36.was in Libya? That depends how they are used. We had 34,000 UN troops
:04:36. > :04:41.on the ground at the time of the Srebrenica massacre. Each case is
:04:41. > :04:46.different. Finally we got it right and good for those. Very different
:04:46. > :04:51.from Iraq? Totally and Afghanistan. I don't see how we could have stood
:04:51. > :04:54.back and see that happen to beng. He said he would go from --
:04:54. > :05:00.Benghazi. He said he would go from house to house and grab people out
:05:00. > :05:05.and kill them. He would have done, since he has previous. We are
:05:05. > :05:11.always criticising politicians, but when they get it right, give them
:05:11. > :05:19.the cid. Liam Fox - I -- credit. Liam Fox, we have a rough idea. The
:05:19. > :05:24.picture is clear now that there were clearly a group of Tories,
:05:24. > :05:33.quite wealthy, very wealthy in some cases and they were bank rolling a
:05:33. > :05:39.Shadow office in the shape of Mr Werritty. Because Liam Fox didn't
:05:39. > :05:41.quite trust the Cameroons or the Civil Service and they were very
:05:41. > :05:47.pro-Israel and they were Thatcherite in tradition and that
:05:47. > :05:52.seems to be what happened. Is that a sacking offence? I think his
:05:52. > :05:57.position is untenable. I think we can wait a few more days and if it
:05:57. > :06:01.turns out that Mr Werritty got any monetary advantage from his
:06:01. > :06:07.friendship with Dr Fox. The people I'm concerned for are those out
:06:07. > :06:10.deployed in far-flung places. This has to be distracting for the
:06:10. > :06:15.Defence Secretary. His judgment has to be called into question. I think
:06:15. > :06:19.we have a few more days. I'm in favour of not hounding people, but
:06:19. > :06:24.it will become clear in a very short time. I will be surprised if
:06:24. > :06:29.in a week's time he's still in his post. I thought at the weekend he
:06:29. > :06:34.might well survive. As the week's gone on and this drip, drip and we
:06:34. > :06:39.have now found out what has happened and Mr Werritty's position
:06:39. > :06:45.becomes more obvious, it does seem that the ministerial rules have
:06:45. > :06:49.been bent, if not broken? Yes. As previous explanations come to be
:06:49. > :06:55.shot full of holes and people say things when turn out to be not
:06:55. > :07:03.entirely true. It's the old case of the cover-up doing the damage.
:07:03. > :07:10.shall see. It will be another weekend of news stories, no doubt.
:07:10. > :07:17.We all remember the riots. The pictures scarred the towns and
:07:17. > :07:22.cities are still in our memories. These pictures are from Croydon.
:07:23. > :07:26.This morning, as guidelines have been published for people involved
:07:27. > :07:30.in rioting, Gavin Barwell, a Croydon MP, claims to have seen
:07:31. > :07:35.evidence that crime has now gone down dramatically in the area. We
:07:36. > :07:42.have going to speak to him in one moment, but first here is Jo on how
:07:42. > :07:49.the courts delts withlet aftermath. Following the -- dealt with the
:07:49. > :07:52.aftermath. Following the riots, 1 ,715 had appeared in court and 73%
:07:52. > :07:56.had a previous caution or conviction. This chimed with Ken
:07:56. > :08:02.Clarke, when he said that a hardcore of criminal classes were
:08:02. > :08:06.involved. The courts got tough. 43% of offenders tried at a
:08:06. > :08:09.Magistrates' Court received an immediate custodial sentence,
:08:09. > :08:16.compared to 12% for similar offences in England and Wales in
:08:16. > :08:21.2010. The average custodial sentence was 5.1 months, compared
:08:21. > :08:26.to 2.5 the year before. At Crown Court the average sentence was 18.5
:08:26. > :08:30.months, compared with 11.3 months in 2010. Now, new proposals have
:08:30. > :08:33.been set out by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. They
:08:33. > :08:36.are designed to take into account the harm inflicted on the victim.
:08:36. > :08:40.Under the new guidelines, those who are guilty of domestic burglaries,
:08:40. > :08:47.who normally get up to 26 weeks in jail, could see a sentence of up to
:08:47. > :08:51.two years, if the crime took place during a riot. Gavin Barwell is now
:08:51. > :08:56.with us. Welcome to the programme. This is a first for you? It is.
:08:56. > :09:01.Let's get straight to the fact in this. What figures have you seen
:09:01. > :09:04.and what do they tell us? I've seen some figures from my borough
:09:05. > :09:09.commander in Croydon, which show if you look at the four-week period
:09:09. > :09:13.after the riots and the period including the riots, there has been
:09:13. > :09:17.a significant reduction in property crime. You would expect that. There
:09:17. > :09:22.has been a reduction of 20% in violent crime. That shows very
:09:22. > :09:27.clearly it seems to me that putting the offenders away has worked in
:09:27. > :09:30.terms of reducing crime in the short term. I understand that. I'm
:09:30. > :09:34.puzzled by the period comparison if it tells us very much. You are
:09:34. > :09:39.saying the first period includes the riots? It does. Wouldn't a
:09:39. > :09:43.better comparison be, say, the four weeks after the riots, with four
:09:43. > :09:47.weeks in June or in April? Sure. I hope when we get the investigation
:09:47. > :09:51.complete we'll see all of that data. On the property crime you are
:09:51. > :09:56.making a perfectly fair point, because it's an unfair comparison,
:09:56. > :10:02.but there were very few offences of violent crime on 8th August, that
:10:02. > :10:07.people have been prosecuted for. It shows a significant reduction.
:10:07. > :10:10.conclusion do you draw from this? I they we are offered on crime and
:10:10. > :10:14.punishment a false choice, with some saying we need to put people
:10:14. > :10:18.away for longer and others say prison doesn't work, we need to
:10:18. > :10:21.improve rehabilitation and I think there is merit in both. Prison does
:10:21. > :10:25.work in the short term. It gets them off the streets and make
:10:25. > :10:28.Croydon a safer place, but as Ken Clarke argues in the longer term,
:10:28. > :10:32.it doesn't change people's behaviour patterns, so when they
:10:32. > :10:38.come out they are very likely to reoffend. What I'll argue this
:10:38. > :10:44.afternoon in the House is we are being offered a false choice.
:10:44. > :10:48.Obviously, it is axiomatic, if you put the guys away there will be
:10:48. > :10:52.less crime on the streets. Couldn't there be a play that after a riot
:10:52. > :10:56.and you see this in the United States also, people are exhausted,
:10:56. > :11:01.even the criminals are exhausted, and they need a rest? Sure. Also,
:11:01. > :11:05.there are lots of police around and there is lots of publicity and you
:11:05. > :11:10.lie low. By the way, I've nicked all this stuff and I have to fence
:11:10. > :11:16.it, so I'm busy doing that. Surely there must be an element of post-
:11:16. > :11:21.riot exhaustion? There is an effect that we saw more policing after the
:11:21. > :11:25.riots than on the day itself. What we'll need to see is data for the
:11:25. > :11:28.next few months while people are serving sentences to see if the
:11:28. > :11:32.effect is prolonged. My constituents want to see the
:11:32. > :11:36.maintenance of the visible policing. Why are we dependent on you coming
:11:36. > :11:42.to us with this information, which I understand is unofficial and it
:11:42. > :11:49.was leaked to you. Why - if this was a programme in New York we
:11:49. > :11:54.would be able to through their computer system tell you that crime
:11:54. > :11:58.precinct by precinct in the past 24 hours officially. Why don't we have
:11:58. > :12:02.that here? We are beginning to get it. The Government has started the
:12:02. > :12:10.crime mapping process, but there is a time lag. Historically, there has
:12:10. > :12:15.been far too little information that has allowed people to make the
:12:15. > :12:20.mapgz. There is the time lag -- mappings. There is the time lag
:12:20. > :12:24.that won't help that. We'll get the internal recrew across London and
:12:24. > :12:30.that will give myself and people like yourselves a lot more data.
:12:30. > :12:34.I say, I can see the point that crime's going down because a lot of
:12:34. > :12:38.the rioters with previous convictions have been put away and
:12:38. > :12:42.the streets a bit safer for a while. Even if you put them away for
:12:42. > :12:45.longer than you normally do, they will get out and they won't have
:12:45. > :12:50.been in prison long enough for rehabilitation to matter, so
:12:50. > :12:54.doesn't crime spike up again? agree with what Ken Clarke says.
:12:55. > :12:58.The initial story - You don't agree with him on not putting people away,
:12:58. > :13:02.do you? We are seeing that the guidelines are going to be a bit
:13:02. > :13:07.tougher, but permly I would like to see us go further still. I think
:13:07. > :13:10.also one of the things that very clear from the evidence is far from
:13:10. > :13:13.being spontaneous, in Croydon there was a significant organisation and
:13:13. > :13:19.gang culture was at the core of what happened in our town, so I'm
:13:19. > :13:22.very much looking forward to the stailt from Iain Duncan Smith and
:13:22. > :13:26.the Home Secretary about -- statement from Iain Duncan Smith
:13:26. > :13:31.and the Home Secretary about that. One final question to you for the
:13:31. > :13:35.moment, we know from international experience and we know now from coy
:13:35. > :13:40.done, that if you put a lot of police on the streets crime tends
:13:40. > :13:45.to fall. And your government is cutting police numbers. That can't
:13:45. > :13:51.be right, can it? In London this year we have seen a slight increase,
:13:51. > :13:56.but there is a danger going forward. Boris, as I tried to establish at
:13:56. > :14:01.the Tory conference, Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary can't be
:14:01. > :14:07.right. If he says he has 1,000 more police officers and he needs it to
:14:08. > :14:11.keep it down, so if you take 16,000 away in the rest of the country and
:14:11. > :14:16.that won't effect crime, one or the other is wrong? The Prime
:14:16. > :14:20.Minister's response was that we would see far more officers on the
:14:20. > :14:23.streets. Clearly, numbers is an issue. And you are cutting the
:14:23. > :14:26.numbers? My view is the police can't be expempt from savings and
:14:26. > :14:29.there are ways of saving without cutting numbers, but I've made it
:14:29. > :14:32.clear to the Prime Minister in the House that I would not favour
:14:32. > :14:39.anything that is actually going to reduce the front-line policing in
:14:39. > :14:46.my town. My constituents don't want to see that. Let me bring in Martin
:14:46. > :14:51.Bell in. What is your take? I used to be the BBC's riots correspondent.
:14:51. > :14:57.I have been from Chicago to Belfast. You didn't wear a helmet?
:14:57. > :15:02.certainly didn't. We had no body armour. The most serious riots
:15:02. > :15:08.never go on for four days because people get completely exhausted.
:15:08. > :15:11.Has Croydon recovered from the sense of shock? No, I think the
:15:11. > :15:14.damage to the reputation as a town and also the knowledge that living
:15:14. > :15:24.in the town there are people who are behaving like this in the
:15:24. > :15:28.
:15:28. > :15:32.community is going to take a long I think of Croydon as an affluent
:15:32. > :15:37.suburb. It is a very mixed community. There is some damage but
:15:37. > :15:41.there is also a positive side to this story. There were huge numbers
:15:41. > :15:46.of people look came out to help to clear up at the store. And they are
:15:46. > :15:50.going to rebuild it? Yes. If you look at the way that Manchester
:15:50. > :16:00.recovered from the IRA attack, these things can be turned into a
:16:00. > :16:00.
:16:00. > :16:05.positive. That is the job - to turn it around.
:16:05. > :16:14.Croydon was Nicholas Sarkozy's favourite town. He compared it with
:16:14. > :16:20.Paris. That was before the riots! Thank you for coming on.
:16:20. > :16:27.MPs will always tell you about ha- ha the work - the 14-hour days, the
:16:27. > :16:32.pressure to get re-elected - and that is all before they even think
:16:32. > :16:36.about climbing the greasy pole to the top. -- MPs will always tell
:16:36. > :16:45.you about how hard they work. According to a recent report, we
:16:45. > :16:49.should be encouraged in our MPs to be lazier. -- encouraging our MPs.
:16:49. > :16:55.Don't be fooled by appearances, life at Westminster can be jolly
:16:55. > :17:01.tough sometimes, especially if you're an MP. There is all that
:17:01. > :17:08."here, here close good business to get the hang of, then they expect
:17:08. > :17:11.you to turn up to vote at all ours of the day and night. There is a
:17:11. > :17:15.school of thought that says that the best way to get to the top in
:17:15. > :17:22.politics is to do less. Peter Taylor reckons that the future
:17:22. > :17:25.belongs to the lazy. Malaysia's air negative term. I think it is a
:17:25. > :17:29.positive thing. There is an approach to doing things in the
:17:29. > :17:34.most efficient way. It is a combination of intelligence and
:17:34. > :17:38.laziness. And you can achieve so much more by going that way.
:17:38. > :17:43.good in theory, but has anyone actually got to the top and stayed
:17:43. > :17:49.there without trying too hard? classic example is Ronald Reagan,
:17:49. > :17:56.who was unbelievably lazy. People would go to visit him and he would
:17:56. > :18:03.talk also -- for several Lars and give them a tour of the White House.
:18:03. > :18:07.-- for several hours. How do you do it? If you want to be this standard,
:18:07. > :18:13.good and conscientious MP, you do all your local staff, supporting
:18:13. > :18:17.the surgeries and so forth. If you want to become Prime Minister, you
:18:17. > :18:22.want to fork is higher. It is about networking and socialising and been
:18:22. > :18:32.involved in the big, important stuff. Are some of the new members
:18:32. > :18:37.of Labour's sham -- Shadow Cabinet real-life examples? People have
:18:37. > :18:46.leapt into the Shadow Cabinet, having been newcomers a year ago or
:18:46. > :18:51.18 months ago. It is probably a good idea because it will allow
:18:51. > :18:56.them to learn their briefs and be ready for office if Labour ever
:18:56. > :19:06.gets back in our lifetime. Finally, do not be embarrassed by your
:19:06. > :19:07.
:19:07. > :19:12.lethargy, embrace Europe in a laziness. -- you're in our laziness.
:19:12. > :19:15.I think it is the right approach. Next time you see a politician or
:19:15. > :19:21.reporter taking the weight off their feet, remember they are not
:19:22. > :19:28.being lazy, they are just being efficient. Honest!
:19:28. > :19:35.Wake up, Andrew! It is like the Daily Politics and
:19:35. > :19:39.ideas room. Were you Ali c m p or
:19:39. > :19:42.unproductively busy? I did not sufficiently understand the
:19:42. > :19:48.procedures of the House of Commons so I made a very slow start but I
:19:48. > :19:53.think I got there in the end. I discovered that too many people
:19:53. > :19:57.were discovered -- expecting me to be a super councillor. A you were
:19:57. > :20:01.in a unique position. It is true that people who are successful and
:20:01. > :20:05.efficient with their time get more done and do not get overstretched
:20:05. > :20:11.in the same way as other people. The classic clip from that was
:20:11. > :20:17.Thatcher and Reagan. I was the correspondent in Washington during
:20:17. > :20:24.that political romance. He worked very short hours. For the first six
:20:24. > :20:28.years he she came over every year - - for the first six years she came
:20:28. > :20:34.over every year. Firstly, she told him up what she thought and then
:20:34. > :20:38.have told him what he thought. -- and then told him. I interviewed
:20:38. > :20:45.him in the Oval Office ones. I forget what it was, some important
:20:45. > :20:49.issue, and he said, Andrew, you are quite right - it is so serious it
:20:49. > :20:53.is giving me sleepless afternoons. How could you be that relaxed, even
:20:53. > :20:59.if you did surround yourself with very good people? Surely, as head
:20:59. > :21:04.of state, you have to do a certain amount of legwork. He concentrated
:21:04. > :21:08.on the ceremonious things. He was the best communicator until the
:21:08. > :21:15.President incumbent. He loved been commander-in-chief, and he let
:21:15. > :21:20.other people to the functioning part. Until about 1986 it went well.
:21:20. > :21:24.I had to persuade people that this was not as stupid person but a
:21:24. > :21:31.formidable operator. One of the examples here was that Gordon Brown
:21:31. > :21:36.used to have the reputation, and he used to say, I will strive harder,
:21:36. > :21:39.work harder. In the end, he did not achieve things. Even when he went
:21:40. > :21:46.on holiday in Suffolk he said, I have got to get on with the job.
:21:46. > :21:50.The whole idea was to get away with it -- away from it.
:21:50. > :21:56.At some stage, he was getting up so early that he met himself going to
:21:56. > :22:01.bed. It is the worst thing to do. What you really need is a good
:22:01. > :22:06.night's sleep, think about it a bit and then get on with it. You cannot
:22:06. > :22:10.drive yourself into the ground. David Cameron is seen now as a
:22:10. > :22:16.slightly more relaxed type. He does not do quite the number of hours.
:22:16. > :22:22.Does it matter? You guys are in the loop. Has he got it right now?
:22:22. > :22:25.I think, on a day-to-day basis, it seems more manageable. There will
:22:26. > :22:31.be those who will argue that he has not been hungry enough and does not
:22:31. > :22:38.work hard enough. If you end up in the House of
:22:38. > :22:47.Commons it is quite hard work. you had no support system. You need
:22:47. > :22:53.a party. I had the best Parliamentary Secretary ever.
:22:53. > :22:58.For the uninitiated, to letter -- Twitter is a way of texting your
:22:58. > :23:02.thoughts to the world, or at least those who follow you. Some MPs have
:23:02. > :23:06.got fed up with others staring at their mobile phones the whole time
:23:06. > :23:14.during debates, so they have put down a motion to ban a habit. It is
:23:14. > :23:20.due to be debated any time now. I caught up with Luciana Berger, who
:23:20. > :23:23.likes to tweet, and James Gray, who wants her to stop. I started by
:23:23. > :23:27.asking James Gray if all mobile devices should be banned. They
:23:27. > :23:31.should be used for the business in hand. You can use them for urgent
:23:31. > :23:36.messages coming in or going out. I was recently chairing a committee
:23:36. > :23:41.upstairs about pensions and benefits reform. Two-thirds of
:23:41. > :23:44.people and the committee were staring at a device of some sort.
:23:44. > :23:48.That just means they are not concentrating on the debate in
:23:48. > :23:52.question. From outside, it looks terrible, looking at all these
:23:52. > :23:58.people in the chamber fiddling with electronic devices. Let us use them
:23:58. > :24:02.for a minimal amount of time, maybe the odd tweak here and there, maybe
:24:02. > :24:07.instead of using paper, but do not let us have a chamber full of
:24:07. > :24:10.people staring at screens. You have a point there. It is distracting if
:24:10. > :24:14.people are staring at the screen. Surely they cannot be concentrating
:24:14. > :24:19.on the debate. The main motion we are discussing today specifically
:24:19. > :24:24.says that we should only use hand- held devices with decorum. That is
:24:24. > :24:31.the main point back. I am concerned about the amendment being proposed
:24:31. > :24:35.which says that you can only send and receive urgent messages. That
:24:35. > :24:41.will prevent MPs from Tooting. That is what I am going to talk about in
:24:41. > :24:46.the debate. What does it mean, all with decorum? People can still sit
:24:46. > :24:51.there and use electronic devices and it will not be, in their view,
:24:51. > :24:55.with decorum. It is also going to deal with what is and is not an
:24:55. > :25:00.urgent message. As MPs, we take responsibility for what we do or do
:25:00. > :25:05.not do in the chamber. I except that me and my colleagues will do
:25:05. > :25:10.that and, therefore, debate -- the debate today is about what that
:25:10. > :25:15.should be. There is a bit of self- regulation there, James. You cannot
:25:15. > :25:21.ask people what they are doing. If the chairman knows that you should
:25:21. > :25:25.only be using these devices for work that is going on in the
:25:25. > :25:29.chamber and he sees someone doing something that is not pertinent, he
:25:29. > :25:34.can intervene and say, the rules of the House are that you should not
:25:35. > :25:38.be doing that. If we do not get my amendment through today we will
:25:38. > :25:44.find that the chamber of a House of Commons and the committees will be
:25:44. > :25:48.full of people doing things with their devices. It will look
:25:48. > :25:51.terrible from the point of view of people outside looking in. We get
:25:52. > :25:54.complaints at the moment that no- one is in the chamber. Look to the
:25:54. > :26:00.future and the complaint will be, all right, they are in the chamber
:26:00. > :26:04.but they are not paying attention to the debate. I would like to see
:26:04. > :26:09.minimal use of them just for the purposes of concentrating on the
:26:09. > :26:13.debate in hand. Why do you think that meeting has taken off in the
:26:13. > :26:18.world it -- in the way it has? live in the 21st century ad
:26:18. > :26:22.tweeting is just one way of better engaging and communicating with our
:26:22. > :26:25.constituency to whom we are accountable. The response is that I
:26:25. > :26:35.have had, and I have asked the question of whether we should
:26:35. > :26:36.
:26:36. > :26:41.continue to tweet, -- the responses that I have had our that people
:26:41. > :26:48.find it engaging. The death lobby in particular finds it useful.
:26:48. > :26:52.Who do you follow most of all? follow and lots of people. Mostly
:26:52. > :26:57.it is organisations and people in and around my constituency. And you,
:26:58. > :27:04.James? I am never sure who is looking and who is listening to
:27:04. > :27:08.what one says on Twitter. I am not a dinosaur, I look at it. I think
:27:08. > :27:13.there is plenty of room for Twitter and all of these other things. The
:27:13. > :27:17.question is about how much of it should be done during a technical
:27:18. > :27:22.debate in the House of Commons. We should be listening to detailed
:27:22. > :27:28.arguments, coming up with alternative views, and not fiddling
:27:28. > :27:34.about with electronic devices. Let us pick up on that point might.
:27:34. > :27:39.The issue is whether you should be tweeting from the chamber. What is
:27:40. > :27:43.your view? If you ever go to war with the British Army, you will
:27:43. > :27:48.find commanders telling people to minimise and concentrate on the
:27:48. > :27:54.business in hand. It is very depressing in the House divide
:27:54. > :27:57.people not paying any attention at all. They did not have Twitter in
:27:57. > :28:05.those days. What is the point of having a debate if people do not
:28:05. > :28:08.listen to it? Except that Luciana's point is that they are did --
:28:09. > :28:16.tweeting about the debate itself. But how do you not?
:28:16. > :28:26.Before we go we have to announce the winner of the yesterday's Guess
:28:26. > :28:36.
:28:36. > :28:41.the Year competition. It was Susan Emmett from All Saints near Brigg.
:28:41. > :28:49.Thank you to all other guests. I will be back later but it -- way to