:00:45. > :00:47.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Once upon a time
:00:47. > :00:52.the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seemed united on the
:00:52. > :00:55.issue of civil liberties. But is that unity under threat? The
:00:55. > :01:01.coalition is at loggerheads over plans to allow police and
:01:01. > :01:04.intelligence services to monitor all email and internet use. Nick
:01:04. > :01:10.Clegg says the bill needs a fundamental re-think. Theresa May
:01:10. > :01:12.says the plans must proceed without delay. The Culture Secretary will
:01:12. > :01:15.today lay out the Government's plans to introduce same sex
:01:15. > :01:20.marriages. But campaigners against the plans accuse ministers of being
:01:20. > :01:23.dishonest and of conducting a "sham" consultation. Is David
:01:23. > :01:27.Cameron running scared of the TV election debates? Labour think he
:01:27. > :01:33.is after the PM said he thought the format was flawed. We'll have our
:01:33. > :01:36.very own TV debate! And, as fresh data from the Census is revealed,
:01:36. > :01:41.what does it tell us about the changing face of Britain over the
:01:41. > :01:43.years? All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme
:01:43. > :01:53.today is Mark Littlewood, he's the director general of the free-market
:01:53. > :01:54.
:01:54. > :01:56.think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs. Now, first let's
:01:56. > :01:59.turn our attention to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland
:01:59. > :02:01.Secretary Theresa Villiers will make a statement to MPs later today
:02:01. > :02:07.about the situation after another night of violence in Belfast. Let's
:02:07. > :02:14.talk to our Northern Ireland Political Editor Mark Devenport.
:02:14. > :02:20.What happened last night? We have more serious trouble, the most
:02:20. > :02:27.significant incident was an attack on a police officer's car. A female
:02:27. > :02:32.police officer was essentially guarding an office. Meyer may long
:02:32. > :02:36.was the first politician to be elected as an MP from the Alliance
:02:36. > :02:41.Party, and that party has been and very much at the centre of this
:02:41. > :02:49.because they have been the target of loyalist protests. They backed
:02:49. > :02:55.the idea of taking the union flag down for 365 days, and merely
:02:55. > :03:00.putting it up for 17 designated days over the city hall and that is
:03:00. > :03:04.what has caused so much anger in the communities. We can see a
:03:04. > :03:11.pretty extensive police presence on the streets because this has gone
:03:11. > :03:15.on for over a week, hasn't it? I don't think anybody knew there
:03:15. > :03:20.would be this odyssey in outside the council meeting but there has
:03:20. > :03:24.been genuine surprise these protests have continued for so long.
:03:24. > :03:31.The politicians are dividing, unionists are blaming nationalists
:03:31. > :03:35.for having brought up the issue of the Union flag in the first place,
:03:35. > :03:40.and the Alliance Party has been blaming Unionist fostering tensions
:03:40. > :03:45.about this, distributing leaflets around the Belfast area. They now
:03:45. > :03:50.have a problem, which is that something has started and it is
:03:50. > :03:53.proving easier to start than to stop it. One to about David Cameron,
:03:53. > :04:00.who has been criticised in some quarters for not speaking out
:04:00. > :04:03.sooner on this issue? They have certainly anger within the Alliance
:04:03. > :04:08.party that in 10 Downing Street they have not taken more notice of
:04:08. > :04:14.the fact they now have a member of parliament facing a death threat,
:04:14. > :04:18.and clearly a very serious threat after we saw the female police
:04:18. > :04:22.officer attacked outside her council office. Normally the
:04:22. > :04:26.Alliance Party are very mild mannered, a cross-community group
:04:26. > :04:31.who specialise in compromising, but they have been very angry in the
:04:31. > :04:35.light of these attacks and they are saying the Prime Minister needs to
:04:35. > :04:39.come out and be more forthright about this. We will get the
:04:39. > :04:44.statement of course. I suppose the main feeling here will be
:04:44. > :04:49.distressed that something like this has managed to trigger a week long
:04:49. > :04:54.disturbance. Pretty timely and a shocking reminder, isn't it? From
:04:54. > :04:59.the mainland, and not being an expert in Northern Ireland politics,
:04:59. > :05:04.my impression was that things are more or less solved over there,
:05:04. > :05:14.going along peacefully. Suddenly something which is ceremonial, I
:05:14. > :05:15.
:05:15. > :05:21.wouldn't call it trivial, but ceremonial trusts -- just starting
:05:21. > :05:26.this off and perhaps the United Kingdom is more fragile than we
:05:26. > :05:31.think. These are testing times and we have not found a solution yet.
:05:31. > :05:36.In terms of the criticism of David Cameron, do you think he hasn't
:05:36. > :05:41.shown enough leadership on this? does need to be more clear on this.
:05:41. > :05:47.I wouldn't say he was sleepwalking but he needs to make a stand pretty
:05:47. > :05:54.fast and this has been going on too long without his intervention.
:05:54. > :06:01.Now for something a little different. It's time for our daily
:06:01. > :06:04.quiz. The question for today is - David Cameron said yesterday that
:06:04. > :06:14.his daughter pestered him to vote for a contestant on a reality TV
:06:14. > :06:14.
:06:14. > :06:21.show. So who did he back? The Government published a draft
:06:21. > :06:23.version of its Communications Data Bill in June. The new bill would
:06:23. > :06:26.mean that companies would have to store information about online and
:06:26. > :06:36.internet communications, which could be accessed by police and
:06:36. > :06:37.
:06:37. > :06:40.intelligence agencies. After criticisms that the bill was
:06:40. > :06:46.tantamount to a snooper's charter, the Government agreed to send it to
:06:46. > :06:49.a committee of MPs and peers for detailed scrutiny. That committee
:06:49. > :06:52.has now published its report on the bill and, whilst they recognise the
:06:52. > :06:55.need for legislation, they're not impressed with the bill as it
:06:55. > :06:58.stands. Under the proposals, companies would have to store the
:06:58. > :07:06.details of communication - who sent messages to whom, and when - but
:07:07. > :07:09.not what they actually say, for 12 months. The bill would cover things
:07:09. > :07:12.like Twitter and Facebook messages, webmail, and phone calls made over
:07:12. > :07:14.the internet. It does not include details of people's internet search
:07:15. > :07:17.histories. The Home Office argues that access to people's phone
:07:17. > :07:21.records is already available. The new Bill just brings the existing
:07:21. > :07:23.law up to date. They also say that access to the data will be limited
:07:24. > :07:26.to the police, intelligence services, and a small number of
:07:26. > :07:29.other Government agencies. As with the current rules, other public
:07:29. > :07:32.bodies like local councils would have to go to court to see the
:07:32. > :07:35.information. But critics like Brig Brother Watch say it is a "naked
:07:36. > :07:38.attack on privacy". They fear that it will be possible for the police
:07:38. > :07:40.to piece together people's internet histories. And the committee which
:07:41. > :07:43.has scrutinised the bill says it will need "substantial rewriting"
:07:43. > :07:46.before it can be brought before Parliament. The Home Secretary,
:07:46. > :07:49.Theresa May, has said that those who oppose the Bill are "putting
:07:49. > :07:51.politics before people's lives". But today Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg
:07:51. > :07:53.has said that it needs a "fundamental rethink". Let's speak
:07:53. > :07:57.to our political correspondent. Gary, can we characterise it like
:07:57. > :08:02.this - that this committee has agreed there was a need for
:08:02. > :08:07.legislation but it needs to be rewritten? I think that is pretty
:08:07. > :08:14.fair. It acknowledges there is a capability gap, as the jargon goes,
:08:14. > :08:18.and it says that should be addressed, as does a similar
:08:18. > :08:22.committee, the committee that covers the intelligence services
:08:22. > :08:26.which has also produced a report on this. Both the committees do not
:08:26. > :08:30.like the proposals and it is that a breath of power the Government is
:08:30. > :08:35.seeking that they don't like. For example they don't like the idea
:08:35. > :08:38.there Home Secretary would be able to extend the numbers of
:08:38. > :08:42.organisations without new legislation that would be able to
:08:42. > :08:48.access this information. It doesn't like the fact there will be
:08:48. > :08:56.categories of data it can expand into without making it explicit on
:08:56. > :09:05.the face of the bill. It doesn't like the numbers, the amount it
:09:05. > :09:09.says will be saved in the long run is fanciful. There are a number of
:09:09. > :09:12.problems, and that is before you going to the political problems
:09:12. > :09:17.with the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg effectively saying we are not
:09:17. > :09:22.going to help you get this through. Let's go into the political
:09:22. > :09:26.problems. Is it possible to go by Theresa May's deadline that she
:09:26. > :09:29.would like this on the statute before the next election? It is
:09:30. > :09:33.possible because Nick Clegg has said he is not against the
:09:33. > :09:38.principle of extending these powers but he doesn't like the way it it
:09:38. > :09:42.is being done. There is talk of the government accepting the substance
:09:42. > :09:47.of the recommendations made by this committee, a committee that Nick
:09:47. > :09:51.Clegg insisted was set up so it was his idea to have this scrutiny. If
:09:51. > :09:57.that committee comes back and says to do things and the government
:09:57. > :10:04.agrees, Nick Clegg is in a position where he will have to say why
:10:04. > :10:08.aren't you agreeing with that? There will be manoeuvring and
:10:08. > :10:12.discussion but at the moment there is this stand-off, which is useful
:10:12. > :10:18.to Nick Clegg at the moment politically because civil liberties
:10:18. > :10:28.is an issue his party is very keen on. This is something where he can
:10:28. > :10:32.
:10:32. > :10:36.demonstrate to his party that he is pushing back against the Tories.
:10:36. > :10:38.With us now is the Conservative MP Michael Ellis, who was a member of
:10:39. > :10:42.the Bill committee, and Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. Why do we
:10:42. > :10:46.need this legislation? A There is a big gap in what the police can do
:10:46. > :10:50.in terms of convicting individuals who commit offences. We are in a
:10:50. > :10:56.situation because of the dramatic advances in technology over the
:10:56. > :11:04.last decade or more that if a criminal, whether in a paedophile
:11:04. > :11:07.gang, a terrorist, or other serious offender, uses the internet for
:11:07. > :11:13.communication, the police can't necessarily obtain evidence against
:11:13. > :11:18.that individual whereas if they use them landline telephone or a mobile
:11:18. > :11:22.telephone, they will be able to. We have to allow the police to be able
:11:22. > :11:28.to prosecute serious offenders and we need to therefore make sure the
:11:28. > :11:34.law keeps up with modern technology. It is a pretty powerful argument,
:11:34. > :11:40.isn't it, in order to arrest and convict serious offenders? Be it
:11:40. > :11:45.would be if this Bill actually did anything towards those goals. The
:11:45. > :11:49.issue is, when you mentioned Facebook in the introduction,
:11:49. > :11:59.Facebook maintains data on everyone and co-operate with the police
:11:59. > :12:04.folly. This particular bill was incompetent. It would not have
:12:04. > :12:10.helped in the vast majority of cases. It was either it easy to
:12:10. > :12:14.evade, by simply using a service provider based in the United States
:12:14. > :12:24.or Russia, or for the Dome criminals they are already on
:12:24. > :12:26.
:12:26. > :12:36.Facebook. -- dumb criminals. you don't disagree there needs to
:12:36. > :12:39.
:12:39. > :12:46.be legislation to help the police? I don't disagree... Millions of
:12:46. > :12:51.people already having their day to a log, who would therefore be
:12:51. > :13:01.vulnerable to theft, but having said that the principle there is a
:13:01. > :13:07.gap and we should look for narrowly focused, cautious measures that
:13:07. > :13:11.don't target the public, that would be fine. Clearly you didn't agree
:13:11. > :13:17.with many of the recommendations? What is important and what Nick
:13:17. > :13:22.Clegg and others have agreed with, and the committee made clear, both
:13:22. > :13:30.the committees, is that there is a need and they accept that because
:13:30. > :13:33.they know there was a gap. There you to are broadly agreed there was
:13:33. > :13:38.a gap, but let's get to how you do that because your committee says it
:13:38. > :13:44.has to be rewritten if it meets substantial concerns about
:13:44. > :13:49.safeguards, cost and lack of consultation. They pretty well say
:13:49. > :13:53.the bill in its current form is dead. I don't agree it is dead. The
:13:53. > :13:59.government have said they are quite happy to look at the issues around
:13:59. > :14:04.the bill. We can tweak around the edges and move forward, that is
:14:04. > :14:07.what coalition is all about, but the government is happy to accept
:14:08. > :14:13.the substantive issues behind this report and that means they accept,
:14:13. > :14:19.as do the authors of this report, my committee, but it goes deeper
:14:19. > :14:23.than that. Before being an MP, I was a barrister in criminal
:14:23. > :14:27.practice and I have seen prosecutions of individuals. We
:14:27. > :14:32.will lose prosecutions of criminals if we do not allow the criminal law
:14:32. > :14:38.to keep up with modern forms of technology. Are you prepared for
:14:38. > :14:43.that to happen? It is important to understand there are ways we can
:14:43. > :14:48.prevent crime and convict criminals that are not having an open society
:14:48. > :14:51.and the cost may be too high. In this case I don't think we need to
:14:52. > :14:58.reach that question because the bill was technically incompetent.
:14:58. > :15:06.If you really care about stopping criminals, use the �1.8 billion to
:15:06. > :15:11.engage in serious investigative There is a lot of misinformation
:15:11. > :15:17.about what this Bill proposes to do. It's not about content. Already,
:15:17. > :15:22.information is retained on than features in this Bill by
:15:22. > :15:28.supermarkets, by people who have loyalty guarantee cards. Look, what
:15:28. > :15:31.the Bill envisages is an ability to know who and when, it's not about
:15:32. > :15:35.the content of messages. Right, and if it's not about the content of
:15:35. > :15:38.messages, surely a phone call between you and me can be logged,
:15:38. > :15:43.tracked and the amount of time we spend on that telephone, not what
:15:43. > :15:47.we say to each other, and therefore my privacy and yours is retaind?
:15:47. > :15:53.am an unreconstructed slib tearian on this point -- civil libertarian
:15:53. > :15:56.on this point. I'm concerned about the techy issues. As soon as this
:15:56. > :16:01.is held on a server in Japan or Russia, it's out with the reach
:16:01. > :16:08.anyway. So I take the point that Jimmy said, what are we going to do
:16:08. > :16:12.to track the ideals who'll store stuff offshore. It's a Home Office
:16:12. > :16:16.bureaucratic solution. The Home Office said we've got the silver
:16:16. > :16:21.bullet and they say it involves capturing more data on everybody.
:16:21. > :16:24.They are always trying to search for a needle and build a haystack.
:16:24. > :16:26.It's interesting that it's characterised as a Home Office
:16:26. > :16:32.situation. We have heard evidence from Chief Constables, people have
:16:32. > :16:36.been police officers for 30 or 40 years. From people who've... Don't
:16:36. > :16:40.the police always demand extra powers to be fair, nothing's
:16:40. > :16:43.changed there? They are not demanding extra powers but they are
:16:43. > :16:48.demanding and asking for the same amount of power as they currently
:16:48. > :16:52.have with your landline or telephone, mobile telephone, with
:16:52. > :16:56.modern forms of communication. Why deprive them of that? If you are
:16:56. > :16:59.able to see which websites people are browsing, perhaps because you
:16:59. > :17:03.are trying to find out about a paedophile ring, that's content
:17:03. > :17:07.isn't it? If you are able to see what people are looking at on a
:17:07. > :17:10.day-to-day basis, that is looking at content? It isn't. Why not?
:17:10. > :17:14.Because the fact of the matter is, you can't draw many conclusions
:17:15. > :17:17.from that. If you looked at a... Really? If you looked at a criminal
:17:17. > :17:20.lawyer and you were able to see a large number of telephone numbers
:17:21. > :17:24.in his phone that belonged to criminal clients, you can't
:17:24. > :17:27.conclude from that that he's a criminal himself, he may have
:17:27. > :17:32.reasons why he has people's phone numbers. You can't jump to
:17:32. > :17:36.conclusions in that way. All this envisages doing - we must get away
:17:36. > :17:38.from the misinformation being spread about this - there's clear
:17:38. > :17:43.misinformation. This is about what time a phone call is being made,
:17:43. > :17:46.for example, what day it is being made, from what number A to what
:17:46. > :17:51.number B, it's exact think same information that the police can get
:17:51. > :17:57.now on a landline. Right. Would you see that as content, if we could
:17:57. > :18:02.see what you were browsing at on a day toch day basis? Yes, clearly,
:18:02. > :18:07.but I think I think the boundary between Communications Data and
:18:07. > :18:12.content has become very tricky and difficult to sort through. One of
:18:13. > :18:18.you expressed by some -- one view expressed by people is that the web
:18:18. > :18:24.blogs are there, but searching Wikipedia, I can tell a lot about
:18:24. > :18:28.you because I can load up the same URL myself. You can at Tesco and
:18:28. > :18:31.Sainsbury's, because of a loyalty card. I refuse to have a loyalty
:18:31. > :18:37.card. That's up to the individual. This is not going to be voluntary,
:18:37. > :18:42.this is going to be the police taking this information. You need
:18:42. > :18:46.sufficient calls... It's not... is because you are talking about
:18:46. > :18:50.the same issues of data. You can choose to give the information
:18:50. > :18:53.across. We are talking about proper safeguards, it isn't just a
:18:53. > :18:56.phishing exercise, let's get away with that. That's the criticism,
:18:56. > :19:01.that in order to get some of the criminals you talk about, you have
:19:01. > :19:05.to go on a phishing exercise, otherwise how do you know who to
:19:05. > :19:09.look at? You would have to go on a phishing expedition? No, there are
:19:09. > :19:12.proper safeguards, just as in other legislation, about the more old-
:19:12. > :19:17.fashioned forms of communication. Look, the police are now in a
:19:17. > :19:21.position, police and surt services, thanks to advances in technology --
:19:21. > :19:27.Security Services, thanks to advances in technology, where they
:19:27. > :19:30.can only secure evidence from 75% of the time, down from 95% a few
:19:30. > :19:35.years ago. That means voiceover Internet communication is used to
:19:35. > :19:39.defeat their arrest. Now, do those who really want to block this Bill,
:19:39. > :19:44.for whatever reason, want to allow that to happen? We have heard
:19:44. > :19:48.evidence from the Child Exploitation online unit... Do you
:19:48. > :19:51.want this to go on? One thing we have to understand z that a
:19:51. > :19:56.fanciful view of technology would say, let's track all the data, but
:19:56. > :20:01.the truth is you cannot. You physically, technologically cannot.
:20:01. > :20:05.It's trivial for people to use services overseas, we are not
:20:05. > :20:10.talking about sophisticated criminals, I'm just talking
:20:10. > :20:16.ordinary people can easily avaid this with the minimal of effort --
:20:16. > :20:21.evade. The thought that police could get access to all the data,
:20:21. > :20:26.this is a dream or a nightmare, depending on how you look at it,
:20:26. > :20:31.but it's impossible, it isn't going to happen. That's why this Bill us
:20:31. > :20:34.- was never going to work. Nick Clegg is make it clear where he
:20:34. > :20:37.stands. He wants it rewritten. Do you think he should sign up to it
:20:37. > :20:39.if there is a more targeted approach, if some of the things
:20:39. > :20:43.that Michael has talked about, if the safeguards are there. Is it
:20:43. > :20:47.something that Nick Clegg should sign up to? I think not. I would
:20:47. > :20:51.like us to listen to the experts who've made a career on the
:20:51. > :20:53.Internet who know the technological stuff which I think goes way beyond
:20:53. > :20:56.the heads of most of our politicians. If the Government
:20:56. > :21:00.thought this was a serious way of cutting crime, this would have been
:21:00. > :21:04.in the first Queen's Speech in 2010. I think this is a bureaucratic
:21:04. > :21:09.invention and I hope the Deputy Prime Minister kills it stone dead.
:21:09. > :21:14.There you go! Just before we finish, do you agree it should be rewritten,
:21:14. > :21:17.that more safeguards have to be put in, that it should be more targeted,
:21:17. > :21:20.in other words a completely different piece of legislation
:21:20. > :21:22.think it's perfectly possible to look at the issues around the Bill
:21:22. > :21:26.and the Home Office have already said that. This is something that
:21:26. > :21:29.we have to move forward with. The Liberal Democrats agreed to this in
:21:29. > :21:34.the separate yick defence review. Nick Clegg called for this
:21:34. > :21:38.committee that I spent five months sitting on -- Strategic Defence
:21:38. > :21:42.Review. We have heard moving evidence, include prg the Child
:21:42. > :21:46.Exploitation unit. I can assure you, we do not want to allow one of the
:21:46. > :21:49.paedophile gangs or individuals to get away with it. Jimmy said about
:21:49. > :21:53.not being successful all the time, obviously we are not, but if we can
:21:53. > :21:56.get a handful of these people off the streets, we need to do just
:21:56. > :21:59.that. Thank you very much. The
:21:59. > :22:03.Government's localism Act was designed to give local people more
:22:03. > :22:07.say over planning. But do they have enough power? One MP wants a new
:22:07. > :22:13.local right to appeal against adverse planning decisions. The MP
:22:13. > :22:16.for Kingswood near Bristol spoke to us earlier. I asked him what it was
:22:16. > :22:21.proposing? A community right of appeal, one of the big problems I
:22:21. > :22:25.find as a local MP of planning decisions is that when decisions go
:22:25. > :22:29.against residents, they have no right of appeal against the big
:22:29. > :22:33.applications of snarbgts or housing developments. This would give
:22:33. > :22:38.residents the chance to collect signatures within a washed and get
:22:38. > :22:42.to apeople against the planning decision -- appeal against the
:22:42. > :22:48.planning decision. How many signatures would you require?
:22:48. > :22:55.couldn't just get a couple of signatures to change things and get
:22:55. > :22:58.red tape to the area of growth. If you had 50% of signatures in a
:22:58. > :23:02.particular ward, that would trigger an appeal to go to the planning
:23:02. > :23:05.sector or the Secretary of State. Does thnt fly in the face of the
:23:05. > :23:10.Government's plan to promote more development, not give local people
:23:10. > :23:15.even more rights to block it when we need it for economic growth?
:23:15. > :23:18.really. This is localism with teeth. This idea was actually in the
:23:18. > :23:22.Conservative's open source green paper when we were in opposition
:23:22. > :23:27.and I think we should be promoting growth and houses. We need new
:23:27. > :23:31.houses, we need new developments at the same time, we can't ride rough
:23:31. > :23:36.shot over local opinion. I think what this does is really sort out
:23:36. > :23:42.the genuine concerns of big applications from the any more bys,
:23:42. > :23:46.so you are not a nimby if half the ward has concerns about what is
:23:46. > :23:51.happening in the local area. Do you think the Government's lost the
:23:51. > :23:53.stomach for localism? It made a push on local agendas, but we have
:23:54. > :23:56.had moves for a new planning framework and inspectorate so they
:23:57. > :24:00.can appeal if local people object. Do you think the Government's lost
:24:00. > :24:04.its interest in localism? No, not really. I think we have to
:24:04. > :24:07.have responsible localism, so we have got the local councils
:24:07. > :24:15.developing their core strategy. We have gone from a situation where we
:24:15. > :24:21.had top down housing targets dictated by Westminster. Localism
:24:21. > :24:26.can't be an excuse for nimbyism. You have to develop housing, so
:24:26. > :24:36.issues like where you can have the community right of appeal would
:24:36. > :24:37.
:24:37. > :24:41.sort out the principles. If you did manage to collect, if you were a
:24:41. > :24:45.washed in a borough and you did manage to collect the 50% bar and
:24:45. > :24:49.present it to the council, what would happen then? Would it be
:24:49. > :24:53.reviewed or dropped all together? You would have a time period, so
:24:53. > :24:58.maybe you would have to collect the signatures over one or two months,
:24:58. > :25:00.you would have to do nit the framework or it would be red tape.
:25:00. > :25:03.Then after that, it would be a planning appeal to the planning
:25:04. > :25:07.sector or the Secretary of State. You would have to have a sizeable
:25:08. > :25:10.number of signatures for it to reach that stage. That would be
:25:10. > :25:13.decided by whoever enacted the policy.
:25:13. > :25:17.Thank you. That was Chris skidmore MP talking
:25:17. > :25:21.to me earlier. Let's take this idea. What do you think of it, giving
:25:21. > :25:24.people the chance, 50% of people in a local ward could say no, we are
:25:24. > :25:29.not going to have that development and the council has the look at it
:25:29. > :25:34.again? I don't agree. I often agree with Chris on a lot but not on this
:25:34. > :25:38.occasion. Why? He's identified the problem here. This isn't the
:25:38. > :25:41.solution. It is so difficult to get anything built in the United
:25:41. > :25:45.Kingdom. This is yet another barrier to it. Here is the thing.
:25:45. > :25:48.What you really need to do is to make sure that the pain and the
:25:48. > :25:52.benefits are equally felt at local level. So I would like a local
:25:52. > :25:57.community to be able to say not just we want to block this because
:25:57. > :26:01.we don't want 2500 new houses built on the hill, but I would like them
:26:01. > :26:09.to have a deal on offer where if you are willing to let the 00
:26:09. > :26:10.houses be built, we'll cut your council tax next year, it will be
:26:10. > :26:15.cheaper for you, we'll have higher council tax elsewhere, now you make
:26:15. > :26:20.your mind up, you know. If you are willing to let the new Tescos come
:26:20. > :26:24.into town which is virtually always against planning, we promise to pay
:26:24. > :26:30.X towards your council tax. We have to make the tax benefit localised.
:26:30. > :26:33.This is another barrier. I can see why that might be attractive, but
:26:33. > :26:37.isn't this the problem that the Government isn't committed to a
:26:37. > :26:41.local agenda. They want it reforically but not in reality in
:26:41. > :26:44.order to let communities make make that sort of decision you have just
:26:44. > :26:47.put forward? That's offen if problem. It happened with the last
:26:47. > :26:51.Labour Government in opposition. It's all localism and devolving
:26:51. > :26:55.power when you get into office, and little of it happens when you get
:26:55. > :27:01.into office. The coalition are making some steps in order to try
:27:01. > :27:08.and liberalise planning, in fairness, with Nick Bowl. There
:27:08. > :27:13.seems to be a concern that if we build houses we are going to
:27:13. > :27:20.bulldoze natural beauty areas. Only 5% of Britain sun der concrete.
:27:20. > :27:25.There is a lot of useless land we can build on -- is under concrete.
:27:25. > :27:29.We need to let young people get their foot on the housing ladder,
:27:29. > :27:32.when they are frozen out now. Thank you. Don't say we don't spoil
:27:32. > :27:37.all your politics lovers out there. Today we are going to delve into
:27:37. > :27:40.one of the big issues of the age - individuals versus the state. Do we
:27:41. > :27:44.expect too much from Governments these days? Does big statement
:27:44. > :27:50.limit our individual freedomss, or should we trust in the state to do
:27:50. > :28:00.our best for us. Here is Mark Littlewood to explain more about
:28:00. > :28:12.
:28:12. > :28:16.I want to live in a world in which the individual stands tall, not
:28:16. > :28:20.buildings, not Government, not the state, but individual men and women.
:28:20. > :28:25.That's the sort of country I want to live in.
:28:25. > :28:29.Politicians and bureaucrats spend nearly 50% of our total national
:28:29. > :28:36.income. If you are an absolutely average taxpayer, over the course
:28:37. > :28:39.of your lifetime, you will be handing over about �7 50,000 to
:28:39. > :28:43.politicians, bureaucrats and the Government.
:28:43. > :28:46.Of course, for these hundreds of billions of pounds a year, the
:28:46. > :28:51.state will promise you a wonderful mixture of things. They'll take
:28:51. > :28:54.care of you when you're sick, they'll look after you when you're
:28:54. > :28:59.old, they'll educate your children in schools, and if you are really
:28:59. > :29:03.lucky, they might even spend some of your cash on renewable energy.
:29:03. > :29:07.Of course, we have made some progress. It's only about 30 years
:29:07. > :29:13.ago that the state was running nearly all of our industries. Coal
:29:13. > :29:17.mines, steelworks, Telecoms, aviation, the car industry. We sold
:29:17. > :29:22.all of that off. But, there's much, much further to go.
:29:22. > :29:26.If we as individuals want to stand tall and walk proud, we need to
:29:26. > :29:31.wise up. The fastest growing economies in the world have a state
:29:31. > :29:36.sector that only accounts for about a quarter of their national income.
:29:37. > :29:41.Here in the UK, it's about twice that. They're building and growing,
:29:41. > :29:46.investing. Here in Britain, we can't even decide whether or when
:29:46. > :29:50.to build a third runway. So we need to stop believing the
:29:50. > :29:56.myth that politicians can spend our money and pull levers to make our
:29:56. > :30:03.lives better and get the trains running on time. No, we need to
:30:03. > :30:07.seek power for ourselves. And we are joined by Polly Toynbee
:30:07. > :30:11.of the Guardian who might take issue wa few of those things.
:30:11. > :30:17.Fallowing the fastest growing economies there is one thing Mark
:30:17. > :30:22.suggests. We'll talk about that in a minute. Wouldn't it be better if
:30:22. > :30:27.individuals were deciding what the money was spent on? If you look at
:30:27. > :30:30.the most successful economies in the world, according to la Garta
:30:30. > :30:35.institute, right-wing, they are Norway, Sweden and Finland and
:30:35. > :30:42.spend a huge amount of money on the state and have a very successful
:30:42. > :30:48.economy and very successful society, possibly the most successful known
:30:48. > :30:53.to mew mankind. It's a question of what society you want. If you want
:30:53. > :30:56.the Mitt Romney vision and Sarah Palin Everymanforhimself, pay for
:30:56. > :31:06.everything ourselves and devil take the hindmost, sure we can have a
:31:06. > :31:13.
:31:13. > :31:19.low tax, small state society. Most Is that the sort of society you
:31:19. > :31:25.want, no, but it is my assertion that we can sort these problems out
:31:25. > :31:31.for a lower proportion than we are spending at the moment. Polly is
:31:31. > :31:37.right, I have picked out 25%, it is not a religious commitment, but you
:31:37. > :31:42.should be able to address the problems of real poverty. What
:31:42. > :31:48.country has 25%? The you are right to point out that there is a catch
:31:48. > :31:53.of theory in China, but if you were to say Singapore or hung Kong, low
:31:53. > :31:59.proportions of the economy, staggering growth. At the end of
:31:59. > :32:05.the Second World War it was about as rich as a Third World country,
:32:05. > :32:11.and now it is richer than Great Britain. Sweden spends more than
:32:12. > :32:18.the United Kingdom... And their top rate of tax is 56%. For if you look
:32:18. > :32:24.at 25 years ago, about 60% was the size of the Swedish state, now to
:32:24. > :32:34.the High 40s. They have privatised vast areas of their economy. A what
:32:34. > :32:44.
:32:44. > :32:49.an exaggeration. They have cut from 60% to 45% in their schools. Some
:32:49. > :32:56.schools are on by private companies but people don't pay to go there.
:32:56. > :33:03.That is relatively few. They have a government they call right wing
:33:03. > :33:08.that would be wildly to the left of where new Labour was. But right of
:33:08. > :33:13.where Sweden was in the 1970s. so on like us in every way. They
:33:13. > :33:18.expect to get the best possible nurseries for every single child,
:33:18. > :33:22.where half of the staff are graduates. They have the quality of
:33:22. > :33:26.public service we could only dream of and it is successful
:33:26. > :33:31.economically. There is satisfaction with public services - isn't that
:33:31. > :33:37.what people want here? Better schools, better NHS, and for that
:33:37. > :33:41.at one stage they were prepared to pay higher taxes. This is not her
:33:41. > :33:46.argument between nice people who want better schools and hospitals...
:33:46. > :33:51.How can you achieve that? The my question is how much of that is
:33:51. > :33:56.sensibly provided by the state, and I think for considerably less
:33:56. > :34:05.spending you can solve the problems. We have tried the big-spending
:34:05. > :34:10.route. The know, we haven't. It has been done in the past two were
:34:10. > :34:17.bewildering lack of effect. If at that time we have seen poverty
:34:17. > :34:22.obliterated, OK, then maybe big spending would work. The talk about
:34:22. > :34:27.bureaucracy. That is a real propagandist trick. Do you mean the
:34:27. > :34:32.ward clerk doing all of the work in the ward so the nurses are doing
:34:32. > :34:37.the nursing? The moment you start talking about bureaucracy you know
:34:37. > :34:45.it is a pretty shabby argument. Do you want the policeman on the beat
:34:45. > :34:50.or doing the paperwork? You can't put to call on saving paper clips.
:34:50. > :34:56.A third of Whitehall is being cut right now and they are no longer
:34:56. > :35:04.able to write contracts. The reason they got the West Coast Main Line
:35:04. > :35:09.contract wrong is because of this. What a boat the welfare bill, there
:35:09. > :35:15.is huge support a court that. that his people on the dole, and
:35:15. > :35:22.people don't know that. They are astonished when you say only 2%.
:35:22. > :35:26.Unemployment pay in this country is only �71 a week, not very much.
:35:26. > :35:34.think in broad terms the welfare bill, the amount of money to spend
:35:34. > :35:39.on it, should be focused on the bottom five or 10%. Who would you
:35:39. > :35:46.cut? I don't think I should qualify for the state pension, I am
:35:46. > :35:49.affluent enough to look after myself, as you'd two are. Everybody
:35:49. > :35:55.qualifies for welfare at some point in their life and I think that is
:35:55. > :35:59.absurd. There is a poor segment of society, an unlucky segment you
:35:59. > :36:07.need to cater for, but that does not involve giving me a state
:36:07. > :36:12.pension when I'm 65. The pension is enormous, half. I would love you to
:36:12. > :36:16.stand for election on this because you would suffer the same fate as
:36:16. > :36:23.Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. If you think the state should not look
:36:23. > :36:28.after old people, you would not get a lot of support. With people
:36:28. > :36:34.living much longer and being asked to work... For you can't square
:36:34. > :36:41.that circle through taxation. Somewhere that pension needs to be
:36:41. > :36:46.saved for. My argument is that people as affluent as us should
:36:46. > :36:50.look after themselves. Most people can do that over their lifetime. We
:36:50. > :36:55.should be focusing on the bottom 10% in the welfare bill, not the
:36:55. > :37:05.whole spectrum of the population. Put it to the people, I will enjoy
:37:05. > :37:29.
:37:29. > :37:33.your spectacular failure. Thank you. There's lots we think we know about
:37:33. > :37:36.the people who live in the UK. We guess at social trends, patterns of
:37:36. > :37:39.behaviour and judge the changing face of society, but only every ten
:37:39. > :37:42.years do we actually put it to the test. This morning more details
:37:42. > :37:45.from the 2011 Census were published and it shows in England and Wales a
:37:45. > :37:48.growing, ageing and more ethnically diverse population. It also reveals
:37:48. > :37:51.how many live here but weren't born here. Every ten years since 1801
:37:51. > :37:53.the UK population has been asked to answer such questions and though
:37:53. > :37:57.society, fashion, lifestyle, and attitudes have changed over time
:37:57. > :38:00.the way we chart that change hasn't really. Used to map and plan what
:38:00. > :38:03.services are needed to match that change the Census is a huge
:38:03. > :38:08.undertaking, and each decade throws out surprises. Now the latest batch
:38:08. > :38:11.of statistics has been released from the last Census in 2011. The
:38:11. > :38:19.population of England and Wales is 56.1 million 3.5 million more than
:38:19. > :38:22.2001. Half of that increase has been due to migration. 7.5 million
:38:23. > :38:30.were born outside the UK, and 3.8 million of those arrived here in
:38:30. > :38:33.the last 10 years. Race and ethnicity is not as new to the
:38:33. > :38:40.census as you might think, but England and Wales are becoming more
:38:40. > :38:43.ethnically diverse. Since 2001 "mixed race" has been a census
:38:43. > :38:53.choice, in 2011 those who describe themselves as mixed race number 1.2
:38:53. > :38:55.
:38:55. > :38:58.million up 50% on 2001. These days it's a lot quicker but how useful a
:38:58. > :39:08.10 year census is in planning for the needs of a modern increasingly
:39:08. > :39:09.
:39:09. > :39:12.shifting and diverse population is up for debate. Already some local
:39:12. > :39:17.authorities seek their own data, and in Scotland the question of
:39:17. > :39:21.whether there be a 2021 census is actively under discussion. Joining
:39:21. > :39:24.me now is the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz
:39:24. > :39:30.and the Chairman of Migration Watch Sir Andrew Green. Do you think
:39:30. > :39:34.Britain was open to migration in the Labour years of power? No, I
:39:34. > :39:39.think we had an appalling record as far as illegal migration was
:39:39. > :39:44.concerned and if people want come into our country and settle here
:39:44. > :39:48.and participate in our way of life and pay their taxes to fund
:39:48. > :39:51.contribute to the country and helped to bring the Olympics and
:39:51. > :39:57.compete in the Olympics, we should celebrate and welcome that
:39:57. > :40:03.diversity so these figures are very welcome. They show the community is
:40:03. > :40:08.settled and that there are people who still want to come here. People
:40:08. > :40:12.do move out of Britain. I know a lot of people who have migrated to
:40:13. > :40:16.France, India, other countries and that is the way it is in a
:40:16. > :40:21.globalised world. We should celebrate these figures and I
:40:21. > :40:29.celebrate my city in Leicester is the country's first ethnic-minority
:40:29. > :40:36.city. The country has changed and we should embrace it? I am amazed
:40:36. > :40:40.at what Keith Vaz is saying here. Globalisation did not start in 1997.
:40:40. > :40:45.The inflow of migrants prior to that year was really rather limited.
:40:45. > :40:51.We now have nearly 4 million immigrants in 10 years. 10 years
:40:52. > :40:56.ago we forecast it would be 2 million, it was double that, but we
:40:56. > :41:00.were jumped on by the left-wing press for even suggesting it might
:41:00. > :41:06.be 2 million. We are where we are, and to that extent I agree - we
:41:06. > :41:12.have these people in our community and we must join together. This is
:41:12. > :41:17.a key point, we must get the scale under control. It is not acceptable
:41:17. > :41:26.to go on in the direction we are going now. This is actually about
:41:27. > :41:33.not controlling immigration. The border control has been inefficient,
:41:33. > :41:39.and people are still here after 15 years who have been here illegally.
:41:39. > :41:47.What unites us is being tough on illegal immigration. It is
:41:47. > :41:51.difficult to come here now, frankly, legally. You really have to explain
:41:51. > :41:58.how 4 million people arrived here in the course of 10 years.
:41:58. > :42:02.money will have come from Poland. 30% came from Eastern Europe, the
:42:02. > :42:07.rest came from the rest of the world and the reality is that we
:42:07. > :42:12.lost control of immigration for 10 years. Whether that was a
:42:12. > :42:16.deliberate policy or inefficiency by the Border Agency, we don't know
:42:16. > :42:21.but we can't go on like this. Labour politicians down to Ed
:42:21. > :42:26.Miliband have said that Labour ignored the concerns of its own
:42:26. > :42:29.constituency, if you like, over immigration and many people did
:42:29. > :42:34.feel it was out of control, particularly when it came to
:42:34. > :42:40.pressure on services, schools, hospitals, that communities
:42:40. > :42:44.couldn't cope. You must accept that is what your party has said.
:42:44. > :42:49.don't accept it. I was the minister for enlargement under the last
:42:49. > :42:54.Labour government and we reunited Europe. Those who come from eastern
:42:54. > :43:00.Europe have contributed hugely to our country. They pay their tax so
:43:00. > :43:05.if people are worried about pressure on schools and doctors, if
:43:05. > :43:10.you pay your tax, that contributes. We have signed treaties and they
:43:10. > :43:14.are legally here in this country and they contribute. Do you support
:43:14. > :43:18.the Government's policy to reduce migration numbers to the tens of
:43:18. > :43:23.thousands? If no, because they want to stop genuine students coming
:43:23. > :43:28.into this country. If people want to come and study in this country,
:43:28. > :43:32.they contribute and after three- year stay should leave. Isn't there
:43:32. > :43:39.risk you will stop people coming here who would genuinely boost the
:43:39. > :43:44.economy? Like students. There may be some things we agree on, but not
:43:44. > :43:48.much of what you have just said. We support the enlargement of Europe,
:43:48. > :43:54.but the previous government fold that up by opening the borders when
:43:54. > :43:59.no one else did. That is ancient history. I think Ed Miliband is
:43:59. > :44:04.starting to realise where public opinion lies. If we go on as we are
:44:04. > :44:09.at 200,000 a year, this is net migration after the Brits have left,
:44:09. > :44:15.if we go on like that, in the next 15 years we will have to build
:44:15. > :44:24.power eight largest cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool,
:44:24. > :44:29.Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Glasgow, Bristol - we have got to do all of
:44:29. > :44:36.that just for new immigrants and there is no money. Sounds great. I
:44:36. > :44:42.don't have a problem with this. It is not obvious to me that 4 million
:44:42. > :44:46.immigrants is bad news. Why do we think we have reached the optimum
:44:46. > :44:52.population for Britain? I do have worries about legality, and if
:44:52. > :44:59.people are only coming to take welfare, but that is not borne out
:44:59. > :45:04.by the statistics. We got into a situation where British Asians were
:45:04. > :45:07.contributing more to the Exchequer than they were taking out. Doesn't
:45:07. > :45:14.it make it a great country that we have the whole world living here in
:45:14. > :45:21.The Chancellor, George Osborne, has been speaking in the Commons and
:45:21. > :45:24.has told MPs the next Budget will be on March next year. The Shadow
:45:24. > :45:30.Chancellor revealed Labour will vote against Government plan force
:45:30. > :45:33.a 1% cap on benefit rises. Just a quick reaction to that? Labour's
:45:33. > :45:38.going to vote against... Well, I have to agree with something, so
:45:38. > :45:41.yes, it's a great idea. Just checking you are awake there, well
:45:41. > :45:46.done, Keith Vaz! Now, the Labour Party has accused David Cameron of
:45:46. > :45:49.running scared of taking part in any future TV election debates. The
:45:49. > :45:53.Prime Minister told journalists at the press gallery lunch that he
:45:53. > :45:57.thought the debates in 2010 overshadowed the election campaign.
:45:57. > :46:02.Mr Cameron said he was in favour of debates in principle but suggested
:46:02. > :46:05.the format of the debates had "Sucked the life out of the
:46:05. > :46:13.campaign". We'll have our very own TV debate about this in a moment,
:46:13. > :46:16.but let's remind ourselves of the infamous debates. MUSIC: Eye of the
:46:16. > :46:19.tiger... You've got to answer this question.
:46:19. > :46:23.We will continue to match the funding of the police as of now.
:46:23. > :46:29.You are saying you are going to cut it. Be honest with the public
:46:30. > :46:35.because you can't airbrush your policies even though airbrush your
:46:35. > :46:41.posters. Gordon Brown is trying to make you believe he can protect
:46:41. > :46:45.health spending, edge police and education spending. He's given this
:46:45. > :46:48.country the biggest budget deficit of any developed country in the
:46:48. > :46:52.world. How does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else for that
:46:52. > :46:55.matter David Cameron to join together in the Europe with a bunch
:46:55. > :46:59.of nutters, anti-assembly mites, people who deny climate change
:46:59. > :47:02.exists, home Phoebes. That does not help Britain. We need to change the
:47:02. > :47:07.European Union but you change clubs of which you are a member by
:47:07. > :47:11.getting stuck in, not standing on the sidelines and complaining.
:47:11. > :47:16.may have the feel of a TV popularity contest, but in truth,
:47:16. > :47:21.this is an election about Britain's future. This is an important issue
:47:21. > :47:24.and people need to know what are in our manifestos. I've set out the
:47:24. > :47:28.policies. People need to know that the Liberal Democrats propose an
:47:28. > :47:34.amnesty for illegal immigrants, which could mean that some 600,000
:47:34. > :47:39.people who're here illegally would be allowed to stay and be given
:47:39. > :47:46.full sit znship. Every time you talk about our policy, it's always
:47:46. > :47:51.wrong -- citizenship. Joining me now are three aficionados. Ben
:47:51. > :47:55.Bradshaw, Conor Burns and Chris Rennes ard. Don't take offence! --
:47:55. > :48:01.Renard. Is David Cameron running scared? No, he's pointing out that
:48:01. > :48:06.last time the debates were a huge distraction. There's a reason why
:48:06. > :48:11.Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock wanted them and John Major and
:48:11. > :48:16.Margaret Thatcher didn't want them. David Cameron signed up to it last
:48:16. > :48:21.time around and was maybe foolish to do so? Terribly foolish. The
:48:21. > :48:24.expectation level on Gordon Brown was so low. The expectation on
:48:24. > :48:28.David Cameron was so high that he couldn't deliver on it and nobody
:48:28. > :48:31.knew who Nick Clegg was so he was getting the benefit of exposure.
:48:31. > :48:36.you think they sucked the life out of the campaign? It's true that we
:48:36. > :48:40.noo the media were completely focused obvious those debates?
:48:40. > :48:44.Exactly, but the media tends to get obsessed about this. It would be
:48:44. > :48:48.odd if they didn't happen again. Every other democracy has them,
:48:48. > :48:52.America, Germany, it's a chance for the view and the public to see the
:48:52. > :48:55.three leading or two leading candidates together and for them to
:48:55. > :48:59.scrutinise each other, not just leave it up to journalists, which
:48:59. > :49:07.is what most of the political interviews in the run-up to an
:49:07. > :49:12.election tend to be otherwise. a big risk. How do you think Ed
:49:12. > :49:16.Miliband would perform? You say it's a big risk but I don't think
:49:16. > :49:21.it damaged David Cameron last time. There was a spurt in Nick Clegg's
:49:21. > :49:25.popularity but then it went down and they lost seats, so you can
:49:25. > :49:30.overexaggerate the worth of them. They are valuable but don't let's
:49:30. > :49:33.overclaim for them. Would you like to see another round? Yes, it's
:49:33. > :49:37.impossible to say they were a distraction from the election when
:49:37. > :49:42.more than ten people watched them. People chose to watch them. They
:49:42. > :49:47.did in very large numbers and allowed people to see direct
:49:47. > :49:51.questions to the policy leaders, serious discusses and objective
:49:51. > :49:54.analysis. They are and were a good thing. Do you think for Nick Clegg
:49:54. > :49:58.there was the case, I mean he polled brilliantly after the debate
:49:58. > :50:03.certainly after the first one and perhaps slightly less so the second
:50:03. > :50:10.but it didn't do him as much good as he might have thought? It was
:50:10. > :50:17.the highest vote we have ever had. In terms of seats? But we lost more
:50:17. > :50:21.seats which we think is more the voting style. I think the
:50:21. > :50:26.newspapers on front-page headlines didn't really explain the detail.
:50:26. > :50:30.People are entitled to the facts and get them better from an
:50:30. > :50:34.extended television interview on things like the leaders dedebates
:50:34. > :50:37.than from the tabloid newspapers. Do you think they are a good thing?
:50:37. > :50:44.I do. I'm with Chris and David Cameron saying they sucked the life
:50:44. > :50:52.out of the campaign, that is absurd. For the man in the Dog & Duck pub,
:50:52. > :50:54.this was important. Theiren gaugement in the campaign was
:50:54. > :50:58.watching two or three hours of television. What a breakthrough.
:50:58. > :51:04.That was the discussion many the local pub who, performed well.
:51:04. > :51:11.is the point. Politics was the debate in the pub rather than the
:51:11. > :51:16.thing people didn't discuss? Ie Wild want more interaction -- I
:51:16. > :51:21.would want more interaction and challenging. Like a Question Time
:51:21. > :51:26.style? There is a danger of them becoming read-out pre-prepared
:51:26. > :51:31.statements. The ITV do that one and they did it rather well? They were
:51:31. > :51:37.all slightly different but... one was better. Enough room for a
:51:37. > :51:41.room full of Mrs Duffys for all sides. Fix bid your spin doctor?
:51:41. > :51:46.For all sides. Do you think the format is stuffy having them all
:51:46. > :51:48.standing up instead of engaging a bit more with each other and with
:51:48. > :51:52.the audience? Audience participation is a good thing and
:51:52. > :51:57.it was possible to say that perhaps some of the people conducting them,
:51:57. > :52:00.some were a little self-indulgent as to how they dominated the
:52:01. > :52:05.discussion. Let people have their own say. One key thing about the
:52:05. > :52:07.debates and why it's important to have them, you have things like
:52:07. > :52:11.instant polls and you could prove scientifically what people thought
:52:11. > :52:14.of the different leaders and what they said. If you don't have the
:52:14. > :52:20.broadcast debates and those instant polls, you have newspapers making
:52:20. > :52:25.up trying to say our man did really well, their man did badly, the
:52:25. > :52:29.whole country... Still had that immediately afterwards anyway?
:52:29. > :52:33.they couldn't get away with it. I saw George Osborne distraught with
:52:33. > :52:36.the Sun political team looking on their computer screen at the front-
:52:36. > :52:40.page headline and there was no way they could say anything other than
:52:40. > :52:45.Nick Clegg did really well. What about the format then. What would
:52:45. > :52:49.you like to see? There's been propositions for four debates,
:52:49. > :52:53.Labour's put two forward before and maybe two during, do you think it
:52:53. > :52:57.would be better to have the debates before the campaign starts? I'm not
:52:57. > :52:59.sure we can say anything useful about this. There are long
:53:00. > :53:04.negotiations involving the broadcasters who have a say here
:53:04. > :53:08.with a the political parties. I hope we don't spend the next three
:53:08. > :53:11.years talking about this. We are bound to. That would be a huge
:53:11. > :53:17.distraction from the important things, like policy. Do you think
:53:17. > :53:22.it will happen? Yes, I hope it will and I hope there are three in three
:53:22. > :53:27.very different formats. I think they were a bit too similar last
:53:27. > :53:30.time. Romney versus Obama tried different formats and I would like
:53:30. > :53:37.more experimentation. What about other parties being involved?
:53:37. > :53:40.is where it gets difficult. You have two defending the current
:53:40. > :53:44.Government, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? How
:53:44. > :53:47.would that work? You need to have separate debates in Scotland. In
:53:47. > :53:49.the past, the Conservatives said they couldn't have a debate with
:53:49. > :53:52.the Liberal Democrats because they would be on Labour's side, now you
:53:52. > :53:55.are saying they couldn't take part because they would be on the
:53:55. > :54:00.Conservative side now. Let the three leaders be questioned by the
:54:00. > :54:03.public and by professional journalists in proper inquisitive
:54:03. > :54:08.fashion and you will see the difference between the parties.
:54:08. > :54:12.haven't got an instant poll to see how you rated with the audience
:54:12. > :54:15.today but we'll get back to you! The woman and Equalities Minister
:54:15. > :54:18.has been setting out the details of the Government's plan force gay
:54:18. > :54:21.marriage in the House of Commons. David Cameron and the other party
:54:21. > :54:25.leaders are in favour but many Conservative MPs and others outside
:54:25. > :54:29.Parliament are opposed. We'll speak to one critic in a moment but first
:54:29. > :54:34.here is Maria Miller speaking a few minutes ago. For me, extending
:54:34. > :54:38.marriage to same sex couples will splen then not weaken the vital
:54:38. > :54:42.institution and the response I'm publishing makes clear we'll enable
:54:42. > :54:46.same sex couples to get married through a civil ceremony. We'll
:54:46. > :54:52.enable those religious organisations who wesh to conduct
:54:52. > :54:55.same sex marriages to be able to do so. Based on a similar basis as is
:54:55. > :54:59.available for them for civil partnerships. This is important for
:54:59. > :55:03.obvious reasons, that it would be wrong to ban organisations who wish
:55:03. > :55:08.to conduct same sex marriages from doing so. I'm under no illusions,
:55:08. > :55:13.Mr Speaker, I'm fully aware that the proposals set out today to
:55:13. > :55:17.allow same sex couples to marry is contentious. I'm also clear there
:55:17. > :55:22.should be complete respect for veljous organisations and
:55:22. > :55:26.individual religious leaders who do not wish to marry same sex couples
:55:26. > :55:29.-- religious. The Government has to balance the importance of treating
:55:29. > :55:34.all couples equally and fairly with respect for religious organisations
:55:34. > :55:37.rights for their own beliefs. We need to be fair to same sex
:55:37. > :55:43.couples. The state should not be banning them from such a great
:55:43. > :55:47.institution. Equally, we need to be fair to people of faith. Religious
:55:47. > :55:52.protections that I will set out will ensure that fairness is at the
:55:52. > :55:59.Heart of our proposals. Maria Miller there. Dr Sharon James
:55:59. > :56:03.from the campaign group Coalition for Marriage, joins us now. She
:56:03. > :56:08.said they shouldn't be banned from such a great institution, same sex
:56:08. > :56:12.couples, what is wrong with that? David Cameron's holding great
:56:12. > :56:15.swathes in contempt. This was not in the manifestos of the three main
:56:16. > :56:21.parties. When he launched the sham consultation it was supposedly just
:56:22. > :56:26.about civil marriage and we were told that every single signatory to
:56:27. > :56:31.marriage to keep the union for a man and woman would be counted as a
:56:31. > :56:36.separate response. Lo and behold, now the consultation's been openeds,
:56:36. > :56:39.2t Government is cooking the figures, airbrushed out over the
:56:39. > :56:44.half a million signatorys to the petition and what's worse, is
:56:44. > :56:50.they've done a U-turn and broken the promise and said it's not just
:56:50. > :56:53.about civil marriage, but religious marriage. They have held a
:56:54. > :56:58.consultation and taken very broad views and your views and the ones
:56:59. > :57:03.held by your group are being expressed by many Conservative MPs
:57:03. > :57:06.and others. It sounds like you're being slightly resentful about the
:57:06. > :57:11.process even though the views are and have been taken on board?
:57:11. > :57:14.have not been taken on board. Over half a million signatures to the
:57:14. > :57:17.petition have been relegated and not counted in the headline figure.
:57:17. > :57:22.What explanation have you been given for that? No explanation.
:57:22. > :57:26.What is outrangous is that the Government is counting in
:57:26. > :57:29.submission through their website. They made no safeguard against
:57:29. > :57:33.multiple submissions and no safeguard against submissions from
:57:33. > :57:37.abroad. Benn and Jerry's in America was whipping up support to send in
:57:37. > :57:41.multiple submissions for this. So the Government's ignored people in
:57:41. > :57:44.Britain who supplied names and postcodes and identified themselves
:57:44. > :57:51.and they are counting in vast numbers of people from outside
:57:51. > :57:58.Britain all together who had no right to join in the consultation.
:57:58. > :58:03.Sharon James is very sup set about -- upset about this.
:58:04. > :58:07.Conservative Party, I mean you sometimes wonder whether they at
:58:07. > :58:13.any time, sexuality or foreigners comes up as an issue, they have a
:58:13. > :58:17.collective nervous breakdown. I have sympathy with Sharon about the
:58:17. > :58:22.consultation. It was a manifesto commitment and is now being
:58:22. > :58:27.Leggetted for. My views are radical. I wouldn't have state reck naized
:58:27. > :58:33.marriage but I wouldn't have state heterosexual marriage either.
:58:33. > :58:38.you believe in is freedom and what Mrs Miller ignored - I'm talking
:58:38. > :58:41.about ordinary teachers who'd be dismissed if they wouldn't teach
:58:41. > :58:46.gays I'm going to have to stop you there. Do you know what the answer
:58:46. > :58:52.is to the quiz, who did David Cameron vote for in reality TV
:58:52. > :58:56.show? It was Will Young, except he wasn't a contestant on the X Factor