11/12/2012 Daily Politics


11/12/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Once upon a time

:00:45.:00:47.

the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seemed united on the

:00:47.:00:52.

issue of civil liberties. But is that unity under threat? The

:00:52.:00:55.

coalition is at loggerheads over plans to allow police and

:00:55.:01:01.

intelligence services to monitor all email and internet use. Nick

:01:01.:01:04.

Clegg says the bill needs a fundamental re-think. Theresa May

:01:04.:01:10.

says the plans must proceed without delay. The Culture Secretary will

:01:10.:01:12.

today lay out the Government's plans to introduce same sex

:01:12.:01:15.

marriages. But campaigners against the plans accuse ministers of being

:01:15.:01:20.

dishonest and of conducting a "sham" consultation. Is David

:01:20.:01:23.

Cameron running scared of the TV election debates? Labour think he

:01:23.:01:27.

is after the PM said he thought the format was flawed. We'll have our

:01:27.:01:33.

very own TV debate! And, as fresh data from the Census is revealed,

:01:33.:01:36.

what does it tell us about the changing face of Britain over the

:01:36.:01:41.

years? All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme

:01:41.:01:43.

today is Mark Littlewood, he's the director general of the free-market

:01:43.:01:53.
:01:53.:01:54.

think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs. Now, first let's

:01:54.:01:56.

turn our attention to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland

:01:56.:01:59.

Secretary Theresa Villiers will make a statement to MPs later today

:01:59.:02:01.

about the situation after another night of violence in Belfast. Let's

:02:01.:02:07.

talk to our Northern Ireland Political Editor Mark Devenport.

:02:07.:02:14.

What happened last night? We have more serious trouble, the most

:02:14.:02:20.

significant incident was an attack on a police officer's car. A female

:02:20.:02:27.

police officer was essentially guarding an office. Meyer may long

:02:27.:02:32.

was the first politician to be elected as an MP from the Alliance

:02:32.:02:36.

Party, and that party has been and very much at the centre of this

:02:36.:02:41.

because they have been the target of loyalist protests. They backed

:02:41.:02:49.

the idea of taking the union flag down for 365 days, and merely

:02:49.:02:55.

putting it up for 17 designated days over the city hall and that is

:02:55.:03:00.

what has caused so much anger in the communities. We can see a

:03:00.:03:04.

pretty extensive police presence on the streets because this has gone

:03:04.:03:11.

on for over a week, hasn't it? I don't think anybody knew there

:03:11.:03:15.

would be this odyssey in outside the council meeting but there has

:03:15.:03:20.

been genuine surprise these protests have continued for so long.

:03:20.:03:24.

The politicians are dividing, unionists are blaming nationalists

:03:24.:03:31.

for having brought up the issue of the Union flag in the first place,

:03:31.:03:35.

and the Alliance Party has been blaming Unionist fostering tensions

:03:35.:03:40.

about this, distributing leaflets around the Belfast area. They now

:03:40.:03:45.

have a problem, which is that something has started and it is

:03:45.:03:50.

proving easier to start than to stop it. One to about David Cameron,

:03:50.:03:53.

who has been criticised in some quarters for not speaking out

:03:53.:04:00.

sooner on this issue? They have certainly anger within the Alliance

:04:00.:04:03.

party that in 10 Downing Street they have not taken more notice of

:04:03.:04:08.

the fact they now have a member of parliament facing a death threat,

:04:08.:04:14.

and clearly a very serious threat after we saw the female police

:04:14.:04:18.

officer attacked outside her council office. Normally the

:04:18.:04:22.

Alliance Party are very mild mannered, a cross-community group

:04:22.:04:26.

who specialise in compromising, but they have been very angry in the

:04:26.:04:31.

light of these attacks and they are saying the Prime Minister needs to

:04:31.:04:35.

come out and be more forthright about this. We will get the

:04:35.:04:39.

statement of course. I suppose the main feeling here will be

:04:39.:04:44.

distressed that something like this has managed to trigger a week long

:04:44.:04:49.

disturbance. Pretty timely and a shocking reminder, isn't it? From

:04:49.:04:54.

the mainland, and not being an expert in Northern Ireland politics,

:04:54.:04:59.

my impression was that things are more or less solved over there,

:04:59.:05:04.

going along peacefully. Suddenly something which is ceremonial, I

:05:04.:05:14.
:05:14.:05:15.

wouldn't call it trivial, but ceremonial trusts -- just starting

:05:15.:05:21.

this off and perhaps the United Kingdom is more fragile than we

:05:21.:05:26.

think. These are testing times and we have not found a solution yet.

:05:26.:05:31.

In terms of the criticism of David Cameron, do you think he hasn't

:05:31.:05:36.

shown enough leadership on this? does need to be more clear on this.

:05:36.:05:41.

I wouldn't say he was sleepwalking but he needs to make a stand pretty

:05:41.:05:47.

fast and this has been going on too long without his intervention.

:05:47.:05:54.

Now for something a little different. It's time for our daily

:05:54.:06:01.

quiz. The question for today is - David Cameron said yesterday that

:06:01.:06:04.

his daughter pestered him to vote for a contestant on a reality TV

:06:04.:06:14.
:06:14.:06:14.

show. So who did he back? The Government published a draft

:06:14.:06:21.

version of its Communications Data Bill in June. The new bill would

:06:21.:06:23.

mean that companies would have to store information about online and

:06:23.:06:26.

internet communications, which could be accessed by police and

:06:26.:06:36.
:06:36.:06:37.

intelligence agencies. After criticisms that the bill was

:06:37.:06:40.

tantamount to a snooper's charter, the Government agreed to send it to

:06:40.:06:46.

a committee of MPs and peers for detailed scrutiny. That committee

:06:46.:06:49.

has now published its report on the bill and, whilst they recognise the

:06:49.:06:52.

need for legislation, they're not impressed with the bill as it

:06:52.:06:55.

stands. Under the proposals, companies would have to store the

:06:55.:06:58.

details of communication - who sent messages to whom, and when - but

:06:58.:07:06.

not what they actually say, for 12 months. The bill would cover things

:07:07.:07:09.

like Twitter and Facebook messages, webmail, and phone calls made over

:07:09.:07:12.

the internet. It does not include details of people's internet search

:07:12.:07:14.

histories. The Home Office argues that access to people's phone

:07:15.:07:17.

records is already available. The new Bill just brings the existing

:07:17.:07:21.

law up to date. They also say that access to the data will be limited

:07:21.:07:23.

to the police, intelligence services, and a small number of

:07:24.:07:26.

other Government agencies. As with the current rules, other public

:07:26.:07:29.

bodies like local councils would have to go to court to see the

:07:29.:07:32.

information. But critics like Brig Brother Watch say it is a "naked

:07:32.:07:35.

attack on privacy". They fear that it will be possible for the police

:07:36.:07:38.

to piece together people's internet histories. And the committee which

:07:38.:07:40.

has scrutinised the bill says it will need "substantial rewriting"

:07:41.:07:43.

before it can be brought before Parliament. The Home Secretary,

:07:43.:07:46.

Theresa May, has said that those who oppose the Bill are "putting

:07:46.:07:49.

politics before people's lives". But today Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg

:07:49.:07:51.

has said that it needs a "fundamental rethink". Let's speak

:07:51.:07:53.

to our political correspondent. Gary, can we characterise it like

:07:53.:07:57.

this - that this committee has agreed there was a need for

:07:57.:08:02.

legislation but it needs to be rewritten? I think that is pretty

:08:02.:08:07.

fair. It acknowledges there is a capability gap, as the jargon goes,

:08:07.:08:14.

and it says that should be addressed, as does a similar

:08:14.:08:18.

committee, the committee that covers the intelligence services

:08:18.:08:22.

which has also produced a report on this. Both the committees do not

:08:22.:08:26.

like the proposals and it is that a breath of power the Government is

:08:26.:08:30.

seeking that they don't like. For example they don't like the idea

:08:30.:08:35.

there Home Secretary would be able to extend the numbers of

:08:35.:08:38.

organisations without new legislation that would be able to

:08:38.:08:42.

access this information. It doesn't like the fact there will be

:08:42.:08:48.

categories of data it can expand into without making it explicit on

:08:48.:08:56.

the face of the bill. It doesn't like the numbers, the amount it

:08:56.:09:05.

says will be saved in the long run is fanciful. There are a number of

:09:05.:09:09.

problems, and that is before you going to the political problems

:09:09.:09:12.

with the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg effectively saying we are not

:09:12.:09:17.

going to help you get this through. Let's go into the political

:09:17.:09:22.

problems. Is it possible to go by Theresa May's deadline that she

:09:22.:09:26.

would like this on the statute before the next election? It is

:09:26.:09:29.

possible because Nick Clegg has said he is not against the

:09:30.:09:33.

principle of extending these powers but he doesn't like the way it it

:09:33.:09:38.

is being done. There is talk of the government accepting the substance

:09:38.:09:42.

of the recommendations made by this committee, a committee that Nick

:09:42.:09:47.

Clegg insisted was set up so it was his idea to have this scrutiny. If

:09:47.:09:51.

that committee comes back and says to do things and the government

:09:51.:09:57.

agrees, Nick Clegg is in a position where he will have to say why

:09:57.:10:04.

aren't you agreeing with that? There will be manoeuvring and

:10:04.:10:08.

discussion but at the moment there is this stand-off, which is useful

:10:08.:10:12.

to Nick Clegg at the moment politically because civil liberties

:10:12.:10:18.

is an issue his party is very keen on. This is something where he can

:10:18.:10:28.
:10:28.:10:32.

demonstrate to his party that he is pushing back against the Tories.

:10:32.:10:36.

With us now is the Conservative MP Michael Ellis, who was a member of

:10:36.:10:38.

the Bill committee, and Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. Why do we

:10:39.:10:42.

need this legislation? A There is a big gap in what the police can do

:10:42.:10:46.

in terms of convicting individuals who commit offences. We are in a

:10:46.:10:50.

situation because of the dramatic advances in technology over the

:10:50.:10:56.

last decade or more that if a criminal, whether in a paedophile

:10:56.:11:04.

gang, a terrorist, or other serious offender, uses the internet for

:11:04.:11:07.

communication, the police can't necessarily obtain evidence against

:11:07.:11:13.

that individual whereas if they use them landline telephone or a mobile

:11:13.:11:18.

telephone, they will be able to. We have to allow the police to be able

:11:18.:11:22.

to prosecute serious offenders and we need to therefore make sure the

:11:22.:11:28.

law keeps up with modern technology. It is a pretty powerful argument,

:11:28.:11:34.

isn't it, in order to arrest and convict serious offenders? Be it

:11:34.:11:40.

would be if this Bill actually did anything towards those goals. The

:11:40.:11:45.

issue is, when you mentioned Facebook in the introduction,

:11:45.:11:49.

Facebook maintains data on everyone and co-operate with the police

:11:49.:11:59.

folly. This particular bill was incompetent. It would not have

:11:59.:12:04.

helped in the vast majority of cases. It was either it easy to

:12:04.:12:10.

evade, by simply using a service provider based in the United States

:12:10.:12:14.

or Russia, or for the Dome criminals they are already on

:12:14.:12:24.
:12:24.:12:26.

Facebook. -- dumb criminals. you don't disagree there needs to

:12:26.:12:36.
:12:36.:12:39.

be legislation to help the police? I don't disagree... Millions of

:12:39.:12:46.

people already having their day to a log, who would therefore be

:12:46.:12:51.

vulnerable to theft, but having said that the principle there is a

:12:51.:13:01.

gap and we should look for narrowly focused, cautious measures that

:13:01.:13:07.

don't target the public, that would be fine. Clearly you didn't agree

:13:07.:13:11.

with many of the recommendations? What is important and what Nick

:13:11.:13:17.

Clegg and others have agreed with, and the committee made clear, both

:13:17.:13:22.

the committees, is that there is a need and they accept that because

:13:22.:13:30.

they know there was a gap. There you to are broadly agreed there was

:13:30.:13:33.

a gap, but let's get to how you do that because your committee says it

:13:33.:13:38.

has to be rewritten if it meets substantial concerns about

:13:38.:13:44.

safeguards, cost and lack of consultation. They pretty well say

:13:44.:13:49.

the bill in its current form is dead. I don't agree it is dead. The

:13:49.:13:53.

government have said they are quite happy to look at the issues around

:13:53.:13:59.

the bill. We can tweak around the edges and move forward, that is

:13:59.:14:04.

what coalition is all about, but the government is happy to accept

:14:04.:14:07.

the substantive issues behind this report and that means they accept,

:14:08.:14:13.

as do the authors of this report, my committee, but it goes deeper

:14:13.:14:19.

than that. Before being an MP, I was a barrister in criminal

:14:19.:14:23.

practice and I have seen prosecutions of individuals. We

:14:23.:14:27.

will lose prosecutions of criminals if we do not allow the criminal law

:14:27.:14:32.

to keep up with modern forms of technology. Are you prepared for

:14:32.:14:38.

that to happen? It is important to understand there are ways we can

:14:38.:14:43.

prevent crime and convict criminals that are not having an open society

:14:43.:14:48.

and the cost may be too high. In this case I don't think we need to

:14:48.:14:51.

reach that question because the bill was technically incompetent.

:14:52.:14:58.

If you really care about stopping criminals, use the �1.8 billion to

:14:58.:15:06.

engage in serious investigative There is a lot of misinformation

:15:06.:15:11.

about what this Bill proposes to do. It's not about content. Already,

:15:11.:15:17.

information is retained on than features in this Bill by

:15:17.:15:22.

supermarkets, by people who have loyalty guarantee cards. Look, what

:15:22.:15:28.

the Bill envisages is an ability to know who and when, it's not about

:15:28.:15:31.

the content of messages. Right, and if it's not about the content of

:15:32.:15:35.

messages, surely a phone call between you and me can be logged,

:15:35.:15:38.

tracked and the amount of time we spend on that telephone, not what

:15:38.:15:43.

we say to each other, and therefore my privacy and yours is retaind?

:15:43.:15:47.

am an unreconstructed slib tearian on this point -- civil libertarian

:15:47.:15:53.

on this point. I'm concerned about the techy issues. As soon as this

:15:53.:15:56.

is held on a server in Japan or Russia, it's out with the reach

:15:56.:16:01.

anyway. So I take the point that Jimmy said, what are we going to do

:16:01.:16:08.

to track the ideals who'll store stuff offshore. It's a Home Office

:16:08.:16:12.

bureaucratic solution. The Home Office said we've got the silver

:16:12.:16:16.

bullet and they say it involves capturing more data on everybody.

:16:16.:16:21.

They are always trying to search for a needle and build a haystack.

:16:21.:16:24.

It's interesting that it's characterised as a Home Office

:16:24.:16:26.

situation. We have heard evidence from Chief Constables, people have

:16:26.:16:32.

been police officers for 30 or 40 years. From people who've... Don't

:16:32.:16:36.

the police always demand extra powers to be fair, nothing's

:16:36.:16:40.

changed there? They are not demanding extra powers but they are

:16:40.:16:43.

demanding and asking for the same amount of power as they currently

:16:43.:16:48.

have with your landline or telephone, mobile telephone, with

:16:48.:16:52.

modern forms of communication. Why deprive them of that? If you are

:16:52.:16:56.

able to see which websites people are browsing, perhaps because you

:16:56.:16:59.

are trying to find out about a paedophile ring, that's content

:16:59.:17:03.

isn't it? If you are able to see what people are looking at on a

:17:03.:17:07.

day-to-day basis, that is looking at content? It isn't. Why not?

:17:07.:17:10.

Because the fact of the matter is, you can't draw many conclusions

:17:10.:17:14.

from that. If you looked at a... Really? If you looked at a criminal

:17:15.:17:17.

lawyer and you were able to see a large number of telephone numbers

:17:17.:17:20.

in his phone that belonged to criminal clients, you can't

:17:21.:17:24.

conclude from that that he's a criminal himself, he may have

:17:24.:17:27.

reasons why he has people's phone numbers. You can't jump to

:17:27.:17:32.

conclusions in that way. All this envisages doing - we must get away

:17:32.:17:36.

from the misinformation being spread about this - there's clear

:17:36.:17:38.

misinformation. This is about what time a phone call is being made,

:17:38.:17:43.

for example, what day it is being made, from what number A to what

:17:43.:17:46.

number B, it's exact think same information that the police can get

:17:46.:17:51.

now on a landline. Right. Would you see that as content, if we could

:17:51.:17:57.

see what you were browsing at on a day toch day basis? Yes, clearly,

:17:57.:18:02.

but I think I think the boundary between Communications Data and

:18:02.:18:07.

content has become very tricky and difficult to sort through. One of

:18:07.:18:12.

you expressed by some -- one view expressed by people is that the web

:18:13.:18:18.

blogs are there, but searching Wikipedia, I can tell a lot about

:18:18.:18:24.

you because I can load up the same URL myself. You can at Tesco and

:18:24.:18:28.

Sainsbury's, because of a loyalty card. I refuse to have a loyalty

:18:28.:18:31.

card. That's up to the individual. This is not going to be voluntary,

:18:31.:18:37.

this is going to be the police taking this information. You need

:18:37.:18:42.

sufficient calls... It's not... is because you are talking about

:18:42.:18:46.

the same issues of data. You can choose to give the information

:18:46.:18:50.

across. We are talking about proper safeguards, it isn't just a

:18:50.:18:53.

phishing exercise, let's get away with that. That's the criticism,

:18:53.:18:56.

that in order to get some of the criminals you talk about, you have

:18:56.:19:01.

to go on a phishing exercise, otherwise how do you know who to

:19:01.:19:05.

look at? You would have to go on a phishing expedition? No, there are

:19:05.:19:09.

proper safeguards, just as in other legislation, about the more old-

:19:09.:19:12.

fashioned forms of communication. Look, the police are now in a

:19:12.:19:17.

position, police and surt services, thanks to advances in technology --

:19:17.:19:21.

Security Services, thanks to advances in technology, where they

:19:21.:19:27.

can only secure evidence from 75% of the time, down from 95% a few

:19:27.:19:30.

years ago. That means voiceover Internet communication is used to

:19:30.:19:35.

defeat their arrest. Now, do those who really want to block this Bill,

:19:35.:19:39.

for whatever reason, want to allow that to happen? We have heard

:19:39.:19:44.

evidence from the Child Exploitation online unit... Do you

:19:44.:19:48.

want this to go on? One thing we have to understand z that a

:19:48.:19:51.

fanciful view of technology would say, let's track all the data, but

:19:51.:19:56.

the truth is you cannot. You physically, technologically cannot.

:19:56.:20:01.

It's trivial for people to use services overseas, we are not

:20:01.:20:05.

talking about sophisticated criminals, I'm just talking

:20:05.:20:10.

ordinary people can easily avaid this with the minimal of effort --

:20:10.:20:16.

evade. The thought that police could get access to all the data,

:20:16.:20:21.

this is a dream or a nightmare, depending on how you look at it,

:20:21.:20:26.

but it's impossible, it isn't going to happen. That's why this Bill us

:20:26.:20:31.

- was never going to work. Nick Clegg is make it clear where he

:20:31.:20:34.

stands. He wants it rewritten. Do you think he should sign up to it

:20:34.:20:37.

if there is a more targeted approach, if some of the things

:20:37.:20:39.

that Michael has talked about, if the safeguards are there. Is it

:20:39.:20:43.

something that Nick Clegg should sign up to? I think not. I would

:20:43.:20:47.

like us to listen to the experts who've made a career on the

:20:47.:20:51.

Internet who know the technological stuff which I think goes way beyond

:20:51.:20:53.

the heads of most of our politicians. If the Government

:20:53.:20:56.

thought this was a serious way of cutting crime, this would have been

:20:56.:21:00.

in the first Queen's Speech in 2010. I think this is a bureaucratic

:21:00.:21:04.

invention and I hope the Deputy Prime Minister kills it stone dead.

:21:04.:21:09.

There you go! Just before we finish, do you agree it should be rewritten,

:21:09.:21:14.

that more safeguards have to be put in, that it should be more targeted,

:21:14.:21:17.

in other words a completely different piece of legislation

:21:17.:21:20.

think it's perfectly possible to look at the issues around the Bill

:21:20.:21:22.

and the Home Office have already said that. This is something that

:21:22.:21:26.

we have to move forward with. The Liberal Democrats agreed to this in

:21:26.:21:29.

the separate yick defence review. Nick Clegg called for this

:21:29.:21:34.

committee that I spent five months sitting on -- Strategic Defence

:21:34.:21:38.

Review. We have heard moving evidence, include prg the Child

:21:38.:21:42.

Exploitation unit. I can assure you, we do not want to allow one of the

:21:42.:21:46.

paedophile gangs or individuals to get away with it. Jimmy said about

:21:46.:21:49.

not being successful all the time, obviously we are not, but if we can

:21:49.:21:53.

get a handful of these people off the streets, we need to do just

:21:53.:21:56.

that. Thank you very much. The

:21:56.:21:59.

Government's localism Act was designed to give local people more

:21:59.:22:03.

say over planning. But do they have enough power? One MP wants a new

:22:03.:22:07.

local right to appeal against adverse planning decisions. The MP

:22:07.:22:13.

for Kingswood near Bristol spoke to us earlier. I asked him what it was

:22:13.:22:16.

proposing? A community right of appeal, one of the big problems I

:22:16.:22:21.

find as a local MP of planning decisions is that when decisions go

:22:21.:22:25.

against residents, they have no right of appeal against the big

:22:25.:22:29.

applications of snarbgts or housing developments. This would give

:22:29.:22:33.

residents the chance to collect signatures within a washed and get

:22:33.:22:38.

to apeople against the planning decision -- appeal against the

:22:38.:22:42.

planning decision. How many signatures would you require?

:22:42.:22:48.

couldn't just get a couple of signatures to change things and get

:22:48.:22:55.

red tape to the area of growth. If you had 50% of signatures in a

:22:55.:22:58.

particular ward, that would trigger an appeal to go to the planning

:22:58.:23:02.

sector or the Secretary of State. Does thnt fly in the face of the

:23:02.:23:05.

Government's plan to promote more development, not give local people

:23:05.:23:10.

even more rights to block it when we need it for economic growth?

:23:10.:23:15.

really. This is localism with teeth. This idea was actually in the

:23:15.:23:18.

Conservative's open source green paper when we were in opposition

:23:18.:23:22.

and I think we should be promoting growth and houses. We need new

:23:22.:23:27.

houses, we need new developments at the same time, we can't ride rough

:23:27.:23:31.

shot over local opinion. I think what this does is really sort out

:23:31.:23:36.

the genuine concerns of big applications from the any more bys,

:23:36.:23:42.

so you are not a nimby if half the ward has concerns about what is

:23:42.:23:46.

happening in the local area. Do you think the Government's lost the

:23:46.:23:51.

stomach for localism? It made a push on local agendas, but we have

:23:51.:23:53.

had moves for a new planning framework and inspectorate so they

:23:54.:23:56.

can appeal if local people object. Do you think the Government's lost

:23:57.:24:00.

its interest in localism? No, not really. I think we have to

:24:00.:24:04.

have responsible localism, so we have got the local councils

:24:04.:24:07.

developing their core strategy. We have gone from a situation where we

:24:07.:24:15.

had top down housing targets dictated by Westminster. Localism

:24:15.:24:21.

can't be an excuse for nimbyism. You have to develop housing, so

:24:21.:24:26.

issues like where you can have the community right of appeal would

:24:26.:24:36.
:24:36.:24:37.

sort out the principles. If you did manage to collect, if you were a

:24:37.:24:41.

washed in a borough and you did manage to collect the 50% bar and

:24:41.:24:45.

present it to the council, what would happen then? Would it be

:24:45.:24:49.

reviewed or dropped all together? You would have a time period, so

:24:49.:24:53.

maybe you would have to collect the signatures over one or two months,

:24:53.:24:58.

you would have to do nit the framework or it would be red tape.

:24:58.:25:00.

Then after that, it would be a planning appeal to the planning

:25:00.:25:03.

sector or the Secretary of State. You would have to have a sizeable

:25:04.:25:07.

number of signatures for it to reach that stage. That would be

:25:08.:25:10.

decided by whoever enacted the policy.

:25:10.:25:13.

Thank you. That was Chris skidmore MP talking

:25:13.:25:17.

to me earlier. Let's take this idea. What do you think of it, giving

:25:17.:25:21.

people the chance, 50% of people in a local ward could say no, we are

:25:21.:25:24.

not going to have that development and the council has the look at it

:25:24.:25:29.

again? I don't agree. I often agree with Chris on a lot but not on this

:25:29.:25:34.

occasion. Why? He's identified the problem here. This isn't the

:25:34.:25:38.

solution. It is so difficult to get anything built in the United

:25:38.:25:41.

Kingdom. This is yet another barrier to it. Here is the thing.

:25:41.:25:45.

What you really need to do is to make sure that the pain and the

:25:45.:25:48.

benefits are equally felt at local level. So I would like a local

:25:48.:25:52.

community to be able to say not just we want to block this because

:25:52.:25:57.

we don't want 2500 new houses built on the hill, but I would like them

:25:57.:26:01.

to have a deal on offer where if you are willing to let the 00

:26:01.:26:09.

houses be built, we'll cut your council tax next year, it will be

:26:09.:26:10.

cheaper for you, we'll have higher council tax elsewhere, now you make

:26:10.:26:15.

your mind up, you know. If you are willing to let the new Tescos come

:26:15.:26:20.

into town which is virtually always against planning, we promise to pay

:26:20.:26:24.

X towards your council tax. We have to make the tax benefit localised.

:26:24.:26:30.

This is another barrier. I can see why that might be attractive, but

:26:30.:26:33.

isn't this the problem that the Government isn't committed to a

:26:33.:26:37.

local agenda. They want it reforically but not in reality in

:26:37.:26:41.

order to let communities make make that sort of decision you have just

:26:41.:26:44.

put forward? That's offen if problem. It happened with the last

:26:44.:26:47.

Labour Government in opposition. It's all localism and devolving

:26:47.:26:51.

power when you get into office, and little of it happens when you get

:26:51.:26:55.

into office. The coalition are making some steps in order to try

:26:55.:27:01.

and liberalise planning, in fairness, with Nick Bowl. There

:27:01.:27:08.

seems to be a concern that if we build houses we are going to

:27:08.:27:13.

bulldoze natural beauty areas. Only 5% of Britain sun der concrete.

:27:13.:27:20.

There is a lot of useless land we can build on -- is under concrete.

:27:20.:27:25.

We need to let young people get their foot on the housing ladder,

:27:25.:27:29.

when they are frozen out now. Thank you. Don't say we don't spoil

:27:29.:27:32.

all your politics lovers out there. Today we are going to delve into

:27:32.:27:37.

one of the big issues of the age - individuals versus the state. Do we

:27:37.:27:40.

expect too much from Governments these days? Does big statement

:27:41.:27:44.

limit our individual freedomss, or should we trust in the state to do

:27:44.:27:50.

our best for us. Here is Mark Littlewood to explain more about

:27:50.:28:00.
:28:00.:28:12.

I want to live in a world in which the individual stands tall, not

:28:12.:28:16.

buildings, not Government, not the state, but individual men and women.

:28:16.:28:20.

That's the sort of country I want to live in.

:28:20.:28:25.

Politicians and bureaucrats spend nearly 50% of our total national

:28:25.:28:29.

income. If you are an absolutely average taxpayer, over the course

:28:29.:28:36.

of your lifetime, you will be handing over about �7 50,000 to

:28:37.:28:39.

politicians, bureaucrats and the Government.

:28:39.:28:43.

Of course, for these hundreds of billions of pounds a year, the

:28:43.:28:46.

state will promise you a wonderful mixture of things. They'll take

:28:46.:28:51.

care of you when you're sick, they'll look after you when you're

:28:51.:28:54.

old, they'll educate your children in schools, and if you are really

:28:54.:28:59.

lucky, they might even spend some of your cash on renewable energy.

:28:59.:29:03.

Of course, we have made some progress. It's only about 30 years

:29:03.:29:07.

ago that the state was running nearly all of our industries. Coal

:29:07.:29:13.

mines, steelworks, Telecoms, aviation, the car industry. We sold

:29:13.:29:17.

all of that off. But, there's much, much further to go.

:29:17.:29:22.

If we as individuals want to stand tall and walk proud, we need to

:29:22.:29:26.

wise up. The fastest growing economies in the world have a state

:29:26.:29:31.

sector that only accounts for about a quarter of their national income.

:29:31.:29:36.

Here in the UK, it's about twice that. They're building and growing,

:29:37.:29:41.

investing. Here in Britain, we can't even decide whether or when

:29:41.:29:46.

to build a third runway. So we need to stop believing the

:29:46.:29:50.

myth that politicians can spend our money and pull levers to make our

:29:50.:29:56.

lives better and get the trains running on time. No, we need to

:29:56.:30:03.

seek power for ourselves. And we are joined by Polly Toynbee

:30:03.:30:07.

of the Guardian who might take issue wa few of those things.

:30:07.:30:11.

Fallowing the fastest growing economies there is one thing Mark

:30:11.:30:17.

suggests. We'll talk about that in a minute. Wouldn't it be better if

:30:17.:30:22.

individuals were deciding what the money was spent on? If you look at

:30:22.:30:27.

the most successful economies in the world, according to la Garta

:30:27.:30:30.

institute, right-wing, they are Norway, Sweden and Finland and

:30:30.:30:35.

spend a huge amount of money on the state and have a very successful

:30:35.:30:42.

economy and very successful society, possibly the most successful known

:30:42.:30:48.

to mew mankind. It's a question of what society you want. If you want

:30:48.:30:53.

the Mitt Romney vision and Sarah Palin Everymanforhimself, pay for

:30:53.:30:56.

everything ourselves and devil take the hindmost, sure we can have a

:30:56.:31:06.
:31:06.:31:13.

low tax, small state society. Most Is that the sort of society you

:31:13.:31:19.

want, no, but it is my assertion that we can sort these problems out

:31:19.:31:25.

for a lower proportion than we are spending at the moment. Polly is

:31:25.:31:31.

right, I have picked out 25%, it is not a religious commitment, but you

:31:31.:31:37.

should be able to address the problems of real poverty. What

:31:37.:31:42.

country has 25%? The you are right to point out that there is a catch

:31:42.:31:48.

of theory in China, but if you were to say Singapore or hung Kong, low

:31:48.:31:53.

proportions of the economy, staggering growth. At the end of

:31:53.:31:59.

the Second World War it was about as rich as a Third World country,

:31:59.:32:05.

and now it is richer than Great Britain. Sweden spends more than

:32:05.:32:11.

the United Kingdom... And their top rate of tax is 56%. For if you look

:32:12.:32:18.

at 25 years ago, about 60% was the size of the Swedish state, now to

:32:18.:32:24.

the High 40s. They have privatised vast areas of their economy. A what

:32:24.:32:34.
:32:34.:32:44.

an exaggeration. They have cut from 60% to 45% in their schools. Some

:32:44.:32:49.

schools are on by private companies but people don't pay to go there.

:32:49.:32:56.

That is relatively few. They have a government they call right wing

:32:56.:33:03.

that would be wildly to the left of where new Labour was. But right of

:33:03.:33:08.

where Sweden was in the 1970s. so on like us in every way. They

:33:08.:33:13.

expect to get the best possible nurseries for every single child,

:33:13.:33:18.

where half of the staff are graduates. They have the quality of

:33:18.:33:22.

public service we could only dream of and it is successful

:33:22.:33:26.

economically. There is satisfaction with public services - isn't that

:33:26.:33:31.

what people want here? Better schools, better NHS, and for that

:33:31.:33:37.

at one stage they were prepared to pay higher taxes. This is not her

:33:37.:33:41.

argument between nice people who want better schools and hospitals...

:33:41.:33:46.

How can you achieve that? The my question is how much of that is

:33:46.:33:51.

sensibly provided by the state, and I think for considerably less

:33:51.:33:56.

spending you can solve the problems. We have tried the big-spending

:33:56.:34:05.

route. The know, we haven't. It has been done in the past two were

:34:05.:34:10.

bewildering lack of effect. If at that time we have seen poverty

:34:10.:34:17.

obliterated, OK, then maybe big spending would work. The talk about

:34:17.:34:22.

bureaucracy. That is a real propagandist trick. Do you mean the

:34:22.:34:27.

ward clerk doing all of the work in the ward so the nurses are doing

:34:27.:34:32.

the nursing? The moment you start talking about bureaucracy you know

:34:32.:34:37.

it is a pretty shabby argument. Do you want the policeman on the beat

:34:37.:34:45.

or doing the paperwork? You can't put to call on saving paper clips.

:34:45.:34:50.

A third of Whitehall is being cut right now and they are no longer

:34:50.:34:56.

able to write contracts. The reason they got the West Coast Main Line

:34:56.:35:04.

contract wrong is because of this. What a boat the welfare bill, there

:35:04.:35:09.

is huge support a court that. that his people on the dole, and

:35:09.:35:15.

people don't know that. They are astonished when you say only 2%.

:35:15.:35:22.

Unemployment pay in this country is only �71 a week, not very much.

:35:22.:35:26.

think in broad terms the welfare bill, the amount of money to spend

:35:26.:35:34.

on it, should be focused on the bottom five or 10%. Who would you

:35:34.:35:39.

cut? I don't think I should qualify for the state pension, I am

:35:39.:35:46.

affluent enough to look after myself, as you'd two are. Everybody

:35:46.:35:49.

qualifies for welfare at some point in their life and I think that is

:35:49.:35:55.

absurd. There is a poor segment of society, an unlucky segment you

:35:55.:35:59.

need to cater for, but that does not involve giving me a state

:35:59.:36:07.

pension when I'm 65. The pension is enormous, half. I would love you to

:36:07.:36:12.

stand for election on this because you would suffer the same fate as

:36:12.:36:16.

Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. If you think the state should not look

:36:16.:36:23.

after old people, you would not get a lot of support. With people

:36:23.:36:28.

living much longer and being asked to work... For you can't square

:36:28.:36:34.

that circle through taxation. Somewhere that pension needs to be

:36:34.:36:41.

saved for. My argument is that people as affluent as us should

:36:41.:36:46.

look after themselves. Most people can do that over their lifetime. We

:36:46.:36:50.

should be focusing on the bottom 10% in the welfare bill, not the

:36:50.:36:55.

whole spectrum of the population. Put it to the people, I will enjoy

:36:55.:37:05.
:37:05.:37:29.

your spectacular failure. Thank you. There's lots we think we know about

:37:29.:37:33.

the people who live in the UK. We guess at social trends, patterns of

:37:33.:37:36.

behaviour and judge the changing face of society, but only every ten

:37:36.:37:39.

years do we actually put it to the test. This morning more details

:37:39.:37:42.

from the 2011 Census were published and it shows in England and Wales a

:37:42.:37:45.

growing, ageing and more ethnically diverse population. It also reveals

:37:45.:37:48.

how many live here but weren't born here. Every ten years since 1801

:37:48.:37:51.

the UK population has been asked to answer such questions and though

:37:51.:37:53.

society, fashion, lifestyle, and attitudes have changed over time

:37:53.:37:57.

the way we chart that change hasn't really. Used to map and plan what

:37:57.:38:00.

services are needed to match that change the Census is a huge

:38:00.:38:03.

undertaking, and each decade throws out surprises. Now the latest batch

:38:03.:38:08.

of statistics has been released from the last Census in 2011. The

:38:08.:38:11.

population of England and Wales is 56.1 million 3.5 million more than

:38:11.:38:19.

2001. Half of that increase has been due to migration. 7.5 million

:38:19.:38:22.

were born outside the UK, and 3.8 million of those arrived here in

:38:23.:38:30.

the last 10 years. Race and ethnicity is not as new to the

:38:30.:38:33.

census as you might think, but England and Wales are becoming more

:38:33.:38:40.

ethnically diverse. Since 2001 "mixed race" has been a census

:38:40.:38:43.

choice, in 2011 those who describe themselves as mixed race number 1.2

:38:43.:38:53.
:38:53.:38:55.

million up 50% on 2001. These days it's a lot quicker but how useful a

:38:55.:38:58.

10 year census is in planning for the needs of a modern increasingly

:38:58.:39:08.
:39:08.:39:09.

shifting and diverse population is up for debate. Already some local

:39:09.:39:12.

authorities seek their own data, and in Scotland the question of

:39:12.:39:17.

whether there be a 2021 census is actively under discussion. Joining

:39:17.:39:21.

me now is the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz

:39:21.:39:24.

and the Chairman of Migration Watch Sir Andrew Green. Do you think

:39:24.:39:30.

Britain was open to migration in the Labour years of power? No, I

:39:30.:39:34.

think we had an appalling record as far as illegal migration was

:39:34.:39:39.

concerned and if people want come into our country and settle here

:39:39.:39:44.

and participate in our way of life and pay their taxes to fund

:39:44.:39:48.

contribute to the country and helped to bring the Olympics and

:39:48.:39:51.

compete in the Olympics, we should celebrate and welcome that

:39:51.:39:57.

diversity so these figures are very welcome. They show the community is

:39:57.:40:03.

settled and that there are people who still want to come here. People

:40:03.:40:08.

do move out of Britain. I know a lot of people who have migrated to

:40:08.:40:12.

France, India, other countries and that is the way it is in a

:40:13.:40:16.

globalised world. We should celebrate these figures and I

:40:16.:40:21.

celebrate my city in Leicester is the country's first ethnic-minority

:40:21.:40:29.

city. The country has changed and we should embrace it? I am amazed

:40:29.:40:36.

at what Keith Vaz is saying here. Globalisation did not start in 1997.

:40:36.:40:40.

The inflow of migrants prior to that year was really rather limited.

:40:40.:40:45.

We now have nearly 4 million immigrants in 10 years. 10 years

:40:45.:40:51.

ago we forecast it would be 2 million, it was double that, but we

:40:52.:40:56.

were jumped on by the left-wing press for even suggesting it might

:40:56.:41:00.

be 2 million. We are where we are, and to that extent I agree - we

:41:00.:41:06.

have these people in our community and we must join together. This is

:41:06.:41:12.

a key point, we must get the scale under control. It is not acceptable

:41:12.:41:17.

to go on in the direction we are going now. This is actually about

:41:17.:41:26.

not controlling immigration. The border control has been inefficient,

:41:27.:41:33.

and people are still here after 15 years who have been here illegally.

:41:33.:41:39.

What unites us is being tough on illegal immigration. It is

:41:39.:41:47.

difficult to come here now, frankly, legally. You really have to explain

:41:47.:41:51.

how 4 million people arrived here in the course of 10 years.

:41:51.:41:58.

money will have come from Poland. 30% came from Eastern Europe, the

:41:58.:42:02.

rest came from the rest of the world and the reality is that we

:42:02.:42:07.

lost control of immigration for 10 years. Whether that was a

:42:07.:42:12.

deliberate policy or inefficiency by the Border Agency, we don't know

:42:12.:42:16.

but we can't go on like this. Labour politicians down to Ed

:42:16.:42:21.

Miliband have said that Labour ignored the concerns of its own

:42:21.:42:26.

constituency, if you like, over immigration and many people did

:42:26.:42:29.

feel it was out of control, particularly when it came to

:42:29.:42:34.

pressure on services, schools, hospitals, that communities

:42:34.:42:40.

couldn't cope. You must accept that is what your party has said.

:42:40.:42:44.

don't accept it. I was the minister for enlargement under the last

:42:44.:42:49.

Labour government and we reunited Europe. Those who come from eastern

:42:49.:42:54.

Europe have contributed hugely to our country. They pay their tax so

:42:54.:43:00.

if people are worried about pressure on schools and doctors, if

:43:00.:43:05.

you pay your tax, that contributes. We have signed treaties and they

:43:05.:43:10.

are legally here in this country and they contribute. Do you support

:43:10.:43:14.

the Government's policy to reduce migration numbers to the tens of

:43:14.:43:18.

thousands? If no, because they want to stop genuine students coming

:43:18.:43:23.

into this country. If people want to come and study in this country,

:43:23.:43:28.

they contribute and after three- year stay should leave. Isn't there

:43:28.:43:32.

risk you will stop people coming here who would genuinely boost the

:43:32.:43:39.

economy? Like students. There may be some things we agree on, but not

:43:39.:43:44.

much of what you have just said. We support the enlargement of Europe,

:43:44.:43:48.

but the previous government fold that up by opening the borders when

:43:48.:43:54.

no one else did. That is ancient history. I think Ed Miliband is

:43:54.:43:59.

starting to realise where public opinion lies. If we go on as we are

:43:59.:44:04.

at 200,000 a year, this is net migration after the Brits have left,

:44:04.:44:09.

if we go on like that, in the next 15 years we will have to build

:44:09.:44:15.

power eight largest cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool,

:44:15.:44:24.

Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Glasgow, Bristol - we have got to do all of

:44:24.:44:29.

that just for new immigrants and there is no money. Sounds great. I

:44:29.:44:36.

don't have a problem with this. It is not obvious to me that 4 million

:44:36.:44:42.

immigrants is bad news. Why do we think we have reached the optimum

:44:42.:44:46.

population for Britain? I do have worries about legality, and if

:44:46.:44:52.

people are only coming to take welfare, but that is not borne out

:44:52.:44:59.

by the statistics. We got into a situation where British Asians were

:44:59.:45:04.

contributing more to the Exchequer than they were taking out. Doesn't

:45:04.:45:07.

it make it a great country that we have the whole world living here in

:45:07.:45:14.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has been speaking in the Commons and

:45:14.:45:21.

has told MPs the next Budget will be on March next year. The Shadow

:45:21.:45:24.

Chancellor revealed Labour will vote against Government plan force

:45:24.:45:30.

a 1% cap on benefit rises. Just a quick reaction to that? Labour's

:45:30.:45:33.

going to vote against... Well, I have to agree with something, so

:45:33.:45:38.

yes, it's a great idea. Just checking you are awake there, well

:45:38.:45:41.

done, Keith Vaz! Now, the Labour Party has accused David Cameron of

:45:41.:45:46.

running scared of taking part in any future TV election debates. The

:45:46.:45:49.

Prime Minister told journalists at the press gallery lunch that he

:45:49.:45:53.

thought the debates in 2010 overshadowed the election campaign.

:45:53.:45:57.

Mr Cameron said he was in favour of debates in principle but suggested

:45:57.:46:02.

the format of the debates had "Sucked the life out of the

:46:02.:46:05.

campaign". We'll have our very own TV debate about this in a moment,

:46:05.:46:13.

but let's remind ourselves of the infamous debates. MUSIC: Eye of the

:46:13.:46:16.

tiger... You've got to answer this question.

:46:16.:46:19.

We will continue to match the funding of the police as of now.

:46:19.:46:23.

You are saying you are going to cut it. Be honest with the public

:46:23.:46:29.

because you can't airbrush your policies even though airbrush your

:46:30.:46:35.

posters. Gordon Brown is trying to make you believe he can protect

:46:35.:46:41.

health spending, edge police and education spending. He's given this

:46:41.:46:45.

country the biggest budget deficit of any developed country in the

:46:45.:46:48.

world. How does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else for that

:46:48.:46:52.

matter David Cameron to join together in the Europe with a bunch

:46:52.:46:55.

of nutters, anti-assembly mites, people who deny climate change

:46:55.:46:59.

exists, home Phoebes. That does not help Britain. We need to change the

:46:59.:47:02.

European Union but you change clubs of which you are a member by

:47:02.:47:07.

getting stuck in, not standing on the sidelines and complaining.

:47:07.:47:11.

may have the feel of a TV popularity contest, but in truth,

:47:11.:47:16.

this is an election about Britain's future. This is an important issue

:47:16.:47:21.

and people need to know what are in our manifestos. I've set out the

:47:21.:47:24.

policies. People need to know that the Liberal Democrats propose an

:47:24.:47:28.

amnesty for illegal immigrants, which could mean that some 600,000

:47:28.:47:34.

people who're here illegally would be allowed to stay and be given

:47:34.:47:39.

full sit znship. Every time you talk about our policy, it's always

:47:39.:47:46.

wrong -- citizenship. Joining me now are three aficionados. Ben

:47:46.:47:51.

Bradshaw, Conor Burns and Chris Rennes ard. Don't take offence! --

:47:51.:47:55.

Renard. Is David Cameron running scared? No, he's pointing out that

:47:55.:48:01.

last time the debates were a huge distraction. There's a reason why

:48:01.:48:06.

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock wanted them and John Major and

:48:06.:48:11.

Margaret Thatcher didn't want them. David Cameron signed up to it last

:48:11.:48:16.

time around and was maybe foolish to do so? Terribly foolish. The

:48:16.:48:21.

expectation level on Gordon Brown was so low. The expectation on

:48:21.:48:24.

David Cameron was so high that he couldn't deliver on it and nobody

:48:24.:48:28.

knew who Nick Clegg was so he was getting the benefit of exposure.

:48:28.:48:31.

you think they sucked the life out of the campaign? It's true that we

:48:31.:48:36.

noo the media were completely focused obvious those debates?

:48:36.:48:40.

Exactly, but the media tends to get obsessed about this. It would be

:48:40.:48:44.

odd if they didn't happen again. Every other democracy has them,

:48:44.:48:48.

America, Germany, it's a chance for the view and the public to see the

:48:48.:48:52.

three leading or two leading candidates together and for them to

:48:52.:48:55.

scrutinise each other, not just leave it up to journalists, which

:48:55.:48:59.

is what most of the political interviews in the run-up to an

:48:59.:49:07.

election tend to be otherwise. a big risk. How do you think Ed

:49:07.:49:12.

Miliband would perform? You say it's a big risk but I don't think

:49:12.:49:16.

it damaged David Cameron last time. There was a spurt in Nick Clegg's

:49:16.:49:21.

popularity but then it went down and they lost seats, so you can

:49:21.:49:25.

overexaggerate the worth of them. They are valuable but don't let's

:49:25.:49:30.

overclaim for them. Would you like to see another round? Yes, it's

:49:30.:49:33.

impossible to say they were a distraction from the election when

:49:33.:49:37.

more than ten people watched them. People chose to watch them. They

:49:37.:49:42.

did in very large numbers and allowed people to see direct

:49:42.:49:47.

questions to the policy leaders, serious discusses and objective

:49:47.:49:51.

analysis. They are and were a good thing. Do you think for Nick Clegg

:49:51.:49:54.

there was the case, I mean he polled brilliantly after the debate

:49:54.:49:58.

certainly after the first one and perhaps slightly less so the second

:49:58.:50:03.

but it didn't do him as much good as he might have thought? It was

:50:03.:50:10.

the highest vote we have ever had. In terms of seats? But we lost more

:50:10.:50:17.

seats which we think is more the voting style. I think the

:50:17.:50:21.

newspapers on front-page headlines didn't really explain the detail.

:50:21.:50:26.

People are entitled to the facts and get them better from an

:50:26.:50:30.

extended television interview on things like the leaders dedebates

:50:30.:50:34.

than from the tabloid newspapers. Do you think they are a good thing?

:50:34.:50:37.

I do. I'm with Chris and David Cameron saying they sucked the life

:50:37.:50:44.

out of the campaign, that is absurd. For the man in the Dog & Duck pub,

:50:44.:50:52.

this was important. Theiren gaugement in the campaign was

:50:52.:50:54.

watching two or three hours of television. What a breakthrough.

:50:54.:50:58.

That was the discussion many the local pub who, performed well.

:50:58.:51:04.

is the point. Politics was the debate in the pub rather than the

:51:04.:51:11.

thing people didn't discuss? Ie Wild want more interaction -- I

:51:11.:51:16.

would want more interaction and challenging. Like a Question Time

:51:16.:51:21.

style? There is a danger of them becoming read-out pre-prepared

:51:21.:51:26.

statements. The ITV do that one and they did it rather well? They were

:51:26.:51:31.

all slightly different but... one was better. Enough room for a

:51:31.:51:37.

room full of Mrs Duffys for all sides. Fix bid your spin doctor?

:51:37.:51:41.

For all sides. Do you think the format is stuffy having them all

:51:41.:51:46.

standing up instead of engaging a bit more with each other and with

:51:46.:51:48.

the audience? Audience participation is a good thing and

:51:48.:51:52.

it was possible to say that perhaps some of the people conducting them,

:51:52.:51:57.

some were a little self-indulgent as to how they dominated the

:51:57.:52:00.

discussion. Let people have their own say. One key thing about the

:52:01.:52:05.

debates and why it's important to have them, you have things like

:52:05.:52:07.

instant polls and you could prove scientifically what people thought

:52:07.:52:11.

of the different leaders and what they said. If you don't have the

:52:11.:52:14.

broadcast debates and those instant polls, you have newspapers making

:52:14.:52:20.

up trying to say our man did really well, their man did badly, the

:52:20.:52:25.

whole country... Still had that immediately afterwards anyway?

:52:25.:52:29.

they couldn't get away with it. I saw George Osborne distraught with

:52:29.:52:33.

the Sun political team looking on their computer screen at the front-

:52:33.:52:36.

page headline and there was no way they could say anything other than

:52:36.:52:40.

Nick Clegg did really well. What about the format then. What would

:52:40.:52:45.

you like to see? There's been propositions for four debates,

:52:45.:52:49.

Labour's put two forward before and maybe two during, do you think it

:52:49.:52:53.

would be better to have the debates before the campaign starts? I'm not

:52:53.:52:57.

sure we can say anything useful about this. There are long

:52:57.:52:59.

negotiations involving the broadcasters who have a say here

:53:00.:53:04.

with a the political parties. I hope we don't spend the next three

:53:04.:53:08.

years talking about this. We are bound to. That would be a huge

:53:08.:53:11.

distraction from the important things, like policy. Do you think

:53:11.:53:17.

it will happen? Yes, I hope it will and I hope there are three in three

:53:17.:53:22.

very different formats. I think they were a bit too similar last

:53:22.:53:27.

time. Romney versus Obama tried different formats and I would like

:53:27.:53:30.

more experimentation. What about other parties being involved?

:53:30.:53:37.

is where it gets difficult. You have two defending the current

:53:37.:53:40.

Government, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? How

:53:40.:53:44.

would that work? You need to have separate debates in Scotland. In

:53:44.:53:47.

the past, the Conservatives said they couldn't have a debate with

:53:47.:53:49.

the Liberal Democrats because they would be on Labour's side, now you

:53:49.:53:52.

are saying they couldn't take part because they would be on the

:53:52.:53:55.

Conservative side now. Let the three leaders be questioned by the

:53:55.:54:00.

public and by professional journalists in proper inquisitive

:54:00.:54:03.

fashion and you will see the difference between the parties.

:54:03.:54:08.

haven't got an instant poll to see how you rated with the audience

:54:08.:54:12.

today but we'll get back to you! The woman and Equalities Minister

:54:12.:54:15.

has been setting out the details of the Government's plan force gay

:54:15.:54:18.

marriage in the House of Commons. David Cameron and the other party

:54:18.:54:21.

leaders are in favour but many Conservative MPs and others outside

:54:21.:54:25.

Parliament are opposed. We'll speak to one critic in a moment but first

:54:25.:54:29.

here is Maria Miller speaking a few minutes ago. For me, extending

:54:29.:54:34.

marriage to same sex couples will splen then not weaken the vital

:54:34.:54:38.

institution and the response I'm publishing makes clear we'll enable

:54:38.:54:42.

same sex couples to get married through a civil ceremony. We'll

:54:42.:54:46.

enable those religious organisations who wesh to conduct

:54:46.:54:52.

same sex marriages to be able to do so. Based on a similar basis as is

:54:52.:54:55.

available for them for civil partnerships. This is important for

:54:55.:54:59.

obvious reasons, that it would be wrong to ban organisations who wish

:54:59.:55:03.

to conduct same sex marriages from doing so. I'm under no illusions,

:55:03.:55:08.

Mr Speaker, I'm fully aware that the proposals set out today to

:55:08.:55:13.

allow same sex couples to marry is contentious. I'm also clear there

:55:13.:55:17.

should be complete respect for veljous organisations and

:55:17.:55:22.

individual religious leaders who do not wish to marry same sex couples

:55:22.:55:26.

-- religious. The Government has to balance the importance of treating

:55:26.:55:29.

all couples equally and fairly with respect for religious organisations

:55:29.:55:34.

rights for their own beliefs. We need to be fair to same sex

:55:34.:55:37.

couples. The state should not be banning them from such a great

:55:37.:55:43.

institution. Equally, we need to be fair to people of faith. Religious

:55:43.:55:47.

protections that I will set out will ensure that fairness is at the

:55:47.:55:52.

Heart of our proposals. Maria Miller there. Dr Sharon James

:55:52.:55:59.

from the campaign group Coalition for Marriage, joins us now. She

:55:59.:56:03.

said they shouldn't be banned from such a great institution, same sex

:56:03.:56:08.

couples, what is wrong with that? David Cameron's holding great

:56:08.:56:12.

swathes in contempt. This was not in the manifestos of the three main

:56:12.:56:15.

parties. When he launched the sham consultation it was supposedly just

:56:16.:56:21.

about civil marriage and we were told that every single signatory to

:56:22.:56:26.

marriage to keep the union for a man and woman would be counted as a

:56:27.:56:31.

separate response. Lo and behold, now the consultation's been openeds,

:56:31.:56:36.

2t Government is cooking the figures, airbrushed out over the

:56:36.:56:39.

half a million signatorys to the petition and what's worse, is

:56:39.:56:44.

they've done a U-turn and broken the promise and said it's not just

:56:44.:56:50.

about civil marriage, but religious marriage. They have held a

:56:50.:56:53.

consultation and taken very broad views and your views and the ones

:56:54.:56:58.

held by your group are being expressed by many Conservative MPs

:56:59.:57:03.

and others. It sounds like you're being slightly resentful about the

:57:03.:57:06.

process even though the views are and have been taken on board?

:57:06.:57:11.

have not been taken on board. Over half a million signatures to the

:57:11.:57:14.

petition have been relegated and not counted in the headline figure.

:57:14.:57:17.

What explanation have you been given for that? No explanation.

:57:17.:57:22.

What is outrangous is that the Government is counting in

:57:22.:57:26.

submission through their website. They made no safeguard against

:57:26.:57:29.

multiple submissions and no safeguard against submissions from

:57:29.:57:33.

abroad. Benn and Jerry's in America was whipping up support to send in

:57:33.:57:37.

multiple submissions for this. So the Government's ignored people in

:57:37.:57:41.

Britain who supplied names and postcodes and identified themselves

:57:41.:57:44.

and they are counting in vast numbers of people from outside

:57:44.:57:51.

Britain all together who had no right to join in the consultation.

:57:51.:57:58.

Sharon James is very sup set about -- upset about this.

:57:58.:58:03.

Conservative Party, I mean you sometimes wonder whether they at

:58:04.:58:07.

any time, sexuality or foreigners comes up as an issue, they have a

:58:07.:58:13.

collective nervous breakdown. I have sympathy with Sharon about the

:58:13.:58:17.

consultation. It was a manifesto commitment and is now being

:58:17.:58:22.

Leggetted for. My views are radical. I wouldn't have state reck naized

:58:22.:58:27.

marriage but I wouldn't have state heterosexual marriage either.

:58:27.:58:33.

you believe in is freedom and what Mrs Miller ignored - I'm talking

:58:33.:58:38.

about ordinary teachers who'd be dismissed if they wouldn't teach

:58:38.:58:41.

gays I'm going to have to stop you there. Do you know what the answer

:58:41.:58:46.

is to the quiz, who did David Cameron vote for in reality TV

:58:46.:58:52.

show? It was Will Young, except he wasn't a contestant on the X Factor

:58:52.:58:56.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS