11/12/2012 Daily Politics


11/12/2012

Jo Coburn with the latest political news and debate, including government plans for monitoring email and internet use, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.


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