28/11/2013 Newsnight


News stories with Emily Maitlis. Including does the Bank of England fear a housing bubble, Boris Johnson is accused of elitism, and was the tuition fees row for nothing?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, Mark Carney pulls the plug on a scheme to help home buyers.


Does this portray his fear of the housing bubble to come? It would no


longer be appropriate or necessary to have our foot on the accelerator.


It's better to shift into neutral. That's why the changes are being


made. This man once said he wanted to be King of the world. Boris


Johnson tonight is accused of unpleasant elitism.


The policy that causes violence on the streets and prompted this.


# I'm so, so sorry # There's no easy way to say I'm


sorry... # But how But has the row over tuition


feels all been for nothing? And whatps -- what happens when you turn


your back on your parents' religion and have to tell them? She began to


cry. She said to me, "if it's between you and Allah, I choose


Allah. ". Good evening.


Is Mark Carney getting cold feet about the UK housing market? Today,


starkly, one of its mortgage lending schemes was shut down. But funding


for lending programme which allows people to borrow at low rates will


no longer be available for home buying after the end of January. The


Bank of England's concern was the unexpected speed at which house


prices were rising in many parts of Britain, time he suggested to take


his foot off the gas before the interest rates underpinning the


fragile economy would have to go up. Of course, there are other ways of


borrowing cheap money to buy a home. The Government flagship scheme, Help


To Buy, remains untouched, but sceptics may wonder for just how


long. Here is Andy Verity.


Who is setting the course for the housing market? As evidence mounts


of house prices getting even less affordable, the Treasury's answer


has been to use Government noun help buyers pay the prices, loosening


lending. But today, the Bank of England fired a shot across the


Treasury's bows. The risk to financial stability may


grow if there is further substantial rapid increases in house prices and


further build-up of household debt. These risks would be amplified if


unrate standards on mortgage lending were to weaken, as has been the case


in previous house price sickles. Until today the Governor had been


content to go along with the Treasury line that the risks of a


bubble were remote. But today, he presented mounting evidence that


there were significant risks in the housing market. On this chart, the


two bars on the right represent those whose mortgages are more than


four times their, in holding a third of the mortgage debt in the country.


On the right, is those who hold a fifth of mortgage debt.


The lending scheme is one of the reason we have the cheapest


mortgages offered. You can borrow ?500,000 and pay just ?621 a month.


No wonder some people now including the Bank of England are worried


about house prices taking off. 40% of outstanding mortgage debt is


held by people who have a debt equal to, or greater than four times their


income. Clearly this is Kuwait a high number and could cause concern


under higher interest rates. Funding for lending makes cheap


funds available at a quarter of a percent, a measure introduced last


year when the banking process threatened the recovery. The Bank of


England made it clear today it was withdrawing that for household


lending. In its stability report published today, the fear is less


double dip, more double bubble. It might be an increase, or a shift


really, in the Bank of England's thinking about what is more worth


worrying about maybe, which is that the problems with affordability, the


structure of the housing market, the prices one has to pay in Central


London et cetera. Actually, they have an impact on financial


stability. What they seem to be saying in the financial stability


report is that they have the policy tools to address that. Mark Carney


has reason not to want his tenure at the bank to be marred by a housing


bubble. The He was accused of that while in Canada with buyers


stretched. When a bank lend you the money for the mortgage, its biggest


cost isn't the interest to get hold of the funds but the capital it has


to set aside. The rules on that are set by the people in here, the Bank


of England, and what they've been saying today is, if they see the


housing market taking off, they could tighten the rules right now


for every ?100 of money they lend and have to set aside ?1. If the


Bank of England raised that to say ?2 it would double their costs and


mortgages would become more expensive. The Bank of England could


raise capital requirements on areas in the bank's balance sheet where


risks were beginning to rise. What that could mean in our view is that,


for example, higher loan to value mortgages, mortgages with higher


price to income ratios could attract higher capital requirements from the


Bank of England. Therefore higher costs? Yes.


The Treasury had one answer to rising house prices, loosening


lending to the most stretched with the help of taxpayers' money. The


bank hasn't stopped that, but it's warning -- its warning shots can't


be ignored. Don't expect mortgage rates to stay cheap.


Joining me now is Anatole and Mariana Mazucato. Was this the right


move? No, most economists believe that the Chancellor was making a big


mistake six months ago when he created the Help To Buy scheme. I


was one of the few who said at the time, this is the one thing the


Government's done that could actually turn the economy around. It


did turn the economy around. I think the reason why the UK economy has


been surprising most experts on the upside has been doing better than


any other European economy now for the first time in five years is the


revival of the housing market. So have they got this one wrong? No.


This is the kind of action the Bank of England will probably have to


take and should take two or three years from now once the economy's


recovered and once we are back to a normal economic situation with


employment back to 6% and so on, but you think it's too early to do it


and it does endanger the economy. Shot his goose a bit too soon,


Mariana Mazucato? He's right and wrong. He's right because he's


saying we don't want to fiddle with the economy by increasing the


interest rate by things overheating. He reintroduces the concept of


regulation, he wants to increase leverage ratios and we don't want to


lend to the speculative economy, so to give mortgages to consumer


selections won't be able to pay the mortgages back, especially once


rates do change. He's wrong in the sense that what we are trying to do,


and anyone thinking about growth, has had to rebalance the economy


away from a speculative finance toward product you have finance and


the emphasis that somehow it will happen by lending to SMEs whereby if


you look around the world and the UK, SMEs don't provide that much job


creation and innovation. So if there is a chance that growth from the


housing bubble will be better than what comes next which could be no


growth... The problem right now in the world, but definitely in the UK


is not the quantity of finance. There's plenty of finance out there.


There's not the right quality. . We need long-term, patient committed


finance that helps the types of companies that do want to invest in


the long-term areas to be able to do that. It's independent of size,


small and medium companies need that but none of the reforms are


increasing the long-term committed patient finance. He's still trying


to go through the banks, just like Vince Cable, with his business bank


was still going to go through the private banks. In the US, there's


direct lending to companies. Anatole Kaletsky you said you were at odds


with a lot of the comikists. All the home lending schemes have been


popular but economically slightly crazy? I don't think it has been


crazy. This is a case of a measure which was initiated for political


and, if you like, quite cynical and manipulative reasons. It was all


about winning the next election but it happened to be the right thing to


do for the economy at the time because, you know, at the beginning


of this year, the economy was in its deepest and longest slump in history


and there was no prospect of turning that around. But just explain to us,


where does the dynamic sit now between the Bank of England and the


Treasury? Who clamped down on this exactly? I think that's a great


question because my assumption of course as an outsider was that when


George Osborne introduced the Help To Buy programme, it was more or


less the same time he announced Mark Carney as the next Governor of the


Bank of England, so my assumption, I think most people's was that he must


have consulted the new Governor to ensure that he would be supportive


of this programme. That's exactly how things seemed for the last or


first three for four months with Mark Carney at the Bank of England.


But he suddenly and quite inexplicably seems to have changed


his position and, to me, I was thinking about this, this is like


Henry II and Thomas Beckett. If Mervyn King would have been in


charge, it would have been hard to Boro is deuce the Help To Buy


programme. Do you think Help To Buy is similarly under the microscope


now? I don't think that's where the problem is. Going back to the


previous question, the real schizophrenia is in the Treasury. I


do actually have quite a bit of faith in Carney. I think he has red


Cains. What drives the spirits, your gut instincts about what the future,


technological and market initiatives are, that doesn't change. He's


trying to think, how can we rebalance towards productive finance


to eventually increase that private business investment. I think the


problem with the trezly is -- Treasury is, there's no growth. This


is why the innovation and industrial policy, which is finally back to


business skills, is having little effect because it's not coherent


with the Treasury and what they are saying.


I think what you are missing, is that businesses are not going to


invest unless they see consumer demand. What generates animal


spirits is the knowledge that people out there are going to buy your


products and services. That is how a housing recovery was beginning and


is beginning to feed into the broader economy.


One thing canes didn't get right is that, he found that digging ditches


and building them up again would improve recovery. For all those


people to be able to get a mortgage from lending, you've got all this QE


floating in at the other end, the gap between those at the top and


those who are not able is even bigger. That's what this is doing,


isn't it? Yes. Inequality was both the cause and an effect of the


financial crisis. There are too many people taking out these not only bad


loans but good loans in the US that didn't have the income. Real incomes


have been stagnant for three years. The Help To Buy was beginning to


redress that and we are beginning to get to the point where it's


beginning to move out from London to the other parts of the country where


other houses are not expensive. The average house price in this country


is ?170,000. We have got to leave it there. Thank


you both very much indeed. I don't want to think about the


possibility of what would happen if they found out I'm just too scared


to tell them. There are a lot of Cornflakes


rattling around Boris's speech last night. When he got past the cereal


and delved down to the free toy at the bottom, the message was stark -


I don't believe, he told an audience for an annual Margaret Thatcher


lecture, that economic prosperity is possible. What if this is in fact


the Boris creed? What if his own brand of Boris Pops revolves around


the importance of board room greed and unfairness as a spur to economic


activity? Here is Zoe Conway. I've never seen anything like this


in all my life. When Boris Johnson was a child, he said he wanted to be


world King when he grew up. There were times during the Olympics that


childhood ambition didn't seem quite so far fetched.


These days, he's lowered his sights somewhat. Many in the Conservative


Party assume he wants to be their next leader. So what does this


pretender for the Tory throne actually believe?


Last night, he talked about ineasy quality in a lecture aimed at the


Tory right. I don't believe that economic equality is possible.


Indeed, some measure of in inequality is essential for the


spirit of envy in keeping up with the Joneses and so on that is a


valuable spur to economic activity. His comments are interesting because


they are such a contrast to David Cameron's public agonising about


inequality when he became lead leader. Three years ago, he said


less equal societies do worse. But Boris also argued for a move


away from the perceived excesses of 1980s Thatcherism.


I hope that the Gordon geckos of London are conspicuous not just for


their greed, and I accept the CPS view that greed is a valid Motivator


of economic progress. As for what they give and do for the rest of the


population. It's on education that Boris Johnson


is most clearly positioning himself to the right of David Cameron by


calling for the return of academic selection. He accuses his party of


hypocrisy on grammar schools. I remember once sitting in a meeting


at the Shadow Tory education team and listening with mounting


disbelief to a conversation where aall agreed it would be political


madness to try to bring back the grammar schools. Well, I happen Tono


that most of the people in that room were able to make use, as parents,


only some of the most viciously selected schools in the country --


selective schools in the country. Being Mayor of London has not always


given Boris the chance to endear himself to the right of his party.


If anything he's had to tack left. He may argue for a smaller small


small estate, but he's spending millions on the transport


infrastructure. Then there are his calls for a higher living wage for


Londoners. When in China, Boris is keen to


emphasise house open London is to the rest of the world. But last


night, he expressed frustration at the Government's immigration policy.


It's time to sort out the immigration system so we end what is


currently a totally mad situation. At the moment we are claiming to


have capped immigration by having a 60% reduction in New Zealanders when


we can do nothing to stop the entire population of Transylvania, charming


though many of them, almost all of them doubtless are, from trying to


pitch camp at Marble Arch. Boris's direction of travel on


Europe can be confusing. He was once a hero to Euro-Sceptics, but


recently he said he's narrowly in favour of staying in the EU. Last


nights, he played it safe, attacking eurocrats, definitely the low


hanging fruit of Europe bashing. They make us pay our taxes for Greek


olive groves which possibly don't exist. Then I read the other day


they say that we can't dip - have you seen this - we can't dip our


bread in pots of olive oil in restaurants. We think we are


sophisticated enough to use olive oil and then say we can't.


Boris Johnson said he's more likely to be reincarnated as a baked bean,


or decapitated by a phrase bithan become Prime Minister. But with


scenes like this, doesn't that just sound like piffle -- by a frisbee.


The Government is asking the big six energy firms not to raise prices on


the basis of Government policies until the middle of 2015. What


should we make of this? Is it blatant conceptual drivery or


something much more subtle -- thievery. Danny fin Kell Stein of


the Times and Olly Grender join us, along with John McAteer nan. Welcome


to you all. -- McTiernan. This is just coming out, John, what we


understand from industry sources, that suppliers are being asked to


keep bills on hold. What do you make of that? Imitation is obviously the


form of flattery. What we are seeing at the moment is the Tory party in


two minds about what it wants to do. Does it want to go nasty or does it


want to go touchy feely and do payday loans and do this on


electricity prices? It's usteringly incoherent. You can go to the nasty


end of TfL -- end of the market or go the other way. All that stuff


about statism and national and 1983 manifestos after Ed Miliband... I


thought I was going to agree with you, then I didn't. There is a


dilemma and the Conservative Party is trying to weigh up what to do.


It's between whether to make the pure argument we have put the


economy right and run on growth, or try to do something about


cost-of-living in the short run which is very difficult.


That is actually a genuine dilemma. Clearly, they have decided they've


got to do something about the cost of heading up that argument in order


to allow them to make the argument about deficit, debt and Britain's on


the right track, don't turn back. I think it's hard because if you do


that, you look as though you are looking at some of the initiatives


by Labour. You have to do something about the cost-of-living because


that's a large component of the indicators that make a successful


election campaign. I think you are right about the dilemma, but I don't


think there is a situation where the Tories sit around going, do you


think we should be nasty or nice, it's absurd. We saw the same with


payday loans which was very much seemed like a Labour initiative, to


put a cap on prices there, and suddenly, ahead of the Autumn


Statement? I'm not particularly in favour of what was done, but I can


see the political logic of it again because it's about cost and it's


about cost-of-living and also about trying to remove the sort of


economic negatives that you might get, I think maybe cigarette


packaging comes in as well. You have got this dilemma all the time where


you are trying to cut off the negatives, if you possibly can,


without giving the impression that you are allowing the opposition to


set the agenda. That's a difficult balance. Also it's about


anticipating what is coming up. In both cases, on payday loans and on


cigarette packaging, you know, kind of David Cameron knew that in the


House of Lords he was going to get into significant trouble because


there were Lib Dems who were going to move on them, both of those


things. On the energy companies, first off, they've still got ?1


billion that they haven't spent on all the eco measures. It's pretty


disgraceful that they are still sitting on them. They have plenty


they can spend. Strikes me as a reasonable thing to a ask of them,


but what my concern is, and I think this is where Lynton Crosby might be


right in his advice, which is not the nasty nice, you know, I kind of


sense what Danny is saying about that, but he is right when he tells


David Cameron, stop getting dragged on to agendas of the Labour Party


and of the media. I wonder where this leaves the green


taxes or "the green crap". Does that mean taxation for all the green


stuff does go? Elections are settled by not small political rows but by


very big economic forces. The Conservative Party's going to have


votes running for it at the next general election more strongly than


people anticipated in the six months before and after. The question is


whether it will have real disposable income so it has to choose to do


things about what will affect the disposable income. The danger is you


see the intellectual initiative, you make Labour look more economically


competent. What is interesting is that polls say that they love the


energy freeze strategy but they don't believe it which is really an


Ed Miliband problem fundamentally isn't it? Danny is right, there are


two frames. There is a frame of, you have taken the pain, and we have


restored the growth, now you are going to get some gain out of that.


Or there is the touchy feely Ed Miliband, I feel your pain and we


should do something about it. The difficulty for the Tories is, they


are not sure which frame they are purr suing and if you mix the frames


you muddle your message -- pursuing. The public's big doubt is, I like Ed


Miliband's policies, will he do them? It talks the point that he's


got to find a way of presenting and representing his promise on the


issues. He's aided by the fact the Government keep moving on to his


ground so he's allowed to talk about it. The Labour Party are failing at


the moment in prosecuting the case that they are determining and


dictating the agenda and they've got to get on to that space too.


That is down to the electorate. What I think most of all is important for


the Labour Party at the moment and what I found extraordinary about the


press release that came out today, it was by the way the press


officer's nightmare press release saying we are going to be and larger


and put some organisers on the ground. It was just the kind of


thing that you never do. It's not strategic.


ALL SPEAK AT ONCE The long-term plan. Bnchts but it's


the kind of show me don't tell me kind of classic mistake that both


the other political parties are making I think. If you are devising


a strategy and have to make this choice for the Conservative Party, I


think you would calculate that you're unlikely to succeed the


electric election initiative. I don't think people think of Ed


Miliband has a dynamic person. Even if they are wrong, that's not what


they think. Think in you are making that calculation, you think, I have


a big enough advantage to risk trying to do something about


cost-of-living in order to try to neutralise that as much as I can and


make people feel better. Presumably though there is a tipping point if


they like his policies enough, that happens, right? There is a problem


too in that David Cameron's no longer who they thought he was when


they voted for him. That's a difficulty for the Tories that they


have to deal with that he was going to be the man that saved the NHS,


and that's broken. He was, let sunshine have the day, and whatever


he said yesterday about immigration was not sunshine having the day. I


agree that people were never absolutely blown away at the next


general election by David Cameron. That's not why he didn't win. If you


are devising Conservative election strategy, obviously I think a


reasonable fixed point is that Ed Miliband has a lot of structural


advantages and Labour do, but Ed Miliband doesn't convince people


that much whether he should or not and therefore what you do is...


Before we carry on with that, Nick Clegg's line on this today was that


it was bold conservatism I guess you would call it. Is he missing the


point of Boris? No. I mean I think Boris is, as usual, all over the


place. So he's just impossible. It must be maddening for the


Conservatives, because one minute he's one thing, the next he's the


next thing. He said things about David Cameron and George Osborne? I


must be missing something. I do not understand the row concerning


observing the disparity in the population. Social mobility, the


issue with that is that people have different talents. He was talking


about if you are down there, you may end up having to stay there, you


know. Maybe he thinks that, but he did not say that. It sounds like he


said that. It was the language and tone of contempt for fellow human


beings which had a nasty tone. That's not a fair reading of his


speech. That's what people maybe hoped he said but it was not a fair


reading. Thank you all very much indeed.


If tuition fees were meant to solve a problem, making academia more


sustainable for the future, the latest reports suggest the project


might be failing. The National Audit Office believes more than ?5 billion


of public money paid out in student loans will be unaccounted for


because the Government doesn't know who owes it and whether it can pay


it back? Martin Williams is a part-time


teacher at a sixth form college in Southampton. He spent five years


studying fine art, graphics and photography but doesn't earn enough


to pay back his own student loan. I've actually probably paid nothing.


I probably haven't even dented the interest that's incurred from it


because I've not been in employment to take me over the threshold of the


minimum payment. Like the other teachers, he gives teenagers career


advice. Some ask whether student loans are effectively free money?


A lot of them ask me what have I had to pay back and I'm honest with them


and said I've not been in a position where I've had to pay anything back


because I've not earned enough yet. In that sense, it does come across


that it's cost me nothing to do, so I do advise them to make sure that


they are aware of the terms. I do tell them about the terms.


Britain needs more highly skilled workers the Government often say. By


2035, they expect nearly 500,00018-year-olds will start


university every autumn. As student numbers rise and


individual tuition fees rise, so the impact on the overall student loan


bill will be dramatic. Even now, ?46 billion of loan repayments are


outstanding and it's estimated that in 30 years' time, that'll more than


quadruple to ?200 billion. More people are failing to pay back


their loans. In 2010, it was estimated 28% of the


debts would have to be written off. That's risen to 35% this year.


The model that the Government used to model this system didn't take


into account the recession, lower graduate earnings, the fact that


women earn considerably less than men over their lifetime. From the


beginning, the system has been shaky and it's a numbers fiddle, it moves


the amount of money from the deficit to the debt.


Since the student loan scheme ban over 20 years ago, nearly 370,000


students have disappeared from its records. They might be working


abroad, they might be unemployed here with the National Audit Office


estimating they owe about ?5 billion and the student loan company is not


doing enough to try to track them down.


I don't think it's surprising. I is have a friend who's led me to


believe that they are no longer in the country is so don't voluntarily


repay the loan. They have never outright said it to me but they have


implied they are no longer paying it. I don't think it's common. At


the end of the day, the incentive is there if HMRC aren't chasing people


once they go overseas. It's not surprising that people go abroad to


avoid paying the loan back. Neither the Government nor the student loan


company were available for interview. Though the loan company


gave us a statement saying it would use the findings and recommendations


from the report to help it further improve the way it secures the loan


repayments due from all its bow rowers, including those who were


overseas. Meanwhile, analysts say other


sectors are likely to suffer. The The impact of overspending on


loans is that you have to make up the short fall else where. The


department can't make any savings in the short-term so have to look to


other bits of the budget to make savings. That means further


education, research funding, widening participation funding are


all very vulnerable to cuts to try and offset the impact of


overspending on loans. In 2010, the Conservatives came up with a new


vision for higher education, raising tuition fees would secure its


Financial Future. Student loans would make university affordable for


all. Reluctantly, the Liberal Democrats


accepted it, but this report shows that picture is seriously flawed.


Newsnight has learned of a plan to destroy Syria's chemical weapons at


sea, using a US Navy auxiliary vessel. Industry sources told us the


plan will put a mobile destruction plant aboard that uses water to


dilute the chemicals to safer levels. Mark Urban has the story.


Talk us through this plan, Mark? We have been looking into the


detail. There's a very ambitious schedule been set for the agreement


to disarm Syria of the weapons and they are all supposed to be out of


the country by the end of this year, just a few weeks away. How is it


going to happen when all of the countries that have been canvassed


about being the place where these things would be destroyed have


refused to have it? It seems that the plan that's now come to the


front is to do it on board this US Navy auxiliary, a big ship, a roll


on roll off ship, the MV Cape Ray imported in Vicki Young ya, it will


have a special plant placed on it and that's what will happen. Before


we get to that point though, it will have to be moved -- Virginia. Most


are being concentrated in happen a dozen sites in Damascus. They'll be


moved up around the Lebanese border up to the north, then the east, to


the ports of either Tartus and Lattakia. 200-plus contaunter-size


loads on the quayside will be collected then. There's still some


doubt about whether the Cape Ray will go into the ports, it's a US


Navy vessel. Others might have to shift it from the quayside to the


cape Ray. But once on board, the destructive process of diluting it


can commence. Well, talk us through that? Where


does it go? Does it end up in the sea? Well, it's a very important


question. There are still some unanswered aspects to that. Earlier


I spoke to a chemical weapons expert and asked if that was the end of it


once they are on board? It's not going to be the end of the problems


because it's going to be 30 tonnes of mustard gas and 600 tonnes of


toxic precursors that will be destroyed on the Cape Ray. It will


produce about seven million litres of toxic effluent which will need to


be gotten rid of somewhere. You can't take to it the sea, it will


have to be taken to a commercial facility. They have argue that that


effluent is none more toxic than other things in the ocean. You can


see the possibility that the ship could become like a plague vessel


that no-one will have. So how would we even be sure that they'd all


gone? Well, the organisation that's carrying it out, the


Netherlands-based organisation, that's about to get the Nobel Prize


feel confident that their inventory has been successfully compiled and


that they can remove it. There are many rumours persisting that some


small quantities may have slipped through their fingers, including


with rebel groups. Mark Urban, thank you very much.


What happens when you choose to turn your back on your parents' religion,


particularly when they're people who hold their faith dear? We often


focus on those converting, but what about those who leave? In extreme


cases, they are punished by families. Newsnight spoke to three


people from devout Islamic backgrounds who've lost their faith.


These pictures are the only pictures I have of my early childhood. They


were taken before my mother became observant and they remind me of a


happier time. When you have to lie as much as you


do, it's like when you are not a believer amongst the believers, it's


really just drains you, it drains you in every single way possible.


I felt isolation. I neat I was being rejected, demonised. I felt that my


thoughts weren't being respected and it was harder because I knew that I


would have problems at home. I just prayed, please don't let me


lose my faith. That's all I wanted. But it was sort of at that point as


well that I just did not feel the connection to God any more and I


felt like all my pleas were just going into empty space.


I knew how much Islam meant to her, that it was everything. So to... I


knew that it would be something, you know, grave in her opinion.


Something that would potentially change our relationship for ever.


I was wrong I was round about 15 years plus when I told them. And


they didn't receive that well. I got abuse from my mum. Swearing at me,


telling me that Allah would be angry with me and that I would bring a


curse upon my family. I remember her reaction to this day, you know. She


began to cry. It was upsetting because, you know,


being the oldest child, I was always a source of pride for my mum. She


looked at me. I think it really registered with her and she said to


me "Amal, if it's between you and Allah, I choose Allah". And that's


when I felt that the lines were clearly drawn, that, you know, I'd


crossed a point of no return. One of the uncles got in front of the car,


the other uncle who was at the back of the car. I was scared. One of the


uncles had been in and out of prison for fighting. I was terrified. It


was only half way through the journey I knew something was wrong.


It was only when I got to the airport that I found out that I was


due to a flight to Pakistan. I was threatened, either get on the flight


or he'd beat the hell out of me. Why did they want to take you back to


Pakistan? I suppose in their eyes, I was out of control. I don't want to


think about the possibility of what would happen if they found out. I'm


just too scared. I know I'd lose them. Especially


because all my mum cares about is that I'm a Muslim and then that's


the one thing that you've gone and said that you can't do for her. I


would consciously call home and ask to speak to her and she'd refuse to


speak to me. My sister would pick up the phone and I'd chat to her for a


while and say "can I spook to mum? " And shieed "no, mum doesn't want to


speak to you". I remember my mum actual actually... You know, I felt


awful about what I was putting my mum through. A prayer is where you


ascend to the heavens. You ascend to Allah. Then you will have


surrendered. Nobody should discriminate a person just because


they have left faith. Families are not for judging. We are not judges.


We are simple Searle vats of God. Those people who prejudice


individuals for leaving the faith. They have misunderstood. Islam is


about embracing even your enemy. Islam is about teaching those who


may not have learned the faith properly. Islam is about sharing the


goodness of the faith. It's not manifested if you are going to


outcast them, prejudice them, throw them out of your mosque and your


centre, your community, you would not speak to them. It's not a very


loving way of approaching the human being. Leaving your faith is a shock


for your immediate family. Sometimes people have a pressure, thinking


that once the pressure is exorcised, the person will think about it,


reconsider the matter, maybe come back to the faith. And by pressure,


do you mean? into the enemy, so I'm not just


going to risk and go into that battle for no reason. If we


understand Islam as a comprehensive way of life, which is, then of


course leaving Islam would change everything and, as I told you, it


includes a change in the political allegiance, the social life, so it's


treachery to Islam. If he has committed that, then in an Islamic


estate before an Islamic court, it's like the punishment of treason. It


is treason. That punishment is? As you know, it's a capital punishment.


I do feel sad slightly when I think about my family and I do wish things


were different. But I'm very happy in my life.


I don't know what the future holds for me yet. I don't know it. It's


just changed everything. You don't know how you are going to do


anything any more and everything you do is going to be completely on your


own. My parents had another baby boy when I left home. I never met him. I


want to go home and hug my family that I miss.


Voices of those who've lost or changed their faith and their


families. Lets's take you through tomorrow's papers before we go.


Financial Times has the lead story, Khan Khanny -- Carney ditches cheap


home loans. And there is the look at the debt restructure of Co-op Bank


which has sold almost its entire investment in the lenders since the


revelations of Paul Flowers emerged. The Times has a picture of Peaches


Geldof who Tweeted the names of women who let the lost prophet


singer abuse their babies. That's her Tweet. The Guardian, bank puts


brakes on amid fear of house price bubble and the Mail, half of


dementia patients failed by the NHS and that picture of Charles Saatchi


at court. That is all from us tonight.


As a special treat, a dubious one, we thought we'd bring you a casual


modest Newsnight first tonight. It's a live rocket launch from Cape


Canaveral. Unfortunate Liz though, the company behind Falcon 9 proved


as erratic at time keeping, as we are, but instead, here are some live


pictures of a stationary rocket at the bottom. Good night.


Hello. Quite a change for the weather on Friday. Bright and breezy


for many. Strong winds a feature across Scotland.


Does the Bank of England fear a housing bubble? Boris Johnson is accused of elitism. Was the tuition fees row for nothing, Syria's chemical weapons, and apostates.

Download Subtitles