16/07/2014 Newsnight


Who is caught up in tax avoidance schemes? Plus politics, paedophiles, the right to die debate, and Crackwatch with artists Gilbert and George. With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



politicians have been falling over each other to denounce celebrities


who invested in tax avoidance schemes. Some of these aggressive


anti-avoidance schemes that may not be illegal are morally questionable,


I think it is right for politicians not only to make that point, but


frankly to go after some of these aggressive avoidance schemes. So it


may be more than a little embarrassing to discover that


amongst the investors in one vehicle, now deemed by the revenue


to be a tax avoidance scheme is one of their own, former Tory cabinet


minister, Andrew Mitchell. The police have announced the arrest of


650 paedophiles from all walks of life across the UK after a target on


on-line activity. Is this too big a problem to arrest our way out of it.


People on the Internet should realise that policing across the


country and the National Crime Agency is able to see and detect you


when you step out of line and break the law. Living sculptures and


national treasure sure, Gilbert George have a crack with Steve Smith


over their show inspired by nitrous oxide, aka laughing gas! .


Good evening, it has been a bumpy couple of years for former Tory


cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell. There was the controversial run in


with the Downing Street policeman, followed by a long battle to clear


his name. Now it seems Mr Mitchell could face more turbulence.


Newsnight has learned he was among the investors in a film fund which


the revenue has teamed a tax avoidance scheme, and the tax man


wants the money back. It is real simple... . Everyone


wants to be in the movies, even Andrew Mitchell, the former


Government Chief Whip, he's best known for having resigned from the


Government in October 2012 over a bizarre argument with some Downing


Street policemen, a process that has left him embroilled in high-profile


legal proceedings. But back in the mid-2000s in the Shadow Cabinet he


put money into a high-profile film financing company, now best known


for backing Avatar, the blockbuster. However, this week HMRC, the tax


collectors controversially deemed that what he and his fellow


investors had actually done was to take part in a tax avoidance scheme.


Mr Mitchell invested in the company called Ingenious Film Parters II, it


was a vehicle to encourage people to invest in British film. According to


the revenue it was a company designed to generate tax reliefs for


its investors. The way that the company works is a bit complex. So


say an investor put in the minimum ?36,000, if they did that the


company would then loan them ?64,000 to invest, taking their total stake


up to ?100,000. That would then be used to buy shares in film


production, which, in their first year ran a roughly ?90,000 trading


loss. Investors could choose to write that off for tax purposes.


What does that mean? Well they put in ?36,000 in cash and they get back


roughly ?36,000 in tax relief very fast. And, now they own a ?100,000


stake in a group of films, so long as the films make enough money to


service the debt, the company's structure allows people to invest


without looking up a lot of their own cash. Now serious films get


financed like this. The company backed X Men: The Last Stand, along


with some rather less grand names, Garfield, and... . Virgin


Territories. Furthermore the income received from these films is, of


course, taxed. Ingenious says its schemes have generated ?1 billion of


such income. It continued: A tax tribunal called at the


company's question is scheduled for November, they remain confident of


the outcome. There are three big reasons why it has broader


implications. The first was it was company is run by


implications. The first was it was man who has advised the Labour Party


on tax and some of its other man who has advised the Labour Party


investors include Lord Grade a former chairman of the BBC, and Lord


Waldegrave a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. What may be about


to happen could be deeply embarrassing for the three


politician, as well as potentially expensive. They may be the first


politicians to be caught in HMRC's tax drag net and anti-avoidance


crusade. It has become a statement of political speeches. Some of these


aggressive anti-avoidance schemes that may not be illegal are morally


questionable. I regard tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance as


morally repugnant. So HMRC has been given more resources to tackle


avoidance, more powers and selected more targets. Practices that HMRC


wouldn't worry about in previous years are now in their sights. We


asked these investors how much they put in, how much they might need to


pay back or whether they had already set welled HMRC. Mr Mitchell said,


when the last Labour Government introduced tax incentives to invest


in the British film industry, along with many other investors I did so


through ingenious Film, he resigned from the company in -- I resigned


from the film when in Government and paid all tax due. The other two said


than I tension was to invest in British film. The second reason why


there is a broader interest, is investors in the company may be


among the first people to receive accelerated payment notices. That


means HMRC, the tax inspectors can send them letters for the tax they


should have been paying without going to court. This new process has


been attacked as draconian, it adds new terror to investing in a scheme


that HMRC might question. The company was identified as a


candidate for this process earlier this week. It is one of 1,200


schemes that are being primed for it. The law that allows it is


expected to get Royal Assent and letters to start going out this


week. The third issue is that pursuing alleged tax avoidance can


cause political difficulty. The drag net of 1,200 schemes is catching


people who can ill afford to repay their taxes, and are now angered


that HMRC calls their long standing business arrangements tax avoidance


schemes. There is no appeal process, if you receive a notice you must


take advice immediately, do not ignore it. Many people that receive


notices will probably come out of the blue and many of those people


will probably have been mis-sold the schemes in the first place. If


anybody feels they have been given bad advice or mis-sold by the


advisers they ha chosen that is something they have to take up with


the proper authorities. It is not a reason why they shouldn't pay the


tax that they owe. HMRC will of course still need to win cases in


court, even if they need to pay up soon, Ingenious investors will get


their money back if they can triumph there. In the short-term Mr Mitchell


and tens of thousands of others may be waiting for a letter from the


taxma How damaging is this for the


Conservatives? Leaving aside the case of Andrew Mitchell this agenda


is something the Conservatives do really care about. You have seen


Daniel Alexander, a Lib Dem announce action in this area. But George


Osborne and David Cameron pile in behind him because if they want to


be able to get tough on those less well off in society, as they have


been, ?80 billion in welfare cuts this parliament, they also they


believe have to have an agenda on those on the top. That is why they


want to be stuck like fly paper to the Liberal Democrats on this


agenda, they wouldn't want to be priced apart from it. You have more


tonight on the whole welfare issue? Now we have the reshuffle out of the


way, we will now have the politics of the manifestos and what ideas


will go into their respective manifestos and George Osborne has


already told us that he will want to find ?12 billion of welfare cuts for


the next two years in the next parliament, and the Lib Dems have


already said they don't agree with that, what we will get in the next


few months is chatter and fact about how the Tories think they can get


there. One idea that is very sensitive is how much child benefit


should be dispersed, I know Labour people who think it is completely


untenable the situation we have at the moment where every child, every


other child you have you get more money. What had been bubbling around


was the idea that it would be limited to two children and the


Welfare Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith is very keen on this idea. From my


calls today seems the Treasury is very nervous about this idea. What


is published tomorrow, which perhaps makes this more interesting is an


idea by the think-tank, Policy Exchange, is that you would limit it


to four children and taper it after two. What is interesting is perhaps


it is the way that George Osborne could embrace the idea and bring in


some kind of change on child benefit that isn't, dare I say it, something


that would really horrify people in the swing seats. Horrify people


because of the social engineering nature to it as well? There is many


more families that have two children to state the obvious than have three


or four. Numerically, so you can see families with two children who might


see that policy and think oh my gosh I won't vote Conservative, where as


families of four there are few of them that will be affected. There is


another political story? The Mirror has a story that Clegg is about to


ditch the bedroom tax, I'm looking into it and we will talk about that


later. Doctors, teachers a social services


worker a scout leader, even former police officers, as a result of an


unprecedented investigation for the National Crime Agency into on-line


paedophilia, today the police announced that more than 650


suspected paedophiles had been arrested in a six-month


investigation, and as a result 430 children have been protected. But


the secretary for the children's s charities coalition for internet


safety said the police alone can't cope with the problem, the volume of


images is too large. We will be debating on how to get to grips with


the criminality on an internet that is constantly mutating. First we


have this. The doctor with a million images of


abuse on his hard drive, the pensioner with 17 grandchildren, the


foster carer with no previous convictions, all arrested as part of


a six-month police investigation. There is no part of the internet


that is inpenetrable to us. Anybody who is listening to this programme


who offends on the Internet should realise the policing across the


country and the National Crime Agency is able to see you and detect


you when you stand out of line and break the law. If you break the law


we will come after you. That operation involved all 45


police force, leading to 660 arrests. Just 39 of those held were


on the Sex Offenders Register. 431 children were removed, including 127


identified as being at serious risk of harm. It is the job of the


Internet Watch Foundation to investigate reports of child abuse


images and pass that information to the police. This image here was an


example of some of the image that is we have. It has been very heavily


pick sellated, because obviously it is a criminal offence to look at


images, it is a child we assess to be between seven and ten years old.


They are actually tied up, so they are bound. It is a sadistic image,


so it is one of the worst types of images that you will see. The number


of images like this, seen by the analyst here has doubled since the


charity was formed in 2007. We now are 12 analysts and they are


occupied full-time, they are occupied doing work looking at


content that is on in the public domain on the open internet. What


they do know, because they are specialists in this is the majority


of the images that we see are all duplicate, so they see the same


children again and again and again, and a series of images around the


same children. So they do know when they see new images and they are


seeing increasing numbers of new images and new children. The


National Crime Agency was set up to deal with organised crime, it will


not reveal the exact tactics used in this latest operation, but they are


likely to be far less dramatic than these scenes. We do know officers


received training from the Los Angeles police department, seen here


using software that tracks in real time people downloading and swapping


abuse images. time people downloading and swapping


keen to talk up the scale of this operation, calling it the largest of


its type across the UK. Now that may be true up to a point, but ten years


ago another similar investigation into child sex abuse led to


five-times as many arrests and almost 2,000 convictions. The actor


Chris Langham was the most high-profile conviction as part of


Operation Orr, police were passed details of 7,000 UK subscribers to a


US porn site found to be hosting some child abuse images. It became


clear not everyone involved were guilty, some were accessing only


adult pornography, others were the victims of credit card fraud. The


impact on them and their families was devastating. Several people


committed suicide and a number of people were so overwhelmed by it


they didn't know what to do and before they had proper legal advice


they accepted a police caution as being the better thing to do to get


over it and get on with their lives. Police say they have learned from


the operation and the tactics used today are far more sophisticated. We


have a capability now that is well ahead of what it was a few years


ago, I'm confident the people we have identified today we will see


with the evidence presented appropriately and a high conviction


rate. There is another question here rarely asked, what evidence is there


that viewing images on a computer can lead to physical abuse in the


real world. Here the evidence is inconclusive, one academic called it


the million dollar question. A 2009 study from the US found 85% of


on-line offenders had admitted to physical abuse. Another from the


same year found the level can be as low as 3%. Some of these men are


immediately directly dangerous to children, in my experience the


majority are not. Whatever the explanation for their behaviour, and


there will be many, including their excessive use of pornography,


perhaps. But I have met many internet offenders who are actually


very good fathers, and who are very good workers, good husbands, there


are aspects of their lives of course that needs to be accounted for. We


mustn't stopped them being able to be good fathers or good husband, we


need to hold them accountable and help them learn new patterns of


living to make sure their on-line life is far better than it has been


in the past. That view may be controversial to


many, just as the police are learning how to deal with this


problem, so we as a society might have to ask some hard questions


about the extent of on-line abuse and how we deal with it. With me now


is Jim Gamble the former chief executive of see on, the police


branch dedicated to on-line protection, he oversaw Operation


Orr, the largest UK crime investigation with thousands


targeted for on-line images of child abuse, also here is Professor


Richard Wortley, head of UCL's Department of Security and crime.


Jim Gamble how different is the Internet from when you were using


Operation Orr? The Internet has developed, in the case of the


operation people went on-line, engaged with the site, made a


payment using the credit card and received a password which helped


evidence that they had been there, and they went on-line using their


computer and very often their IP address. Those tactics were when the


Internet was for buying something on it. You don't need to do that. I


totally dispute about what was said about it being discredited, people


did take their own lives, but there was no evidence of widespread fraud


or we attempted tom prosecute those on adult pornography sites, we


differentiated. Of course people can access on-line child abuse on the


open web, what is different is the development of the dark web and the


cloud and so forth, which makes this stuff much harder to access? I was


in CEOP until 2011, in 2009 we identified that the overwhelming


images were being swapped in nests on the Internet, peer-to-peer


website where is I would show you mine and you would show me yours,


that was not gotten through Google. Now you make a definite effort to


get in there and stay in there? It is a community of paedophiles that


huddle together and share images. The NCA deputy said we can't arrest


our way out of this. So do you think there is a quantifiable difference


in looking at this stuff and actually those who will actually go


out and actively commit child abuse, is it different? The overlap between


accessing on-line abuse images and committing a contact offence is very


controversial and some figures were just presented. An average that is


often used in the literature is about 12% overlap. I think the point


to make about people who access images on the Internet is they are


not a homogenius group, they span an entire spectrum. Certainly at the


extreme end they involve people who are extremely deviant, extremely


predatory and go to a lot of effort to access these images. It extends


into the normal curve, if you like. When you say the normal curve, you


actually think the normal curve is people viewing this stuff on-line,


but not actively going out and committing acts of child abuse? I


think probably we don't know for sure, but I think common sense would


suggest that the majority of people who access images on the net aren't


involved in contact offending. I would dispute that, my experience


and the work that I'm familiar with carried out by the head of


behavioural analysis unit in the United States would indicate when


they use the lie detector to test that the vast majority of those


arrested for viewing offences have been involved in contact doing


offences, there is a recent study that backs up his 2008 study came


out in February this year which shows across five different


agencies, so not linked to one study, that between 57-61% were


doing it, not only hands-on offences but they were able to identify 97


victims by name and location. That would suggest that actually the


majority of people accessing child porn on-line are dangerous? I think


there is lots of problems with that figure, in 1980 before the Internet


the largest-selling child pornography magazine in the US had


about 800 subscribers, 20 years later we had 370,000 subscribers on


one site. What has happened and now we estimate the number of people


accessing images on the net in the millions. But you are not seriously


suggesting that there is some kind of normative behaviour in accessing


child porn, surely nobody would think that to be the case? There has


been a massive increase in on-line offending, at the same time when the


best evidence we have shows there has been a drop in contact


offending, what's happened in the 20 or 30 years since 1980 we haven't


suddenly created a million new paedophile, what we have provided is


platform that provides unparalleled access to abuse images. It seems


certain people want to access those, what you seem to be suggesting is


that is it is a completely passive thing, you access this stuff and


then nothing happens, is that your thoughts? No the people who access


this stuff access it to masturbate, it is about sexual deafence, people


who have a precondition, a deviant sexual interest in children, that is


why they go there. If we are going to look at statistics from the past,


consider Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Max Clifford, because we didn't


know doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We shouldn't use language leading us


into anti-victim prejudice, a lot of people want to dismiss victims. That


is not my experience. If we want to make impact, you seem to suggest


there is a burgeoning culture of people looking at on-line child


abuse, the police say they can't arrest their way out of it, what is


to do? These arrests are absolutely defendable and should have taken


place and they do serve a purpose, and the purpose they serve is


actually mentioned by some of your commentators they demonstrate that


the Internet is not as anonymous as offenders think it is. It is the


anonymity of the internet, the ease of access of the images that is


driving the behaviour. But, also, ease of access of the image the fact


is somebody looking at child porn is actively supporting a culture where


children on-line are being abused? No question. So who cracks down


where then? I think there is not one answer to that, but we certainly


have to look at prevention. We can't answer to that, but we certainly


arrest our way out of it but arrests can provide a message to offend that


they are not anonymous. The problem has occurred because of the ease of


accessing images and the solution is to make it more difficult to access


images. I disagree, blocking, we're past a sell by date of blocking, you


don't get the images on the open internet but on the Dark Net. You


can't arrest everybody? You can't arrest everyone, but we need to


arrest someone, the fact of the matter we know 50,000 plus people in


the UK have been downloading these images, if we were to arrest 660


people a day for the next 75 days we could catch up. If the 660 people


had been terrorists it wouldn't take six months to deliver this. We need


to declare a war on paedophilia and use all of the resources open,


greater investment in acedemia, we need more doors knocked and they


need to go speedily from arrest to court to decide innocent or guilty


and set an active deterrent, the way we did with drink-driving, they


didn't stop because of the adverts they stopped because they realised


the chances of getting caught increased radically and there was a


stigma attached to it. A war on feed fila? -- paedophilia? Not in the way


Jim talks about it, there are things to do to make it more difficult to


access images. Nothing will be perfect, you have to make it more


difficult, that doesn't mean to say make it impossible. One of the


problems with the overlap figure, all of that research is carried out


on convicted and in most cases imprisoned offenders. As we learned


with this case, police will target the most serious offenders and they


should be targeting the most serious offenders but it gives you a


distorted picture when you take this very extreme group that you have


targeted and arrested and then ask them about their behaviour. There


are many people on the Internet who fly under the radar and believe me


are not involved in contact offending. I couldn't disagree more,


the question for members of the public watching this is if you


seriously believe that people go on-line and look at these images


that aren't driven sexually the question for you is would you allow


them to babysit for your children, the answer will be no, and nobody


will be suggesting that we do. The Government need to invest greater


resources so we have more of these individuals arrested and put behind


bars, that is deterrent. Ahead of Friday's House of Lords


debate on assisted dying, we have heard the conflicting voices of


senior church leaders, including the former Archbishop of Canterbury,


Lord Carey, who is in favour, and Justin Welsby who is against. What


about the medical profession, where do they stand on the bill if passed


in its present form could see them prescribing a lethal dose of drugs


to terminally ill patients with less than six months to live. There is a


key vote on Friday and people will be piling into the Lords tonight. A


campaigner on the issue is determined she should be able to die


how she choses. Margaret John was a teacher for 45


years, five years ago she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and


the illness is terminal. I asked when she first came to support


assisted dying? When I was 12! ? In the early 50s my grandfather had a


stroke, but to see a very upright rigid authoritarian ship worker tied


in a wooden chair unable to speak or move sitting in his own excrement


for four years had a very profound effect on me. And ever since I have


believed that one should have a choice at the end of life. It is not


about killing people, and I keep saying this, it is about living. And


living is not just existing, it is having a full life and doing


everything you could. Do you think then that you would preparing to


take this decision, if indeed you take it, if you had not cancer? What


is important to me is having the information, a full range of


options, full information on everything, so that I can make a


rational decision. I actually don't have a lot of pain. The fact that I


have got cancer is not really an issue. I intend to live and I mean


live to the very end. Now there is a difference between living and


existing. If my life is reduced to four walls and daytime television


I'm sorry I don't want that. Do you accept though that some days you are


feeling better than others? Oh yeah, I doubt whether I would actually use


anything. It is information, it is knowing what would work. Somebody


did say to me you can get stuff on the Internet. Yes you can, but you


don't know what it is, you don't know if it is going to work, if it


doesn't it is not John Lewis, they don't give you money back. Do you


have a faith? No I'm an atheist, if I'm wrong I will apologise. I was a


practising member of the Church of England until my late 30s and I read


extensively, I have read up on Buddhism, I took instruction in the


Catholic faith and couldn't make the act of faith. I wish I did believe.


Would it make any difference to your decision do you think? No, because


I'm talking about living, I keep forgetting to look up who wrote t it


is called the Docolog and it is a poem and based on the Ten


Commandments, I love the one about killing, "thoushalt not kill but


need not strive to stay alive". We have our guests in the studio. If


this goes through it is doctors that really have to implement this, it is


a massive moral decision apart from anything else. Jackie you were


engaged as a doctor in delivering what is life-savi treatment and yet


you support this, why? Because some people cannot be helped in the


terminal stages of disease and suffer very badly. And want the


choice to die. We know that because people go to Switzerland to Dignitas


and only the people who can afford to obviously. I have seen members of


my own family, including my brother whose case was used by Dignity in


Dying when they were talking to the House of Lords about this, who were


afraid of death, afraid of, a fear of death can be allayed by the


option of assisted dying if people know it is there. The vast majority


of them won't use it. But we cannot stop all suffering. We can't stop


all physical suffering and we can't certainly stop all mental suffering


that people go through facing a bad death. You heard Margaret in the


film completely clear headed, saying that she wants the information, she


may not use it, but she feels it is her human right to make that


decision about whether to live or die? I think the difficulty we have


is that if you do implement the bill that is proposed on Friday doctors


are going to have to make the death decision. You are going Toffler


essentially death squads which is really out of the context of


delivering good health. Is death squads not an emotive way of putting


it? I think the way the bill is going to have two doctors'


signatures, you can't predict outcome, I made disastrous mistakes


with patients because you can't predict the outcomes of cancer and


motor neurone disease. That is a heart-breaking and debilitating


disease, on the question of cancer that is a right, when would a doctor


be able to pinpoint the moment that somebody would succumb to cancer in


the end. But you can make an informed decision of the progress of


a disease can't you? You can, and cancer is easier than something like


motor neurone disease because it is a consistent line. You look at an


X-ray, if the tumour is getting bigger you can predict where it is


going. But we can be years out, you get remarkable things. I have only


twice as 35 years as a consultant been asked by a patient to end their


life, I have seen a lot of people in that time. Only two, and I remember


them as though it was yesterday. In one case I actually helped them end


their life. In what way? By giving high doses of open patients to kill


their pain. Is this the -- Opiates. To kill their pain. You are giving


these and it may cause their death and you knew that? Yes. Did you


actively know you were doing it? You don't know and different patients


will tolerate different doses of drugs. The most important thing is


making a clinical judgment with that patient. Having a bureaucratic


system with politicians involved who have no understanding of medicine is


not the way forward. It would be case of death squads? That is a


clearly emotive way. It isn't going to be doctors who decide this, it


will be patients. Two doctors have to make the decision whether or not


to prescribe the lethal medicine that would be needed. So in a sense


doctors do have to pacemaker the decision don't they? They will be --


they do have to make the decision don't they? They have to decide


whether the patient is in the six-month delivery. It is the


patient who requests this and takes the dose. This isn't euthanasia


where the doctor administers it, it is the patient who asks for it.


There are many safeguards in the bill. What the doctor may not


necessarily know is another von in the the -- vulnerability in the


patient, perhaps she has pressing financial problems or pressing


health problems that require money to deal with them, there would be


the invisible pressure on the patient to as it were to do the


right thing for the family, as they would see it? I think what is really


important to look at. This isn't a leap into the dark, this has been


happening in other places, in Oregon it has been happening for up to 17


years. The Hospice Association originally opposed the Dignity and


Dying Bill in the area, because these fears are understandable. They


withdrew their opposition because they said there was no evidence of


the two things they were afraid of which was one that offering assisted


dying would interfere with end of life care, and the other one was


there was no evidence that vulnerable people were being


affected by this. So if those people are saying we're happy with this,


what's the problem. The problem is that palliative medicine has come


from nothing when I started as a consultant to be fantastic,


palliative care, experts, nurses, doctors, that specialise. People


don't need to die in unpleasant painful circumstances.


When you say they don't need to die in unpleasant and painful


circumstance, a lot of people would prefer to die when they know they


would feel better, you seem to suggest that doctors already do this


in an unofficial way? They do it and they have been doing it because of


the nature of pain control. It is risky because you escalate the dose


and you get respiratory regression, it is inevitable. By formalising it


don't you give people control of their own destiny? In a modern


hospice, hospices at home which is the current way forward, people are


given a morphine pump which they can press a button to get more to kill


the pain. The most important thing in palliative care is to keep the


patient pain free and free from other symptoms which can be


distressing. But there will be pressure on people. I have just


heard that Norman Lambert, the Lambert -- Norman Lambert has come


out in favour of assisted dying on Friday, he has changed his mind.


Have you been surprised by some of the people that actually have given


you support? I think people are really looking at what is on offer


as opposed to a lot of argument that is are based on what is not on


offer. What is on offer under Lord Faulkner is a very prescriptive,


facing terminal illness, two doctors involved, the patient has to want


this, there is a cooling off period, it is not about disabled people or


vulnerable people, it is very specific and worked for 17 years in


Oregan. Right now I would like to bring in Norman Lambert, we can talk


to him right now, good evening. This is very good of you to come in at


such short notice. Tell me, you have made a decision and what has made,


why have you changed your mind? I'm making this decision as a person not


as a minister. It is important to make that distinction clear. It is


talking to lots of people who have gone through the experience of a


loved-one dying, often going through months of pain and distress, and


ultimately you know you have to ask the question, who should it be that


decides, should it be me or anyone else in that situation, or should it


be the state? Ultimately I think it is a very personal decision and I


have gone through a process of re-thinking my position on this, and


I think the current position where we have got this confused situation


that families do not know what the law actually will do to them, and


you have the Crown Prosecution Service reviewing I think something


like 60 cases since the most recent guidance. What an invidious position


to put families in, not knowing whether you are going to be


prosecuted for helping your loved one to end their life. So I'm very


clear in the position that I take on this. This is interesting because


you say that you are doing this in a personal capacity, but because you


are the minister for the care of the elderly, of course your


intervention, your decision carries and will be seen to be carrying


great deal of weight? I understand that but it has been made clear that


this is a personal vote issue, I feel actually having gone through


the process of thinking, re-thinking my position, I now feel very clear


in my own mind about where I stand myself on this. I think there are


clear safeguards and they are critical. In a sense it was the fear


of exploitation which always caused me concern in the past. But


ultimately should we stand in the way of someone wanting to make their


own decision about their life or should we set the safeguards in


place to ensure that there is every chance of avoiding that


exploitation, I'm very clear in my mind that the individual should be


the person who decides, not the state. Now Norman Lamb while we have


you here we should talk about a story on the front page of the


Mirror tomorrow, that is that Nick Clegg has come out against the


bedroom tax, can you give a little more on this? It is in response to a


report that has emerged which shows that a very tiny percentage of the


people who have been subject to the ending of the spare room subsidy


have actually moved home, in my own constituency I have come across many


cases where people may be willing to move, may be willing to downsize but


the state of the housing market and the shortage of social housing just


makes it impossible for that person to move. So they are stuck in the


situation, it may well be that they also have a disability and are


unable to move because they need a spare bedroom for a carer, or they


may have adapted their home, and I think therefore we have to adjust


the position in the light of experience to make sure that it is


absolutely fair. At a critical moment in the lead up to the


election of course you are in a coalition and you have absolutely no


chance have you of persuading your coalition partners also to agree


with what Nick Clegg apparently said which is that it has been a


catastrophe that punishes the POOFRMENT you are having your cake


and eat -- poor, you are having your cake and eating it, you are


disagreeing with a fundamental tenet of welfare we -- reform. The


situation as far as new tenants are concerned there is no dispute in the


private sector, individuals who claim housing benefit in the private


sector only get housing benefit for the room that is they need. They


don't get a spare room subsidy, and it is perfectly reasonable that the


same rule applies in both the private and the public sector. The


difficulty we have here is people who are in social housing who have a


spare room but are simply not able to move because of their


circumstances. Does this mean the Liberal Democrats are going to be


speaking out against the bedroom tax at every turn? It is a response to


the evidence that we have seen and I think it is absolutely reasonable


for the party to make its position clear. Thank you very much for


joining us tonight. Thank you both for joining us.


It may be just time to dust off the old gag about modern artists


laughing all the way to the bank. . Because Gilbert George have put


their new exhibition together with the help of nitrous oxide, laughing


gas to you and me. It is a legal high popular with clubbers and known


as "hippy crack". The sculptures didn't inhale themselves, but they


collected the bomb-shaped empties of the gas they found near their home


in south London. The cylinders loom large in their new show in


Bermondsey. We joined them for some street combing in Brick Lane.


We start and see these little cannisters on Brick Lane. Did you


know what they were? Not at first. Then we started to see the balloons.


For Monet it was water lilies, for Van Gogh sunflowers. Now Gilbert


George have an old exhibition out of some old cannisters. There is one of


the grey ones. Yes, there are different types. These things once


contained "hippy crack" and empties of hippy crack are a recurring motif


in their newest works. We are on an urban Safari, and apologies to


Springwatch et cetera, we present "Crackwatch"! Composing the shot,


that is what I like. The artists collected and photographed hundreds


of gas containers. It is not every day we have our shots composed by


leading artists! Some of them reminded Gilbert George of


weapons. They do look like cartridges? That is why it was


exciting, because in the evening when we are exhausting we go up and


look at Al-Jazeera, they are all bombs, don't you think, it is all


Iraq and Iran and Africa, all bombs, that is it. Never more in our


lifetime than now, it is extraordinary. In our own way our


whole life is bomb, I was bombed by Germany as a baby, bombed by the IRA


to the east and west, we had the white supremacist bomber in Brick


Lane, then the tubes and buses bombed. The scapegoating pictures as


Gilbert George have called them are antic, unsettling, sometimes


comic and full of those enlarged hippy crack cannisters. They convey


an atmosphere of fear say the artists. We like this what you call


they create this threatening atmosphere, this fear in the


picture. The pictures do? Because of that. This kind of fear that it is


new in some ways in the world. Because if you go to Heathrow it is


fear, if you go on the bus it is fear. It is all fear in some way.


Untold but it is there. fear. It is all fear in some way.


that is a new thing a sense of fear? Yes, I think it is. The pair have


been living here since the 1960s, now the only way you could afford to


live here is if you are an incredibly successful artist. With


so many different cultures and extremes of wealth on their


doorstep, they don't want for creative stimulus. The centre of the


universe, we always say if a spaceship was coming in to land from


another planet, they only have ten minutes to film a typical planet


earth place here or Liverpool Street or Bethnal Green. You would be good


guides for the Martians? Yeah, take them down all the back alleys. And


lots of naughty things! (Phone ringing) Good morning you have


telephoned Gilbert George, time to leave a brief message after the


tone, thank you, goodbye and good rid dance. Gilbert George say


their new show picks up on he will tensions and violence in the air.


The west is full of bombs as well. We are full of bombs all well. The


exhibition takes its title from a flyer about Islamophobia and


scapegoating which Gilbert George picked up as part of their voracious


collecting. Are you in any sense warning with these things. Is that


part of your work? We are showing it in some way, the new East London. I


don't want to have a big view about what is going to happen but we are


showing it. We don't want to be part of telling, but showing. Do you feel


you are being particularly risky with this work, do you have any


reservations about how it might be received? No I think some of the


most honest actual pictures being created today it is. After the death


of Mrs Thatcher, Gilbert George, perhaps alone among contemporary


artists staked out a bit of pavement near St Paul's. Tory supporters and


Monday monarchists wanted to pay their respects. We think the funeral


of Mrs Thatcher was a wonderful occasion. A lot of people came out


of the offices down towards the street and they wanted our


autograph, so there was life in the middle of death. ??FORCEDWHIT Do you


ever disagree, does one say I think we should do this and I have hit


something here and the other one says no, that would look terrible?


We call that the great hetrosexual question. Bill ?FORCEDWHITE Gilbert


George, that is all we have time for tonight, good night.


Download Subtitles