:00:07. > :00:17.We are coming to the end of 2012, and sadly this is the last edition
:00:17. > :00:19.
:00:19. > :00:23.of a very eventful year. Welcome to Question Time.
:00:23. > :00:28.Good evening and a particularly big welcome to our audience in Bristol,
:00:28. > :00:31.and to our panel, the Secretary of State for International Development,
:00:31. > :00:38.Justine Greening, the shadow Home Office Minister for Labour, Stella
:00:38. > :00:43.Creasy, the founder of Cobra beer and a cross-bencher in the House of
:00:43. > :00:48.Lords, Lord Bilimoria, the author and professor of contemporary
:00:48. > :00:58.thought at Brunel University, Will Self, and the columnist for the
:00:58. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:04.Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens. APPLAUSE
:01:04. > :01:09.Your morning paper may have said, and if you read the Times, it would
:01:09. > :01:12.indeed have said, that James Harding, the editor would have been
:01:12. > :01:16.on the panel tonight, but sadly tonight he announced he was
:01:16. > :01:22.resigning from the editorship and therefore he couldn't come on the
:01:22. > :01:27.panel. We hope to have him back in some other equally distinguished
:01:27. > :01:33.guise one day. I do have to remind viewers that our panel do not know
:01:33. > :01:38.the questions that are going to be put to them, do you? No. Thank you.
:01:38. > :01:41.The first question is from Warren Birch please. Is the large number
:01:41. > :01:45.of Tory MPs opposing gay marriage symptomatic of a party out of touch
:01:45. > :01:50.with modern society? The large number of Tory MPs
:01:50. > :01:57.opposing gay marriage, proposed and of course endorsed by the Prime
:01:57. > :02:03.Minister. Will Self? particularly out of touch, the
:02:03. > :02:07.figures are 55-45 on the marriage issue, 55 in favour. By and large
:02:07. > :02:11.people are in favour of civil partnerships but there seems to be
:02:11. > :02:16.this view abroad that marriage is only made of a man and a woman,
:02:16. > :02:21.whatever they may be, and thaw can't get married if you are of the
:02:21. > :02:26.same sex. A lot of people seem to go back to, particularly I think
:02:26. > :02:31.the gospel according to Mark and one of the other gospels in order
:02:31. > :02:37.to establish this fact that it has to be a man and a woman. Some of
:02:37. > :02:40.these people are Tory MPs, they seem to want to literally interpret
:02:40. > :02:45.this particular bit of scripture, but there are other bits that they
:02:45. > :02:50.are quite happy to disregard, like the creation of the Earth in seven
:02:50. > :02:55.days. And resting on the seventh day. That would be good. They are
:02:55. > :03:00.per petly working, so I rather mistrust this surge in biblical
:03:00. > :03:03.literalism which seems to grip the anti-gay marriage lobby. If you are
:03:03. > :03:13.asking my personal opinion, I think just about anybody should be
:03:13. > :03:15.
:03:15. > :03:21.allowed to get married to anybody else, but there you go. APPLAUSE
:03:21. > :03:27.Justine Greening? I very much agree with Will. It is something that I
:03:27. > :03:31.have certainly thought about. the questioner or with Will? With
:03:31. > :03:35.Will's answer. There's a breadth of opinion in the Conservative and in
:03:35. > :03:38.Parliament, there'll be a free vote on it. Something that I have had to
:03:39. > :03:42.consider. From my perspective, I think as Will does, if people want
:03:43. > :03:46.to get married they should be allowed to get on and do that. As
:03:46. > :03:50.long as we've got the right protections in place for churchs
:03:50. > :03:55.that don't want to allow gay marriage, that's fine. That then
:03:55. > :04:01.respects every's right to get on with their life the way that they
:04:01. > :04:05.want to. Why should gay couples will entitled to either a civil
:04:05. > :04:10.partnership or marriage, whereas heterosexual couples are only
:04:10. > :04:15.entitled to get married, not to have a civil partnership? I don't
:04:15. > :04:18.think there's a lot of demand. I have never had a constituent who is
:04:18. > :04:22.heterosexual ask me why they can't have a civil partnership with their
:04:22. > :04:24.partner. I don't think there is a lot of demand for civil
:04:24. > :04:28.partnerships for heterosexual couples. I think the question is
:04:28. > :04:33.whether we are willing to give gay people equal rights in terms of
:04:33. > :04:36.being able to get married. Having spent a lot of time thinking about
:04:36. > :04:40.it, I think it's the right thing to do. I don't think we should stand
:04:40. > :04:44.in the way of two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to
:04:44. > :04:48.one another. As long as we are clear that we don't force churches
:04:48. > :04:53.and people of faith who don't feel comfortable with that to have their
:04:53. > :04:57.own churches having to do marriages, I think you get everybody able to
:04:57. > :05:03.have their own rights to live their life how they want. The question
:05:03. > :05:06.was about the 100 or so Tory MPs who oppose it and whether this is
:05:06. > :05:11.symptomatic of a party out of touch. The Prime Minister is going for it
:05:11. > :05:16.but a large number of his backbenchers are against. I very
:05:16. > :05:22.much respect their opinion but I disagree with it. Aren't they just
:05:22. > :05:27.homophobic these MPs? That's what it looks like to me, they don't
:05:27. > :05:33.like day people. The simplestics plannation is they don't like gay
:05:34. > :05:39.people. Get over it, as Matt Lucas might say. The woman up there on
:05:39. > :05:43.the back. I think it is a travesty that they've tried to enact this
:05:43. > :05:46.liberalising, accepting policy on the surface but then announced that
:05:46. > :05:51.within the Church of England and the Church of Wales it is illegal
:05:51. > :05:56.to enforce these churchs to enact a ceremony. Yes, that's just them
:05:56. > :06:01.creating a loophole to continue pandering to the homophobic
:06:01. > :06:05.prejudiced sections of people that are within that party, and that
:06:05. > :06:09.support that party. That's a traevesty in our day and age, in a
:06:09. > :06:14.liberal, progressive society. going to be illegal for the Church
:06:14. > :06:17.of England to perform one. Peter Hitchens? If you want to know where
:06:17. > :06:21.the Conservative Party is out of touch with the people who once were
:06:21. > :06:25.Conservatives and would like to vote for it, and the reason the
:06:25. > :06:28.Conservative Party is dying on its feet and has no members, it is not
:06:28. > :06:31.to do with this. It is because the Conservative Party is in favour of
:06:31. > :06:34.the European Union. It is against punishing criminals. Notice favour
:06:34. > :06:37.of the failed comprehensive experiment in education. The
:06:37. > :06:42.Conservative Party is in favour of mass immigration. That's why the
:06:42. > :06:46.Conservative Party is out of touch. The issue of same sex marriage is
:06:47. > :06:50.so immensely trivial and unimportant, it is only raised as a
:06:50. > :06:56.wind-up to draw poor silly old Conservatives out of their caves so
:06:56. > :07:01.that they can be made to look like bigots and fools and howled at and
:07:01. > :07:05.jeered at as homophobes. Why would the Prime Minister want to do that?
:07:05. > :07:09.Because he hates his party. He hates most of the members of it.
:07:09. > :07:14.And he wants to drag them down to defeat, is that what you are
:07:14. > :07:18.saying? He lovers to appeal to the Guardian newspaper and the BBC by
:07:18. > :07:22.bark his own party and having rows with this. I don't imagine he cares
:07:22. > :07:27.in the slightest about the issue. Maybe he does, but he doesn't care
:07:27. > :07:32.or believe in anything else, so it would be a change if he did. Mr
:07:32. > :07:39.Slippery behaves like this. He just tries to wind up what's left of his
:07:39. > :07:45.own party, because he thinks that's his only future, to make the
:07:45. > :07:51.liberal bigots, who genuinely hate and loathe people with Conservative
:07:51. > :07:55.moral opinions and have no time of them and misrepresent them and lie
:07:55. > :08:01.about them, to make them think he is a good thing. Justine Greening
:08:01. > :08:05.is seething with rage and wants to come to the defence of her leader.
:08:05. > :08:08.I think what David Cameron is trying to do represent a broad
:08:08. > :08:11.strand of what the Conservative Party is about today, and just to
:08:11. > :08:16.come back to your point about the Church of England and Wales, the
:08:16. > :08:20.reason that there's got to be a law in place is because at the moment
:08:20. > :08:23.the Church of England and Wales doesn't want to allow same sex
:08:23. > :08:26.marriages. Because of the way in which they are set up within our
:08:26. > :08:31.country, we therefore have to put that into law. But if they did want
:08:31. > :08:35.to allow it, we would of course be quite happy to change the law for
:08:35. > :08:38.them to do that. What we are trying to do is make sure that every
:08:38. > :08:44.religious organisation has the ability to make its own choice
:08:44. > :08:48.about whether it wants to allow same sex marriages or not. They are
:08:48. > :08:57.the established Church. Their Bishops sit in Parliament. And they
:08:57. > :09:01.should have the choice as well. Stella Creasy? It is incredibly
:09:01. > :09:05.ironic that all these people who claim that they are Liberals, that
:09:05. > :09:07.they care about conservatism, when it comes to something like this,
:09:07. > :09:11.one of the most traditional conservative things in our society,
:09:11. > :09:16.to make a commitment to somebody for life, they don't want it. It
:09:16. > :09:20.seems like they want to be a small state liberal in the Treasury but a
:09:20. > :09:25.big state liberal in the bedroom, telling people what kind of
:09:25. > :09:28.relationship they want to have. I think that everyone in my community
:09:28. > :09:31.who wants to make a commitment to each other, a really serious,
:09:31. > :09:35.loving commitment, should be able to do so. I don't think it should
:09:35. > :09:39.be up to the state to decide how they do that. I think we should let
:09:39. > :09:42.religious organisations do it. It is disappointing, and I speak as a
:09:43. > :09:46.member of the Church of England, to see the legislation cast in this
:09:46. > :09:51.way. There is a precedent about how the Church dealt with priests who
:09:51. > :09:55.did not want to remarry people who were divorced, making sure they
:09:55. > :09:58.were not required to do so rather than explicitly banning it. I
:09:59. > :10:02.respect the Church of England is in this place at the moment but I hope
:10:02. > :10:05.that at some point we come to a different place. I think it what be
:10:05. > :10:09.sad if we had to wait for legislation to make that happen. I
:10:09. > :10:13.think the state should back out of this and let people who want to get
:10:13. > :10:16.married get married and show their love for each other equally.
:10:16. > :10:23.Without it being about gender, but making it about love and commitment.
:10:23. > :10:29.APPLAUSE I was going to say, isn't the issue
:10:29. > :10:37.less about 100 or so Tory MPs and more about a Church that won't let
:10:37. > :10:46.gay people get married and won't let women be Bishops? APPLAUSE
:10:46. > :10:49.TALK AT ONCE Hang on, Peter. hanging on. Hang on for a bit
:10:49. > :10:53.longer. Lord Bilimoria. We've had civil partnerships for some time
:10:53. > :10:58.and that's been working well. They haven't been allowed to call it
:10:58. > :11:03.married. But to me that is semantics. They are married. If we
:11:03. > :11:06.want same sex marriages in rimmous establishments, if religious
:11:06. > :11:10.institutions and establishments want to do, that we should allow
:11:10. > :11:16.them to do that. What we should never do is force anyone to do that
:11:16. > :11:20.if they don't want to. The people objecting to this, not because they
:11:20. > :11:26.are homophobic. Quite often it is because of their own religious
:11:26. > :11:32.beliefs. What I love about this country is we are an open country.
:11:32. > :11:38.We celebrate the multicultural society. Is your church, the Zorro
:11:38. > :11:43.ast reen church in favour? religion doesn't want to allow it,
:11:43. > :11:51.we should not force it. That's is sort of open country that we are.
:11:51. > :11:54.APPLAUSE And what's the position of the Zorro Astrian church? On the
:11:54. > :12:02.whole it's a liberal church. I don't know where they would stand
:12:02. > :12:06.on this, but I would never force them to do anything like this.
:12:06. > :12:10.don't trust Ms Greening or Mr Cameron when they give assurances
:12:10. > :12:18.that those churches that don't wish to be involved in this won't have
:12:18. > :12:22.to be. That's either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. In what
:12:22. > :12:29.way? I suspect there is no way that the European Court of Human Rights
:12:29. > :12:33.will stand for a situation if marriage is redefined whereby a
:12:33. > :12:38.religious institution is prepared to offer marriage to one eligible
:12:38. > :12:40.section of society - straight couples - but not another. I think
:12:40. > :12:46.that the European Court of Human Rights will have absolutely no
:12:46. > :12:52.truck with that. And your view on the issue of gay marriage? In
:12:52. > :12:59.favour or against? I believe with the greatest of respect to
:12:59. > :13:03.homosexual couples that same sex marriage is not possible. You mean
:13:03. > :13:07.you don't think it's real? I don't think it can exist by its very
:13:07. > :13:12.nature. For example, I don't believe that... It was interesting
:13:12. > :13:17.what you said, Will, in the start of your answer, that you would be
:13:17. > :13:21.happy for virtually anyone to marry virtually anyone else. Just in the
:13:21. > :13:27.same way - the natural extrapolation of that is we could
:13:27. > :13:31.arrive at the situation where very close relatives could marry each
:13:31. > :13:34.other No, it is not. It is a misnomer to suggest there is an
:13:34. > :13:39.equivalence. We are talking about two people making a loving
:13:39. > :13:44.commitment to each other. In that is what marriage should be about.
:13:44. > :13:50.It is that love and commitment, not about the gender of the person
:13:50. > :13:55.involved. Who is the head of the Church - God or the Government? On
:13:55. > :14:03.the one hand you are saying... Government. There you go. The
:14:03. > :14:07.Church I go to... It is an established church. In the biblical
:14:07. > :14:10.church is God is the head, not the Government. It stops following its
:14:10. > :14:16.constitution, which is the word of God, which is the Bible, and starts
:14:16. > :14:22.following the Government. No. gentlemen is correct. In a decade
:14:22. > :14:27.or so from now, when the touches of changed and it stops being about
:14:27. > :14:31.same sex couples and maybe close relative, we'll be having the same
:14:31. > :14:34.debate. You cannot stretch the word of God to accommodate your own
:14:34. > :14:38.ideas. You either are for or against. You've said love and
:14:38. > :14:43.commitment towards the couple. What about love and commitment towards
:14:43. > :14:48.your God? If I say I love God and I do not believe that marriage
:14:48. > :14:53.between a same sex couple is correct, I'm called homophobic. You
:14:53. > :14:58.don't tell me that I don't love or committed to God. You call me a
:14:58. > :15:06.homophobic. What does that make you? You celebrate your beliefs but
:15:06. > :15:09.I think the response and the questions we have had back from the
:15:09. > :15:13.audience shows why it's so important to make sure you have got
:15:13. > :15:17.all the right protection in place to make sure that churches that
:15:17. > :15:21.don't want to do some sex marriage don't have to. I completely respect
:15:21. > :15:25.your views and the views of the gentleman behind as well. It's one
:15:25. > :15:28.of the reasons why making sure we have got the safeguards in the Bill
:15:28. > :15:31.in Parliament is so important so your church is never in the
:15:31. > :15:37.position where you're being forced position where you're being forced
:15:37. > :15:43.into doing same-sex marriage in a way you don't want to. It's illegal
:15:43. > :15:49.isn't it for a priest to marry one, what if he wants to marry them?
:15:49. > :15:52.That's a debate for the Church of England to have. We could make it
:15:52. > :15:56.permissive, rather than exclusive legislation, allow to church to
:15:56. > :16:01.decide itself. We could get the state out of these decisions,
:16:01. > :16:07.rather than exclude it. Then why do we have a state church? You are an
:16:07. > :16:10.Anglican, it's an established church. Let me see if I can answer
:16:10. > :16:14.Stella's point. The reason we need to structure the law the way that
:16:14. > :16:18.we have is in response to making sure the Church of England and
:16:18. > :16:22.vicars and priests are protected from having legal cases brought
:16:22. > :16:27.against them. It's a debate for the Church of England to have. If they
:16:27. > :16:31.want to allow same-sex marriages, that's a debate for them to have.
:16:31. > :16:37.This is a different way in which you could do this which would mean
:16:37. > :16:42.you wouldn't exclude it but you wouldn't require it. You could give
:16:42. > :16:48.them the protection where people see this debate as excluding them.
:16:48. > :16:51.You could give the church the decision to do this. We've looked
:16:51. > :16:55.at that and that didn't provide good enough safeguards for some of
:16:55. > :16:59.the concerns. So to protect people in the Church of England who don't
:16:59. > :17:02.want to do gay marriages, you have to make it illegal for the Church
:17:02. > :17:06.of England to have gay marriages, thus preventing people in the
:17:06. > :17:11.Church of England who do want to celebrate gay marriages from
:17:11. > :17:14.celebrating? Essentially, it's making sure that the decision
:17:14. > :17:20.around whether we have same-sex marriages in the Church of England
:17:20. > :17:26.and Wales is a matter for that church. We have to come back to
:17:26. > :17:31.Parliament. Do you know how many people in this country as a
:17:31. > :17:35.proportion to the population is in same sex marriages, one fifth of
:17:35. > :17:39.one%. It affects a small number of people. We have just learned from
:17:39. > :17:42.the census that a marriage as an institution in general in this
:17:42. > :17:47.country is rapidly diminishing and more and more people are not
:17:47. > :17:51.married for many, many reasons, mainly the result of Government
:17:52. > :17:56.actions which have weakened it. What is going on here is not a
:17:56. > :18:00.liberation of homosexuals but an attempt to impose on the whole
:18:00. > :18:04.society a new bigotry under which those who happen to hold the
:18:04. > :18:08.opinion that homosexual marriage should not take place will not just
:18:08. > :18:14.be excluded from the centre of things, they will increasingly be
:18:14. > :18:23.handed and treated as pa hiyas just in fact as homosexuals were treated
:18:23. > :18:33.before the 1967 law was rightly repealed -- pariahs. There is an
:18:33. > :18:33.
:18:33. > :18:38.immense, furious liberal bigotry said by Will Self. This extremely
:18:38. > :18:41.unpleasant lie is repeatedly told by those who do not wish to debate
:18:41. > :18:46.the subject and who'd hound anybody who stood in their way out of it
:18:46. > :18:53.with abecause and lies. This is the problem which this country faces.
:18:53. > :19:02.If you have a problem with this, don't propose to a gay man. We will
:19:02. > :19:07.not tolerate and increasingly wishes to... Do you think we are
:19:07. > :19:13.going to be arresting you in toilets and subjecting you to
:19:13. > :19:17.aversion electric shock aversion. Do you know what, Will, I think the
:19:17. > :19:21.time is coming when people who have Conservative Christian opinions
:19:21. > :19:26.will actually face persecution of one kind or another. It hasn't come
:19:26. > :19:30.yet, but the problem is that we have become some willing and
:19:30. > :19:32.conventional wisdom's so willing to accept the liberal majority and the
:19:32. > :19:36.equality and diversity which is now compulsory in all public services
:19:36. > :19:39.in this country which you have to abide by to work in the Public
:19:39. > :19:49.Services. The freedom of speak and think otherwise is increasing.
:19:49. > :19:52.
:19:52. > :19:59.Let's move on. Thank you, Pete esh. You can join in the debate through
:19:59. > :20:04.Twitter: We have a Twitterist tonight called full fact, an
:20:04. > :20:11.organisation which fact checks claims made by politicians and
:20:11. > :20:16.media, so the panel should watch out. We should always have one. You
:20:16. > :20:22.can also find them on the extra guest account or you can text
:20:22. > :20:26.comments to us. A question from Andrew Jardine,
:20:26. > :20:34.please. With almost three million more foreign residents since 2001,
:20:34. > :20:41.is Britain no longer British? Three million more residents and
:20:41. > :20:51.13% of people in Britain now born outside the UK. Is Britain no
:20:51. > :20:52.
:20:52. > :20:55.longer British? Lord Bilimoria? came to this country as a 19-year-
:20:55. > :21:00.old to study. This is a most amazing country which has given me
:21:00. > :21:04.the opportunity to build a life over here, to study. I've seen a
:21:04. > :21:07.transformation of this country over the last three decades, it's a
:21:07. > :21:13.country with a glass ceiling where if you were a foreigner you were
:21:13. > :21:16.told you would not be able to get to the top to a country now where I
:21:16. > :21:21.believe there is meritocracy and opportunity regardless of race or
:21:21. > :21:25.background. I've seen it unfold and it's the most amazing country. Good
:21:25. > :21:29.immigration has been fantastic for this country and a lot of the
:21:30. > :21:36.immigrants have come here and done it with nothing. We are celebrating
:21:36. > :21:42.the 40th anniversary of the Ugandan nations, we were thrown out by I
:21:42. > :21:49.diAmin. The question is, is Britain no longer British, how would you
:21:49. > :21:56.answer that? You You talk about the fact that less than 50% of
:21:56. > :22:03.Londoners are of ethnic origin and not from here. It's the most
:22:03. > :22:07.cosmopolitan city in the world. I'm really proud to be Indian, Asian
:22:07. > :22:14.and most of all, British and what this country stands for.
:22:14. > :22:19.APPLAUSE Hitchens, you were touching on this
:22:19. > :22:22.before, but what is your view? immigration on this scale is
:22:22. > :22:26.unprecedented in the history of this country. There has been
:22:26. > :22:30.nothing like it. The problem with immigration on this scale is that,
:22:30. > :22:36.of course, immigrants can come here and become British if they are
:22:36. > :22:40.given the chance to do so, if the society which welcomes them says,
:22:40. > :22:48.you're very welcome here but we want you to integrate and become
:22:48. > :22:51.part of our country. Far from doing that, our country's encouraged
:22:51. > :22:54.multiculturalism to Sol tueds which have nothing to do with each other
:22:54. > :23:03.and live apart. There's been that and also the fact that the sheer
:23:03. > :23:06.scale of this means there are now I think millions of homes, I'm sure,
:23:06. > :23:11.fat check.com or whoever they are I'm sure will tell us, where there
:23:11. > :23:15.are adult who is don't speak English. You can't be a society
:23:15. > :23:22.unless most of those share things in common, one is language, one is
:23:22. > :23:26.law, one is you might say a sense of humour. We are less British and
:23:26. > :23:30.that's the idea because when New Labour launched the mass
:23:30. > :23:37.immigration policy, as a deliberate act of policy, this is the account
:23:37. > :23:40.of a New Labour AndrewNeter who said that the policy included a
:23:40. > :23:45.driving political purpose that mass immigration was the way the
:23:45. > :23:50.Government would make the UK truly multicultural and that the main
:23:50. > :23:54.purpose was to rub the right's nose in diversity and render their
:23:54. > :23:59.arguments out-of-date. That's been achieved. That was a driving
:23:59. > :24:09.political purpose to change this country irversibly. It's been
:24:09. > :24:13.achieved. That lot did it and they are going for the next election.
:24:13. > :24:17.They are Bohemians who enjoy all parts of mass immigration, the
:24:17. > :24:22.cheap restaurants that they so dearly love, they don't care what
:24:22. > :24:28.else happens to the rest of the country. The reason I might be fat
:24:28. > :24:33.is because I went to 80 street parties during the Jubilee in my
:24:33. > :24:38.community, I ate hundreds of pieces of cake. My community is exactly
:24:38. > :24:45.the sort of place that peet Peter is talking about. I would love you
:24:45. > :24:52.to come down and meet people from Walthamstow. It's what community
:24:52. > :24:55.meant in... I can travel round my own country freely thanks.
:24:55. > :24:59.offering to let you come and see the kinds of things we are talking
:24:59. > :25:02.about this evening because we have a very diverse community in
:25:02. > :25:06.Walthamstow. We have challenges that we have to face, but we also
:25:06. > :25:09.have a strength that comes from that diversity. The same people are
:25:09. > :25:14.organising all the fantastic street parties, they were cheering on
:25:14. > :25:18.people like Mo Farah who they saw as a classic example of what
:25:18. > :25:24.Britishness stands for. What does it stand for for you because that's
:25:24. > :25:31.the question, is Britain no lorpbg British? I look at Mo Farah and he
:25:31. > :25:35.makes me proud because he's... does British mean? He embodies
:25:35. > :25:41.tolerance and commitment and that's what we saw in the Olympics. We
:25:41. > :25:46.deal with that in Walthamstow every day. Peter, you all get angry as
:25:46. > :25:49.soon as you talk about having a parking zone wherever they come
:25:49. > :25:51.from. Answer the question at the back
:25:51. > :25:56.there? I don't think you can define Britishness because it means
:25:56. > :26:05.different things to different people. Immigration is fantastic,
:26:05. > :26:08.enriching the fabric of the society. APPLAUSE
:26:08. > :26:13.Justine Greening? I think we have had huge uncontrolled mass
:26:13. > :26:17.immigration over the last decade and I think the census really
:26:17. > :26:22.showed just how big it's been, pretty much a city the size of
:26:22. > :26:26.Birmingham in terms of the extra population that came in.
:26:26. > :26:30.Nevertheless, I think you look at the Olympics, I'm a London MP, the
:26:30. > :26:34.volunteers were from the whole of London, they were fantastic, that
:26:34. > :26:38.is London today and actually, this is Britain today and the key to
:26:38. > :26:44.success is making the best of the people that we've got and making
:26:44. > :26:47.the most of the fact that yes, we are a diverse nation, we are
:26:47. > :26:51.diverse communities, mine certainly is and we have to make that ours a
:26:51. > :26:54.sets in the future. I think we can have a big debate about whether
:26:54. > :26:58.Labour's policy on immigration was good or bad. I happen to think it
:26:58. > :27:01.was bad to just allow uncontrolled numbers of people to come into the
:27:01. > :27:05.country without having a strategy for how Public Services would cope
:27:05. > :27:08.and how housing would cope with them. But the bottom line is, we
:27:08. > :27:11.are Britain today and we have to make the best of that. I think, as
:27:11. > :27:15.the gentleman said, it means different things to different
:27:15. > :27:20.people, but there are some core values there, of fair play,
:27:20. > :27:23.creativity, of a fantastic sense of humour, of competitiveness, of
:27:23. > :27:27.being entrepreneurs and we've been at our best when we have been, not
:27:28. > :27:32.just strong at home, but when we have been out there helping shape
:27:32. > :27:35.the world around us too and we need to continue that. Why does your
:27:35. > :27:38.Government have this immigration cap then, to have a crude
:27:38. > :27:42.instrument like a cap when you just implement that, you are deterring
:27:42. > :27:46.the good immigration, the people who're coming in that have enriched
:27:46. > :27:50.this country like the gentleman there said, with an immigration cap,
:27:50. > :27:55.you are turning people away. With the UK Border Agency, if I
:27:55. > :27:58.challenge them, they wouldn't be able to tell you how many illegal
:27:58. > :28:06.immigrants in this country, round it up 2010 0,000. London
:28:06. > :28:12.Metropolitan University in one swoop they told the 2,5050 students
:28:12. > :28:15.there -- 2,500 go... The message that sends out to the rest of the
:28:15. > :28:19.world is, Britain doesn't want foreign students and if you come
:28:19. > :28:23.here, you don't know if you are going to finish your studies or not.
:28:23. > :28:27.That's absolutely not the case. There is no limit on the numbers of
:28:27. > :28:30.students that can come to the UK to have English if they've got the
:28:30. > :28:36.funds for their course and if they're signed up to a proper
:28:36. > :28:40.degree. So really, that is simply not the case. Why do you include
:28:40. > :28:45.student numbers in immigration numbers? Let's leave that argument
:28:45. > :28:48.for another time. There needs a cap on migration most
:28:48. > :28:53.people would recognise. The man sitting patiently with his hand in
:28:53. > :28:56.the air there. Thank you ever so much. Isn't the problem necessarily
:28:56. > :29:00.not the people we have coming into this country who want to be British,
:29:00. > :29:03.but more so the people who're already born in this country who
:29:03. > :29:06.decide that actually they are not British but they are just English.
:29:06. > :29:10.I'm very fortunate because I have a grandmother who's Scottish and a
:29:10. > :29:14.great grand port who is Welsh and I was born here in Bristol so I
:29:14. > :29:21.consider myself to be fundamentally British except for the Irish, but
:29:21. > :29:24.we are working on that -- grandmother. The problem is we have
:29:24. > :29:32.people now who fundamentally say they are English. Who are these
:29:32. > :29:35.people? I have many friends who say, "I'm English" and "In Scotland you
:29:36. > :29:40.have Alex Salmond having an independent Scotland". You would
:29:40. > :29:50.like people to feel British? Britishness is an important thing.
:29:50. > :29:53.People in Britain is what makes Britain, Britain. You've got all
:29:53. > :29:59.these diverse communities. There's loads of them around Britain, all
:29:59. > :30:06.coming together to be British is what makes Britain. If you think
:30:06. > :30:11.about it, for example, my granddad, he's Hungarian. Back in the day -
:30:11. > :30:21.I'm not sure how many years ago - he ran his own hot dog stand in
:30:21. > :30:25.
:30:25. > :30:30.Bristol. He's part British. He is putting British history in a view...
:30:30. > :30:35.I can't make out where you are coming from. That's a point well
:30:36. > :30:40.made. Will Self, 4 million foreign residents since 2001. People have
:30:40. > :30:50.said Britain has many different meanings to many different people.
:30:50. > :30:50.
:30:50. > :30:55.I think up to the Suez crisis in 1952, sorry, '56? '56. I remember
:30:55. > :31:00.it. Of course you do. You were probably in the front line!
:31:00. > :31:05.LAUGHTER APPLAUSE Thank you for the on the
:31:05. > :31:09.spot fact checking, Peter. Most people's conception of what being
:31:09. > :31:13.British involved was basically going overseas and subjugating
:31:13. > :31:17.black and brown people and taking their stuff and the fruits of their
:31:17. > :31:21.labours. That was a core part of British identity, the British
:31:22. > :31:26.emfire. Now, various members of the political class have try to revive
:31:26. > :31:30.that idea recently without much success. So if we are talking about
:31:30. > :31:34.what an integral conception of Britishness is, it is quite anti-
:31:34. > :31:37.thetical to the idea of a multicultural nation. It is in
:31:37. > :31:41.favour of a multicultural empire, which is quite a different thing.
:31:41. > :31:47.Addressing the young man who there is concerned about our relationship
:31:47. > :31:50.with Scotland and Wales and Ireland, who were often employed as the
:31:50. > :31:55.shock troop of the British empire to go in and appropriate this stuff.
:31:55. > :31:59.So if your idea of Britain is the British empire, this is no longer
:31:59. > :32:02.that, quite clearly. That's my answer. And the scale of
:32:02. > :32:07.immigration revealed by the sense news the last ten years, are you
:32:07. > :32:12.happy about that? Weirdly enough it is a bit like the issue of gay
:32:12. > :32:21.marriage, in that people who line up on the opposition to immigration
:32:21. > :32:26.are usually racists. No, they are. They have an antipathy to people,
:32:26. > :32:36.particularly with black and brown skins. The bigoted... You've had
:32:36. > :32:37.
:32:37. > :32:40.your crack, Peter. unwillingness to listen to an
:32:40. > :32:47.opposition opinion. Liberal bigotry is the worst of all, because it
:32:47. > :32:51.thinks it is so unen lightened. was just making a point. It could
:32:51. > :32:56.probably be fact checked. It is easy to complain about the level of
:32:56. > :33:01.immigration, but I agree with the gentleman who said it is part of
:33:01. > :33:05.our island culture. I wonder if we would have ever built the motorway
:33:05. > :33:13.network without the help of the Irish or won the Battle of Britain
:33:13. > :33:15.without the help of the Polish airmen. Next question please.
:33:15. > :33:23.fair to vilify the two Australian DJs for the unintended tragic
:33:23. > :33:27.consequences of their hoax phone call? Justine Greening? I think
:33:27. > :33:33.what they did was hugely irresponsible. I think having said
:33:33. > :33:39.that, nobody really could have predicted what tragic outcome would
:33:39. > :33:42.have resulted from their prank. I think the reality is that it was an
:33:42. > :33:46.Australian talk show and radio show. If it hadn't been reported so
:33:46. > :33:52.widely in the UK, I don't know whether the nurse would have been
:33:52. > :33:55.quite so aware of the story itself. It is incredibly tragic. I think
:33:55. > :34:00.everybody involved is obviously gutted. I think really the most
:34:00. > :34:05.important thing right now is that her family is allowed some privacy
:34:05. > :34:09.to get on with what has been a huge personal tragedy for them. I think
:34:09. > :34:14.the media circus around it really needs to stop now. We need to allow
:34:14. > :34:18.them to come to terms with what's happened, which has been absolutely
:34:18. > :34:23.horrible. Stella Creasy? I'm really sorry, but I feel so uncomfortable
:34:23. > :34:27.about us having this as a conversation. All I think of is
:34:27. > :34:30.there's a family who has lost their mum ten days before Christmas. The
:34:30. > :34:35.last thing they need is us speculating about what happened and
:34:35. > :34:39.talking about it on TV. I'm sorry, David. If we really believe they
:34:39. > :34:44.need privacy, they need people not the be speculating about this stuff
:34:44. > :34:48.in public. I don't want to talk about it. I'm sorry. APPLAUSE
:34:48. > :34:54.man in blue. I believe there's probably more than one cause of
:34:54. > :35:00.this suicide. This will come out eventually. I think the part that
:35:00. > :35:05.the Samaritans have to play in preventing suicides needs greater
:35:05. > :35:10.publicity. Just to clar nigh, the question was not about Jacintha
:35:10. > :35:17.Saldanha but about the attack on the two DJs for what's began as a
:35:17. > :35:22.prank. That's the point. Where it went wrong was not in making the
:35:22. > :35:30.phone call, but subsequently the DJs said they handed the tapes on
:35:30. > :35:33.and they were checked. I think that, at that point it shouldn't have
:35:33. > :35:37.gone any further. They said lawyers had been involved. However, the
:35:38. > :35:43.station continued to put the tapes out and replay the conversation
:35:43. > :35:49.over and over again. That must have been just blatant commercialism,
:35:49. > :35:54.bringing from the Australian pounds. Will Self? Yes, I was walking down
:35:54. > :35:59.Horseferry Road this morning past the Coroner's Court. There were
:36:00. > :36:03.about maybe as many as 100 members of the media outside the Coroner's
:36:03. > :36:09.Court waiting for what everybody knew would not be substantive
:36:09. > :36:17.information. This is just part of a kind of wider media feeding frenzy
:36:17. > :36:24.that exists. What's the centre of this media feeding frenzy? A young
:36:24. > :36:28.woman's pregnancy actually. And why is this young woman's pregnancy of
:36:28. > :36:33.such vital and all-consuming interest that these media
:36:33. > :36:36.organisations are hungry for it? Because it's all about the
:36:36. > :36:40.succession of the British monarchy. That's the really important thing
:36:40. > :36:46.about this young woman's pregnancy. If you take the royal element out
:36:46. > :36:56.of this, there is no story there whatsoever. So just another good
:36:56. > :36:57.
:36:57. > :37:00.reason for a republic I think. APPLAUSE You Sir. I think this is
:37:01. > :37:05.symptomatic of ow ridiculing television has become. The hoax
:37:05. > :37:10.phone call is surely symptomatic of that. Lord Bilimoria? What really
:37:10. > :37:14.gets me about this is that this prank, and pranks have always taken
:37:14. > :37:20.place and will always take place. If there are no pranks, it is a
:37:20. > :37:26.very boring world. But I don't play a prank on a hospital. You don't
:37:26. > :37:29.call a hospital... APPLAUSE Where you are dealing with people's lives,
:37:29. > :37:33.and then you try and get information about people in a
:37:33. > :37:36.hospital, which is really private information. It doesn't matter that
:37:36. > :37:40.it may be the future Queen of England. Anyone's information they
:37:40. > :37:44.are trying to get from a hospital through a prank is not on. I don't
:37:44. > :37:50.think they should have done it. The station has a lot to blame for
:37:50. > :37:56.condoning it and allowing it to happen. Real lessons need to be
:37:56. > :38:00.learned from this. APPLAUSE Look, it is easy to say that it is the
:38:00. > :38:04.media's fault but there is a lot of hypocrisy around. Particularly when
:38:04. > :38:10.we first heard that the call had been made, people thought it was
:38:10. > :38:15.quite funny. It wasn't until it had its tragic ending that we all
:38:15. > :38:20.realised that it quite so amusing after all. We all have to look at
:38:20. > :38:24.ourselves. You Sir? Being Australian, I feel quite
:38:24. > :38:28.responsible, even though it wasn't me. I think if it could get back to
:38:28. > :38:32.them I would like to apologise on behalf of Australia that that has
:38:32. > :38:35.happened. You don't have to do that. It is sad and devastating.
:38:35. > :38:41.Australians are always looking for a bit of fun, always looking for a
:38:41. > :38:44.joke. That might be good, that might be bad, but it is very sad
:38:44. > :38:48.that this has blown out of all proportion. Australians will always
:38:48. > :38:52.try to make light of situations, have fun. Maybe we made a mistake
:38:52. > :38:57.on it, and the people on the station made a mistake, but I don't
:38:57. > :39:00.think you can put sole blame on them for this. It is important
:39:00. > :39:06.being Australian that that would be very, very gutted and disappointed
:39:06. > :39:10.that this came across like this. Peter Hitchens? If I may answer the
:39:10. > :39:14.original question - no. OK. Thank you very much.
:39:14. > :39:24.Let's go to another question. Dennis Detheridge, please.
:39:24. > :39:27.Should the use of illegal drugs be decriminalised? This is in the late
:39:27. > :39:30.of Keith Vaz, who runs the Home Affairs Select Committee,
:39:30. > :39:36.suggesting that the Government sets up a Royal Commission now to look
:39:36. > :39:41.at drugs. We've been through this endlessly about drugs, be but he
:39:41. > :39:47.now wants a full Royal Commission in the light of various arguments
:39:47. > :39:52.that have been put. So should the use of illegal drugs be
:39:52. > :39:58.decriminalised? Justine Greening. No, in a nutshell. The level of
:39:58. > :40:04.drug usage is at an all-time low. We are starting to see many of the
:40:04. > :40:07.programmes and treatment... It is actually. Compared to what, 1630?
:40:07. > :40:10.It is moving in the right direction is the point I'm maifplgt we are
:40:11. > :40:15.starting to see a lot of the treatment programmes getting much
:40:15. > :40:20.better rates of getting people off drugs. Personally I think it would
:40:20. > :40:25.send out a really bad signal to start legalising drugs which I
:40:25. > :40:35.believe often see people end up on a rocky road to a situation where
:40:35. > :40:37.they want the harder stuff. We've looked at this endlessly. The idea
:40:37. > :40:41.that we should then kick off another commission to look at this.
:40:41. > :40:44.We know what the issues are. I think it is a question of politics
:40:44. > :40:48.really. What people think is the right approach to them. My personal
:40:48. > :40:55.view is I don't think we should decriminalise drufplgtz I think it
:40:55. > :40:58.sends out the wrong message. who are these MPs? It is across
:40:58. > :41:02.party isn't? All the Select Committee. Don't think you know
:41:02. > :41:08.anything about it much Justine, I get that strong feeling - that you
:41:08. > :41:12.know nothing at all about it. alternatively may just have a
:41:12. > :41:19.different view to me. How many registered addicts do you think
:41:19. > :41:23.there were in Britain in 1965? wasn't alive in 1965. I rest my
:41:23. > :41:29.case. You know all about this, so you had answer the question. And
:41:29. > :41:34.remember that Fact Check are watching you. There are many tens
:41:34. > :41:37.of hundreds of thousands of people many in receipt of the heroin
:41:37. > :41:42.substitute methadone. My own drug history, which includes a long
:41:42. > :41:47.period of addiction, is well known publicly. I don't really want to
:41:47. > :41:51.speak from that position. What I do know about the situation with drugs
:41:51. > :41:58.in this country is that quite clearly the system of prohibition,
:41:58. > :42:02.if that's what it is, it doesn't work. It's a law that's widely
:42:02. > :42:06.flouted. Statistically there'll be people in this audience who are
:42:06. > :42:12.users of illegal drugs and most of them will be non-problematic. The
:42:12. > :42:16.number of people who who are addicts as against social users is
:42:16. > :42:21.a significant proportion but by no means the majority. Far from what
:42:21. > :42:24.Justine is saying, the systems in place for people who do have
:42:24. > :42:30.problematic if not a pathological problem with drugs are incredibly
:42:30. > :42:36.poor in this country, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps as many as 0%
:42:36. > :42:39.of people in our prisons -- 70% of people in our prisons have a drink
:42:39. > :42:42.or drug problem. Really the Government should be doing much
:42:42. > :42:46.more about it there. Is some willingness, interestingly...
:42:46. > :42:50.That's not an argument for legalising it. You can make the
:42:50. > :42:56.argument that treatment should get better, and you are right, but
:42:56. > :43:03.that's not an argument for legalising it. ALL TALK AT ONCE
:43:03. > :43:08.Hold on, Peter. No, it is time somebody said something intefplgt
:43:08. > :43:12.fact Check can work on these. We have decriminalised drugs in this
:43:12. > :43:15.country. If you are caught in possession, if the police can even
:43:15. > :43:19.be bothered with somebody caught in possession of somebody with
:43:19. > :43:25.cannabis, the most likely treatment is the cannabis warning, which was
:43:25. > :43:34.invented by the police, not even asked for, which means you are let
:43:34. > :43:39.off. In 1973, the well known Trotskyist Lord Hailsham instructed
:43:39. > :43:44.magistrates to stop sending people to prison if they were in receipt
:43:44. > :43:49.of cannabis. Why do they want a Royal Commission? Because there is
:43:49. > :43:54.a well financed international campaign to legalise drugs so that
:43:54. > :44:04.various wicked people can make large sums of money out of selling
:44:04. > :44:10.them. Peter, there is no... There is no such thing thing as ho
:44:10. > :44:14.Hillsboroughis. That is the most abject lie told by the people.
:44:14. > :44:19.many people in this country do you think at this moment is in
:44:19. > :44:26.possession of illegal drugs? I have no idea. How would I know? There
:44:26. > :44:30.are statistics for it. You tell us. If you no, you say. I would say in
:44:30. > :44:35.excess of 1 million people. You are going to have to build a lot of
:44:35. > :44:41.prisons. Who said anything which enablinged you to say that? The
:44:41. > :44:46.point of having a proper criminal law which is prosecuted and used is
:44:46. > :44:52.not to put people in prison but to deter people committing stupid
:44:52. > :45:02.crimes. That's why we have laws about drink-driving.
:45:02. > :45:05.It is so simple. Anyone can answer Isn't it time we had a real
:45:05. > :45:10.conversation about alternatives to criminalising drug users and
:45:10. > :45:14.perhaps looking more at perhaps the Portuguese method where users are
:45:14. > :45:18.offered rehabilitation access to medical advice and treatment, as
:45:18. > :45:22.opposed to sending them down the criminal justice route, putting
:45:22. > :45:26.more burden on the criminal justice system and essentially, as some
:45:26. > :45:31.panellists said, creating a perpetual problem, as it were?
:45:31. > :45:41.do that already, that's what we have been doing for 40 years.
:45:41. > :45:47.
:45:47. > :45:52.you, Hitchens. People need to deal with some facts on this, instead of
:45:52. > :45:55.propaganda. Stella? Actually, the experience in Portugal's been
:45:55. > :45:59.pretty mixed but that's why this was an important report. This
:45:59. > :46:04.report didn't call for legalisation or decriminalisation. It called for
:46:04. > :46:07.the kind of debate. Justine, we may know some of the issues and answers
:46:07. > :46:11.about what treatment does or doesn't work but what the report
:46:11. > :46:15.highlighted was that the two aren't going together. That's why they
:46:15. > :46:17.talked about having a Royal Commission. We spend �15 billion
:46:17. > :46:20.trying to deal with the consequences of substance abuse
:46:20. > :46:27.within our health care and criminal justice testimony so I think
:46:27. > :46:29.there's room to look at what else might make a difference -- justice
:46:29. > :46:34.system. It's about how you treat people and deal with addiction
:46:34. > :46:37.because the consequences of not doing something about it are very
:46:37. > :46:42.great for our society. I think it's a shame the Government dismissed
:46:42. > :46:45.out of hand what was a reasoned piece of research and argument
:46:45. > :46:49.about this being a decision that needs to happen, not just by 650
:46:49. > :46:54.people in Parliament but needs a broader debate with perhaps even Mr
:46:54. > :47:00.Self and Mr Hitchens taking part in that debate at the same time if
:47:00. > :47:05.they'd let each other. The man there? It's a good idea to look at
:47:05. > :47:09.this. We have had 40 or 50 years of this so-called war on drugs and all
:47:09. > :47:14.it's done has make the people who grow and smuggle and sell drugs
:47:14. > :47:20.rich and it's caused huge amounts of harm to society, people whose
:47:20. > :47:27.homes are broken into and robbed, it's achieved nothing. We need to
:47:27. > :47:30.step away from this, not look at it and making all drugs legal and as a
:47:30. > :47:34.free-for-all, but a sensible policy which says if you are addicted to
:47:34. > :47:37.heroin or crack or something, let's try doing a deal with you, if you
:47:37. > :47:43.behave yourself, we'll gef you your happy powder and stop the drug
:47:43. > :47:53.dealers making a fortune out of it -- give you your happy powder.
:47:53. > :48:02.
:48:02. > :48:06.Lord Bilimoria? In countries like Holland, in certain states in the
:48:06. > :48:10.United States, where they've tried to liberalise the usage of drugs,
:48:10. > :48:15.it hasn't necessarily worked that well and I think the real problem
:48:15. > :48:25.for me, my biggest fear is my children getting into drugs and
:48:25. > :48:32.getting addicted to drugs, and what I try to do is educate them and say
:48:32. > :48:42.don't do it. Not everyone gets addicted, you are absolutely right.
:48:42. > :48:49.
:48:49. > :48:52.You got a peerage for flogging beer! Lord bail Bilimoria?
:48:52. > :48:57.selling fantastic beer and we always encourage responsible
:48:57. > :49:01.drinking! Back to the point, I think it's not about, we talk about
:49:01. > :49:05.the treatment, it's about prevention, how can we educate
:49:05. > :49:11.youngsters to stay away from drugs? Decriminalising them is not the
:49:11. > :49:15.answer, it's not as simple as that. Another question from Lizzie
:49:15. > :49:19.Morrell, please? Do you believe that the Housing
:49:19. > :49:23.Minister was right to advise against giving food or money to
:49:24. > :49:29.homeless people? This was Mark Prisk on Tuesday saying, donts give
:49:29. > :49:34.money to the homeless, Christmas coming up, give them a telephone
:49:34. > :49:41.number for a new charity and other people will look after them. Stella
:49:41. > :49:44.Creasy? When we are seeing the levels of debt, the levels of
:49:44. > :49:47.personal deprivation that's happening in our communities, it's
:49:47. > :49:52.not surprising to me that we are seeing more people sleeping rough.
:49:52. > :49:57.It's a fear for me. I spent two- and-a-half years campaigning about
:49:57. > :50:01.legal loan sharking, trying to get the Government to do something
:50:01. > :50:04.about those people charging huge amounts for loans because I could
:50:04. > :50:08.see people in my community living with that cost. It's no surprise
:50:08. > :50:18.that people have ended up on the streets and, as a basic point for
:50:18. > :50:22.us, in society, as we deal with it. I work at my local night shelter.
:50:22. > :50:25.I'm so worried this Government doesn't take the cost-of-living
:50:25. > :50:29.serious because of the consequences we are seeing as a result. When you
:50:29. > :50:33.think your housing costs go up. My part of London, it's predicted
:50:33. > :50:39.rents will rise 25% over the next couple of years. You are veering
:50:39. > :50:43.off the subject here. It's about how we deal with homelessness. It's
:50:43. > :50:47.a function of society. The Housing Minister said "Most people know
:50:47. > :50:51.that giving money or food won't help a rough sleeper find a home,
:50:51. > :50:54.get the health care they need or simply put them in touch with
:50:54. > :51:00.support available. Do you think that giving money or food doesn't
:51:00. > :51:04.help? I don't think it's an either or. I work with the night shelter,
:51:04. > :51:07.I give them food and fund-raise for them because we need them. I was it
:51:07. > :51:10.wasn't the case and I'll fight for policies that mean we don't end up
:51:10. > :51:17.with people living on the streets and end up with the level of debt
:51:17. > :51:20.they have now which means they have to make those kind of choices.
:51:20. > :51:24.Justine Greening? I don't think anybody wants to see homelessness
:51:25. > :51:28.and what Mark was saying was what we need to do when we see people is
:51:29. > :51:33.make sure they get help. I think perpetuating their circumstances
:51:33. > :51:36.doesn't do them any good at all and I think what he was trying to do,
:51:36. > :51:39.which I think he did very well because we are talking about it now,
:51:39. > :51:43.is highlight that there is far more support there for homeless people
:51:43. > :51:47.and that actually, what we all should be doing is trying to make
:51:47. > :51:53.sure that when we see people like that, that we help them get that
:51:53. > :51:57.support that's there. You, Sir, on the front row. You two, you on the
:51:57. > :52:02.left first, then you? My view is, obviously, since I've been here in
:52:02. > :52:09.Bristol, as a student, I've been out in the town sometimes quite
:52:09. > :52:15.late and I've seen people that need or asked for money or food.
:52:16. > :52:19.Personally, I believe that to not do much for them but it shows
:52:19. > :52:25.there's a level of compassion that, there are people who walk past them
:52:25. > :52:28.in the street and actually do care. But in terms of a long-term effect,
:52:28. > :52:31.it doesn't do much so maybe something could be put in place to
:52:31. > :52:36.support them or give them a number or just something to show that that
:52:36. > :52:41.will have a longer lasting effect, rather than just feeding their
:52:41. > :52:47.bellies. The man next to you? doesn't the Housing Minister
:52:47. > :52:51.arrange for more houses to be built for homeless people? That's exactly
:52:51. > :52:55.what we are doing. Local authorities are releasing public
:52:55. > :52:59.land so we can get houses built, the Mayor in London is getting more
:52:59. > :53:03.houses built. We are starting from a position of record low housing
:53:03. > :53:06.stock since the 20s, but we are trying to improve that and we've
:53:06. > :53:15.got a mole range of policies, not just to get houses built but to
:53:15. > :53:19.help young people in particular be able to afford to buy them.
:53:19. > :53:24.But Housing Benefit is already showing signs of people being
:53:24. > :53:30.thrown out by landlords? recognise the welfare system got
:53:30. > :53:33.out of whack. That's not what I asked you. A thousand families in
:53:33. > :53:36.Walthamstow will have their Housing Benefit capped next year. There is
:53:36. > :53:41.no spare housing. They are going to be homeless or end up with the
:53:41. > :53:46.legal loan sharks, neither of which is a good outcome. We'll all end up
:53:46. > :53:50.paying the costs of these families. APPLAUSE First of all, we are
:53:50. > :53:54.saying that the sorts of Housing Benefit that we were seeing in some
:53:54. > :53:59.parts of particularly London... I've not answered the question that
:53:59. > :54:03.was put, you don't know what I was about to say. You talk about levels
:54:03. > :54:09.of Housing Benefit people were claiming in London. There were a
:54:09. > :54:14.handful of families that were getting more than �50,000 a year
:54:14. > :54:21.Housing Benefit. You have just concentrated... In the UK, it's
:54:21. > :54:24.about �24,000. What we are saying is that people in the public sector
:54:24. > :54:31.needing supported housing should face the same choices as people
:54:31. > :54:34.who're in the privats sector. don't want to go into that --
:54:34. > :54:38.private sector. We were talking about the spillage from this, the
:54:38. > :54:43.immediate spillage which has been reported. Hitchens, what is your
:54:44. > :54:47.view about what the Housing Minister said? Give what you can to
:54:47. > :54:51.a good, effective charity that will help these people out of the
:54:51. > :54:55.problems into which they've fallen. Each time you may out of the
:54:55. > :54:58.softness of your heart want to give people money because people do,
:54:58. > :55:02.they see someone sitting in the street and think, that person, I
:55:02. > :55:07.ought to give them something so they will, it may not do any good,
:55:07. > :55:12.I don't necessarily think it will do any harm but it does much more
:55:12. > :55:16.good if you put aside the money for a charity, there are plenty of them,
:55:16. > :55:21.easy to find, at this time of year especially, put money into them and
:55:21. > :55:24.it will do more good than politician will ever do you, that's
:55:24. > :55:27.for certain. I run a food bank and there are 100,000 of those in
:55:27. > :55:32.Britain. I'm ashamed to be living in a country where food banks have
:55:32. > :55:36.had to come back because people are so worried.
:55:36. > :55:39.APPLAUSE Surely homelessness is a complex
:55:39. > :55:45.problem and just simply giving someone food and drink is not
:55:45. > :55:50.actually going to really deal with the problem. It requires agencies
:55:50. > :55:54.to work together and it requires a joined up thinking and I'm
:55:54. > :55:59.convinced that's probably not the case at the moment. It requires the
:55:59. > :56:04.Government not to put them into destitution. Will Self? Charity is
:56:04. > :56:09.a sop that floats into societies as thaiz become more gather tearian.
:56:09. > :56:15.You look at our society over the past 30, 40 years, the Gulf between
:56:15. > :56:18.the richest and poorest has increased and we have more Red Nose
:56:18. > :56:24.Days and telethons in order to help us feel better act the fact that
:56:25. > :56:31.people are living in poverty, so what Peter suggests is just another
:56:31. > :56:38.sticking plaster. We require a society where there isn't this with
:56:38. > :56:44.people on the street. The woman in white there? Why do we have to rely
:56:44. > :56:48.on charitys to help the homeless? Why at Christmas does an individual
:56:48. > :56:56.who wants a hot meal and shelter have to go to a Crisis shelter? Why
:56:56. > :57:01.is it all charitable giving and not actually from central Government?
:57:01. > :57:04.Charities are better at it. point that you have just made, this
:57:04. > :57:07.country, less than 1% of the population of the world here, and
:57:07. > :57:14.we are still, without the empire, one of the ten wealthiest countries
:57:14. > :57:18.in the world in absolute terms. It's phenomenal. Our welfare state,
:57:19. > :57:22.�200 billion into welfare and pensions and still you have
:57:22. > :57:25.homeless people and still you have poverty and child poverty in this
:57:25. > :57:29.country. What I think is amazing, nothing is perfect, Government
:57:29. > :57:32.tries its best, it's not always perfect. What I love about this
:57:32. > :57:35.country is the charitable spirit, the number of charities they are
:57:35. > :57:40.that will fill that gap with the Armed Forces charitys that I've
:57:40. > :57:44.worked with, there are so many of the homeless who're former
:57:44. > :57:51.sholdiers and there's no reason for them to be there but there there
:57:51. > :57:55.because it's a complex situation. We are lucky to have an amazing
:57:56. > :58:00.country that fill the gap of the charities. That's all we have got
:58:00. > :58:04.time for. Time's up. This is last programme of the year. We come back
:58:04. > :58:08.on the 10th January. We are going to be in Lewisham in South London.
:58:09. > :58:11.We are going to be in Lincoln on 17th January, so if you would like
:58:11. > :58:14.17th January, so if you would like to come on the 10th to Lewisham or
:58:14. > :58:23.17th to Lincoln, apply on the website. The address is on the
:58:23. > :58:27.screen, or call that number: It would be very good to see you.
:58:27. > :58:31.Thank you to the panel and all of you who came to the City academy
:58:31. > :58:34.here in Bristol, the first set up in Britain under the Labour
:58:34. > :58:37.Government. From all of us on Question Time, everybody who works