13/12/2012 Question Time

We are coming to the end of 2012, and sadly this is the last edition

of a very eventful year. Welcome to Question Time.

Good evening and a particularly big welcome to our audience in Bristol,

and to our panel, the Secretary of State for International Development,

Justine Greening, the shadow Home Office Minister for Labour, Stella

Creasy, the founder of Cobra beer and a cross-bencher in the House of

Lords, Lord Bilimoria, the author and professor of contemporary

thought at Brunel University, Will Self, and the columnist for the

Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens. APPLAUSE

Your morning paper may have said, and if you read the Times, it would

indeed have said, that James Harding, the editor would have been

on the panel tonight, but sadly tonight he announced he was

resigning from the editorship and therefore he couldn't come on the

panel. We hope to have him back in some other equally distinguished

guise one day. I do have to remind viewers that our panel do not know

the questions that are going to be put to them, do you? No. Thank you.

The first question is from Warren Birch please. Is the large number

of Tory MPs opposing gay marriage symptomatic of a party out of touch

with modern society? The large number of Tory MPs

opposing gay marriage, proposed and of course endorsed by the Prime

Minister. Will Self? particularly out of touch, the

figures are 55-45 on the marriage issue, 55 in favour. By and large

people are in favour of civil partnerships but there seems to be

this view abroad that marriage is only made of a man and a woman,

whatever they may be, and thaw can't get married if you are of the

same sex. A lot of people seem to go back to, particularly I think

the gospel according to Mark and one of the other gospels in order

to establish this fact that it has to be a man and a woman. Some of

these people are Tory MPs, they seem to want to literally interpret

this particular bit of scripture, but there are other bits that they

are quite happy to disregard, like the creation of the Earth in seven

days. And resting on the seventh day. That would be good. They are

per petly working, so I rather mistrust this surge in biblical

literalism which seems to grip the anti-gay marriage lobby. If you are

asking my personal opinion, I think just about anybody should be

allowed to get married to anybody else, but there you go. APPLAUSE

Justine Greening? I very much agree with Will. It is something that I

have certainly thought about. the questioner or with Will? With

Will's answer. There's a breadth of opinion in the Conservative and in

Parliament, there'll be a free vote on it. Something that I have had to

consider. From my perspective, I think as Will does, if people want

to get married they should be allowed to get on and do that. As

long as we've got the right protections in place for churchs

that don't want to allow gay marriage, that's fine. That then

respects every's right to get on with their life the way that they

want to. Why should gay couples will entitled to either a civil

partnership or marriage, whereas heterosexual couples are only

entitled to get married, not to have a civil partnership? I don't

think there's a lot of demand. I have never had a constituent who is

heterosexual ask me why they can't have a civil partnership with their

partner. I don't think there is a lot of demand for civil

partnerships for heterosexual couples. I think the question is

whether we are willing to give gay people equal rights in terms of

being able to get married. Having spent a lot of time thinking about

it, I think it's the right thing to do. I don't think we should stand

in the way of two people who want to make a lifetime commitment to

one another. As long as we are clear that we don't force churches

and people of faith who don't feel comfortable with that to have their

own churches having to do marriages, I think you get everybody able to

have their own rights to live their life how they want. The question

was about the 100 or so Tory MPs who oppose it and whether this is

symptomatic of a party out of touch. The Prime Minister is going for it

but a large number of his backbenchers are against. I very

much respect their opinion but I disagree with it. Aren't they just

homophobic these MPs? That's what it looks like to me, they don't

like day people. The simplestics plannation is they don't like gay

people. Get over it, as Matt Lucas might say. The woman up there on

the back. I think it is a travesty that they've tried to enact this

liberalising, accepting policy on the surface but then announced that

within the Church of England and the Church of Wales it is illegal

to enforce these churchs to enact a ceremony. Yes, that's just them

creating a loophole to continue pandering to the homophobic

prejudiced sections of people that are within that party, and that

support that party. That's a traevesty in our day and age, in a

liberal, progressive society. going to be illegal for the Church

of England to perform one. Peter Hitchens? If you want to know where

the Conservative Party is out of touch with the people who once were

Conservatives and would like to vote for it, and the reason the

Conservative Party is dying on its feet and has no members, it is not

to do with this. It is because the Conservative Party is in favour of

the European Union. It is against punishing criminals. Notice favour

of the failed comprehensive experiment in education. The

Conservative Party is in favour of mass immigration. That's why the

Conservative Party is out of touch. The issue of same sex marriage is

so immensely trivial and unimportant, it is only raised as a

wind-up to draw poor silly old Conservatives out of their caves so

that they can be made to look like bigots and fools and howled at and

jeered at as homophobes. Why would the Prime Minister want to do that?

Because he hates his party. He hates most of the members of it.

And he wants to drag them down to defeat, is that what you are

saying? He lovers to appeal to the Guardian newspaper and the BBC by

bark his own party and having rows with this. I don't imagine he cares

in the slightest about the issue. Maybe he does, but he doesn't care

or believe in anything else, so it would be a change if he did. Mr

Slippery behaves like this. He just tries to wind up what's left of his

own party, because he thinks that's his only future, to make the

liberal bigots, who genuinely hate and loathe people with Conservative

moral opinions and have no time of them and misrepresent them and lie

about them, to make them think he is a good thing. Justine Greening

is seething with rage and wants to come to the defence of her leader.

I think what David Cameron is trying to do represent a broad

strand of what the Conservative Party is about today, and just to

come back to your point about the Church of England and Wales, the

reason that there's got to be a law in place is because at the moment

the Church of England and Wales doesn't want to allow same sex

marriages. Because of the way in which they are set up within our

country, we therefore have to put that into law. But if they did want

to allow it, we would of course be quite happy to change the law for

them to do that. What we are trying to do is make sure that every

religious organisation has the ability to make its own choice

about whether it wants to allow same sex marriages or not. They are

the established Church. Their Bishops sit in Parliament. And they

should have the choice as well. Stella Creasy? It is incredibly

ironic that all these people who claim that they are Liberals, that

they care about conservatism, when it comes to something like this,

one of the most traditional conservative things in our society,

to make a commitment to somebody for life, they don't want it. It

seems like they want to be a small state liberal in the Treasury but a

big state liberal in the bedroom, telling people what kind of

relationship they want to have. I think that everyone in my community

who wants to make a commitment to each other, a really serious,

loving commitment, should be able to do so. I don't think it should

be up to the state to decide how they do that. I think we should let

religious organisations do it. It is disappointing, and I speak as a

member of the Church of England, to see the legislation cast in this

way. There is a precedent about how the Church dealt with priests who

did not want to remarry people who were divorced, making sure they

were not required to do so rather than explicitly banning it. I

respect the Church of England is in this place at the moment but I hope

that at some point we come to a different place. I think it what be

sad if we had to wait for legislation to make that happen. I

think the state should back out of this and let people who want to get

married get married and show their love for each other equally.

Without it being about gender, but making it about love and commitment.

APPLAUSE I was going to say, isn't the issue

less about 100 or so Tory MPs and more about a Church that won't let

gay people get married and won't let women be Bishops? APPLAUSE

TALK AT ONCE Hang on, Peter. hanging on. Hang on for a bit

longer. Lord Bilimoria. We've had civil partnerships for some time

and that's been working well. They haven't been allowed to call it

married. But to me that is semantics. They are married. If we

want same sex marriages in rimmous establishments, if religious

institutions and establishments want to do, that we should allow

them to do that. What we should never do is force anyone to do that

if they don't want to. The people objecting to this, not because they

are homophobic. Quite often it is because of their own religious

beliefs. What I love about this country is we are an open country.

We celebrate the multicultural society. Is your church, the Zorro

ast reen church in favour? religion doesn't want to allow it,

we should not force it. That's is sort of open country that we are.

APPLAUSE And what's the position of the Zorro Astrian church? On the

whole it's a liberal church. I don't know where they would stand

on this, but I would never force them to do anything like this.

don't trust Ms Greening or Mr Cameron when they give assurances

that those churches that don't wish to be involved in this won't have

to be. That's either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. In what

way? I suspect there is no way that the European Court of Human Rights

will stand for a situation if marriage is redefined whereby a

religious institution is prepared to offer marriage to one eligible

section of society - straight couples - but not another. I think

that the European Court of Human Rights will have absolutely no

truck with that. And your view on the issue of gay marriage? In

favour or against? I believe with the greatest of respect to

homosexual couples that same sex marriage is not possible. You mean

you don't think it's real? I don't think it can exist by its very

nature. For example, I don't believe that... It was interesting

what you said, Will, in the start of your answer, that you would be

happy for virtually anyone to marry virtually anyone else. Just in the

same way - the natural extrapolation of that is we could

arrive at the situation where very close relatives could marry each

other No, it is not. It is a misnomer to suggest there is an

equivalence. We are talking about two people making a loving

commitment to each other. In that is what marriage should be about.

It is that love and commitment, not about the gender of the person

involved. Who is the head of the Church - God or the Government? On

the one hand you are saying... Government. There you go. The

Church I go to... It is an established church. In the biblical

church is God is the head, not the Government. It stops following its

constitution, which is the word of God, which is the Bible, and starts

following the Government. No. gentlemen is correct. In a decade

or so from now, when the touches of changed and it stops being about

same sex couples and maybe close relative, we'll be having the same

debate. You cannot stretch the word of God to accommodate your own

ideas. You either are for or against. You've said love and

commitment towards the couple. What about love and commitment towards

your God? If I say I love God and I do not believe that marriage

between a same sex couple is correct, I'm called homophobic. You

don't tell me that I don't love or committed to God. You call me a

homophobic. What does that make you? You celebrate your beliefs but

I think the response and the questions we have had back from the

audience shows why it's so important to make sure you have got

all the right protection in place to make sure that churches that

don't want to do some sex marriage don't have to. I completely respect

your views and the views of the gentleman behind as well. It's one

of the reasons why making sure we have got the safeguards in the Bill

in Parliament is so important so your church is never in the

position where you're being forced position where you're being forced

into doing same-sex marriage in a way you don't want to. It's illegal

isn't it for a priest to marry one, what if he wants to marry them?

That's a debate for the Church of England to have. We could make it

permissive, rather than exclusive legislation, allow to church to

decide itself. We could get the state out of these decisions,

rather than exclude it. Then why do we have a state church? You are an

Anglican, it's an established church. Let me see if I can answer

Stella's point. The reason we need to structure the law the way that

we have is in response to making sure the Church of England and

vicars and priests are protected from having legal cases brought

against them. It's a debate for the Church of England to have. If they

want to allow same-sex marriages, that's a debate for them to have.

This is a different way in which you could do this which would mean

you wouldn't exclude it but you wouldn't require it. You could give

them the protection where people see this debate as excluding them.

You could give the church the decision to do this. We've looked

at that and that didn't provide good enough safeguards for some of

the concerns. So to protect people in the Church of England who don't

want to do gay marriages, you have to make it illegal for the Church

of England to have gay marriages, thus preventing people in the

Church of England who do want to celebrate gay marriages from

celebrating? Essentially, it's making sure that the decision

around whether we have same-sex marriages in the Church of England

and Wales is a matter for that church. We have to come back to

Parliament. Do you know how many people in this country as a

proportion to the population is in same sex marriages, one fifth of

one%. It affects a small number of people. We have just learned from

the census that a marriage as an institution in general in this

country is rapidly diminishing and more and more people are not

married for many, many reasons, mainly the result of Government

actions which have weakened it. What is going on here is not a

liberation of homosexuals but an attempt to impose on the whole

society a new bigotry under which those who happen to hold the

opinion that homosexual marriage should not take place will not just

be excluded from the centre of things, they will increasingly be

handed and treated as pa hiyas just in fact as homosexuals were treated

before the 1967 law was rightly repealed -- pariahs. There is an

immense, furious liberal bigotry said by Will Self. This extremely

unpleasant lie is repeatedly told by those who do not wish to debate

the subject and who'd hound anybody who stood in their way out of it

with abecause and lies. This is the problem which this country faces.

If you have a problem with this, don't propose to a gay man. We will

not tolerate and increasingly wishes to... Do you think we are

going to be arresting you in toilets and subjecting you to

aversion electric shock aversion. Do you know what, Will, I think the

time is coming when people who have Conservative Christian opinions

will actually face persecution of one kind or another. It hasn't come

yet, but the problem is that we have become some willing and

conventional wisdom's so willing to accept the liberal majority and the

equality and diversity which is now compulsory in all public services

in this country which you have to abide by to work in the Public

Services. The freedom of speak and think otherwise is increasing.

Let's move on. Thank you, Pete esh. You can join in the debate through

Twitter: We have a Twitterist tonight called full fact, an

organisation which fact checks claims made by politicians and

media, so the panel should watch out. We should always have one. You

can also find them on the extra guest account or you can text

comments to us. A question from Andrew Jardine,

please. With almost three million more foreign residents since 2001,

is Britain no longer British? Three million more residents and

13% of people in Britain now born outside the UK. Is Britain no

longer British? Lord Bilimoria? came to this country as a 19-year-

old to study. This is a most amazing country which has given me

the opportunity to build a life over here, to study. I've seen a

transformation of this country over the last three decades, it's a

country with a glass ceiling where if you were a foreigner you were

told you would not be able to get to the top to a country now where I

believe there is meritocracy and opportunity regardless of race or

background. I've seen it unfold and it's the most amazing country. Good

immigration has been fantastic for this country and a lot of the

immigrants have come here and done it with nothing. We are celebrating

the 40th anniversary of the Ugandan nations, we were thrown out by I

diAmin. The question is, is Britain no longer British, how would you

answer that? You You talk about the fact that less than 50% of

Londoners are of ethnic origin and not from here. It's the most

cosmopolitan city in the world. I'm really proud to be Indian, Asian

and most of all, British and what this country stands for.

APPLAUSE Hitchens, you were touching on this

before, but what is your view? immigration on this scale is

unprecedented in the history of this country. There has been

nothing like it. The problem with immigration on this scale is that,

of course, immigrants can come here and become British if they are

given the chance to do so, if the society which welcomes them says,

you're very welcome here but we want you to integrate and become

part of our country. Far from doing that, our country's encouraged

multiculturalism to Sol tueds which have nothing to do with each other

and live apart. There's been that and also the fact that the sheer

scale of this means there are now I think millions of homes, I'm sure,

fat check.com or whoever they are I'm sure will tell us, where there

are adult who is don't speak English. You can't be a society

unless most of those share things in common, one is language, one is

law, one is you might say a sense of humour. We are less British and

that's the idea because when New Labour launched the mass

immigration policy, as a deliberate act of policy, this is the account

of a New Labour AndrewNeter who said that the policy included a

driving political purpose that mass immigration was the way the

Government would make the UK truly multicultural and that the main

purpose was to rub the right's nose in diversity and render their

arguments out-of-date. That's been achieved. That was a driving

political purpose to change this country irversibly. It's been

achieved. That lot did it and they are going for the next election.

They are Bohemians who enjoy all parts of mass immigration, the

cheap restaurants that they so dearly love, they don't care what

else happens to the rest of the country. The reason I might be fat

is because I went to 80 street parties during the Jubilee in my

community, I ate hundreds of pieces of cake. My community is exactly

the sort of place that peet Peter is talking about. I would love you

to come down and meet people from Walthamstow. It's what community

meant in... I can travel round my own country freely thanks.

offering to let you come and see the kinds of things we are talking

about this evening because we have a very diverse community in

Walthamstow. We have challenges that we have to face, but we also

have a strength that comes from that diversity. The same people are

organising all the fantastic street parties, they were cheering on

people like Mo Farah who they saw as a classic example of what

Britishness stands for. What does it stand for for you because that's

the question, is Britain no lorpbg British? I look at Mo Farah and he

makes me proud because he's... does British mean? He embodies

tolerance and commitment and that's what we saw in the Olympics. We

deal with that in Walthamstow every day. Peter, you all get angry as

soon as you talk about having a parking zone wherever they come

from. Answer the question at the back

there? I don't think you can define Britishness because it means

different things to different people. Immigration is fantastic,

enriching the fabric of the society. APPLAUSE

Justine Greening? I think we have had huge uncontrolled mass

immigration over the last decade and I think the census really

showed just how big it's been, pretty much a city the size of

Birmingham in terms of the extra population that came in.

Nevertheless, I think you look at the Olympics, I'm a London MP, the

volunteers were from the whole of London, they were fantastic, that

is London today and actually, this is Britain today and the key to

success is making the best of the people that we've got and making

the most of the fact that yes, we are a diverse nation, we are

diverse communities, mine certainly is and we have to make that ours a

sets in the future. I think we can have a big debate about whether

Labour's policy on immigration was good or bad. I happen to think it

was bad to just allow uncontrolled numbers of people to come into the

country without having a strategy for how Public Services would cope

and how housing would cope with them. But the bottom line is, we

are Britain today and we have to make the best of that. I think, as

the gentleman said, it means different things to different

people, but there are some core values there, of fair play,

creativity, of a fantastic sense of humour, of competitiveness, of

being entrepreneurs and we've been at our best when we have been, not

just strong at home, but when we have been out there helping shape

the world around us too and we need to continue that. Why does your

Government have this immigration cap then, to have a crude

instrument like a cap when you just implement that, you are deterring

the good immigration, the people who're coming in that have enriched

this country like the gentleman there said, with an immigration cap,

you are turning people away. With the UK Border Agency, if I

challenge them, they wouldn't be able to tell you how many illegal

immigrants in this country, round it up 2010 0,000. London

Metropolitan University in one swoop they told the 2,5050 students

there -- 2,500 go... The message that sends out to the rest of the

world is, Britain doesn't want foreign students and if you come

here, you don't know if you are going to finish your studies or not.

That's absolutely not the case. There is no limit on the numbers of

students that can come to the UK to have English if they've got the

funds for their course and if they're signed up to a proper

degree. So really, that is simply not the case. Why do you include

student numbers in immigration numbers? Let's leave that argument

for another time. There needs a cap on migration most

people would recognise. The man sitting patiently with his hand in

the air there. Thank you ever so much. Isn't the problem necessarily

not the people we have coming into this country who want to be British,

but more so the people who're already born in this country who

decide that actually they are not British but they are just English.

I'm very fortunate because I have a grandmother who's Scottish and a

great grand port who is Welsh and I was born here in Bristol so I

consider myself to be fundamentally British except for the Irish, but

we are working on that -- grandmother. The problem is we have

people now who fundamentally say they are English. Who are these

people? I have many friends who say, "I'm English" and "In Scotland you

have Alex Salmond having an independent Scotland". You would

like people to feel British? Britishness is an important thing.

People in Britain is what makes Britain, Britain. You've got all

these diverse communities. There's loads of them around Britain, all

coming together to be British is what makes Britain. If you think

about it, for example, my granddad, he's Hungarian. Back in the day -

I'm not sure how many years ago - he ran his own hot dog stand in

Bristol. He's part British. He is putting British history in a view...

I can't make out where you are coming from. That's a point well

made. Will Self, 4 million foreign residents since 2001. People have

said Britain has many different meanings to many different people.

I think up to the Suez crisis in 1952, sorry, '56? '56. I remember

it. Of course you do. You were probably in the front line!

LAUGHTER APPLAUSE Thank you for the on the

spot fact checking, Peter. Most people's conception of what being

British involved was basically going overseas and subjugating

black and brown people and taking their stuff and the fruits of their

labours. That was a core part of British identity, the British

emfire. Now, various members of the political class have try to revive

that idea recently without much success. So if we are talking about

what an integral conception of Britishness is, it is quite anti-

thetical to the idea of a multicultural nation. It is in

favour of a multicultural empire, which is quite a different thing.

Addressing the young man who there is concerned about our relationship

with Scotland and Wales and Ireland, who were often employed as the

shock troop of the British empire to go in and appropriate this stuff.

So if your idea of Britain is the British empire, this is no longer

that, quite clearly. That's my answer. And the scale of

immigration revealed by the sense news the last ten years, are you

happy about that? Weirdly enough it is a bit like the issue of gay

marriage, in that people who line up on the opposition to immigration

are usually racists. No, they are. They have an antipathy to people,

particularly with black and brown skins. The bigoted... You've had

your crack, Peter. unwillingness to listen to an

opposition opinion. Liberal bigotry is the worst of all, because it

thinks it is so unen lightened. was just making a point. It could

probably be fact checked. It is easy to complain about the level of

immigration, but I agree with the gentleman who said it is part of

our island culture. I wonder if we would have ever built the motorway

network without the help of the Irish or won the Battle of Britain

without the help of the Polish airmen. Next question please.

fair to vilify the two Australian DJs for the unintended tragic

consequences of their hoax phone call? Justine Greening? I think

what they did was hugely irresponsible. I think having said

that, nobody really could have predicted what tragic outcome would

have resulted from their prank. I think the reality is that it was an

Australian talk show and radio show. If it hadn't been reported so

widely in the UK, I don't know whether the nurse would have been

quite so aware of the story itself. It is incredibly tragic. I think

everybody involved is obviously gutted. I think really the most

important thing right now is that her family is allowed some privacy

to get on with what has been a huge personal tragedy for them. I think

the media circus around it really needs to stop now. We need to allow

them to come to terms with what's happened, which has been absolutely

horrible. Stella Creasy? I'm really sorry, but I feel so uncomfortable

about us having this as a conversation. All I think of is

there's a family who has lost their mum ten days before Christmas. The

last thing they need is us speculating about what happened and

talking about it on TV. I'm sorry, David. If we really believe they

need privacy, they need people not the be speculating about this stuff

in public. I don't want to talk about it. I'm sorry. APPLAUSE

man in blue. I believe there's probably more than one cause of

this suicide. This will come out eventually. I think the part that

the Samaritans have to play in preventing suicides needs greater

publicity. Just to clar nigh, the question was not about Jacintha

Saldanha but about the attack on the two DJs for what's began as a

prank. That's the point. Where it went wrong was not in making the

phone call, but subsequently the DJs said they handed the tapes on

and they were checked. I think that, at that point it shouldn't have

gone any further. They said lawyers had been involved. However, the

station continued to put the tapes out and replay the conversation

over and over again. That must have been just blatant commercialism,

bringing from the Australian pounds. Will Self? Yes, I was walking down

Horseferry Road this morning past the Coroner's Court. There were

about maybe as many as 100 members of the media outside the Coroner's

Court waiting for what everybody knew would not be substantive

information. This is just part of a kind of wider media feeding frenzy

that exists. What's the centre of this media feeding frenzy? A young

woman's pregnancy actually. And why is this young woman's pregnancy of

such vital and all-consuming interest that these media

organisations are hungry for it? Because it's all about the

succession of the British monarchy. That's the really important thing

about this young woman's pregnancy. If you take the royal element out

of this, there is no story there whatsoever. So just another good

reason for a republic I think. APPLAUSE You Sir. I think this is

symptomatic of ow ridiculing television has become. The hoax

phone call is surely symptomatic of that. Lord Bilimoria? What really

gets me about this is that this prank, and pranks have always taken

place and will always take place. If there are no pranks, it is a

very boring world. But I don't play a prank on a hospital. You don't

call a hospital... APPLAUSE Where you are dealing with people's lives,

and then you try and get information about people in a

hospital, which is really private information. It doesn't matter that

it may be the future Queen of England. Anyone's information they

are trying to get from a hospital through a prank is not on. I don't

think they should have done it. The station has a lot to blame for

condoning it and allowing it to happen. Real lessons need to be

learned from this. APPLAUSE Look, it is easy to say that it is the

media's fault but there is a lot of hypocrisy around. Particularly when

we first heard that the call had been made, people thought it was

quite funny. It wasn't until it had its tragic ending that we all

realised that it quite so amusing after all. We all have to look at

ourselves. You Sir? Being Australian, I feel quite

responsible, even though it wasn't me. I think if it could get back to

them I would like to apologise on behalf of Australia that that has

happened. You don't have to do that. It is sad and devastating.

Australians are always looking for a bit of fun, always looking for a

joke. That might be good, that might be bad, but it is very sad

that this has blown out of all proportion. Australians will always

try to make light of situations, have fun. Maybe we made a mistake

on it, and the people on the station made a mistake, but I don't

think you can put sole blame on them for this. It is important

being Australian that that would be very, very gutted and disappointed

that this came across like this. Peter Hitchens? If I may answer the

original question - no. OK. Thank you very much.

Let's go to another question. Dennis Detheridge, please.

Should the use of illegal drugs be decriminalised? This is in the late

of Keith Vaz, who runs the Home Affairs Select Committee,

suggesting that the Government sets up a Royal Commission now to look

at drugs. We've been through this endlessly about drugs, be but he

now wants a full Royal Commission in the light of various arguments

that have been put. So should the use of illegal drugs be

decriminalised? Justine Greening. No, in a nutshell. The level of

drug usage is at an all-time low. We are starting to see many of the

programmes and treatment... It is actually. Compared to what, 1630?

It is moving in the right direction is the point I'm maifplgt we are

starting to see a lot of the treatment programmes getting much

better rates of getting people off drugs. Personally I think it would

send out a really bad signal to start legalising drugs which I

believe often see people end up on a rocky road to a situation where

they want the harder stuff. We've looked at this endlessly. The idea

that we should then kick off another commission to look at this.

We know what the issues are. I think it is a question of politics

really. What people think is the right approach to them. My personal

view is I don't think we should decriminalise drufplgtz I think it

sends out the wrong message. who are these MPs? It is across

party isn't? All the Select Committee. Don't think you know

anything about it much Justine, I get that strong feeling - that you

know nothing at all about it. alternatively may just have a

different view to me. How many registered addicts do you think

there were in Britain in 1965? wasn't alive in 1965. I rest my

case. You know all about this, so you had answer the question. And

remember that Fact Check are watching you. There are many tens

of hundreds of thousands of people many in receipt of the heroin

substitute methadone. My own drug history, which includes a long

period of addiction, is well known publicly. I don't really want to

speak from that position. What I do know about the situation with drugs

in this country is that quite clearly the system of prohibition,

if that's what it is, it doesn't work. It's a law that's widely

flouted. Statistically there'll be people in this audience who are

users of illegal drugs and most of them will be non-problematic. The

number of people who who are addicts as against social users is

a significant proportion but by no means the majority. Far from what

Justine is saying, the systems in place for people who do have

problematic if not a pathological problem with drugs are incredibly

poor in this country, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps as many as 0%

of people in our prisons -- 70% of people in our prisons have a drink

or drug problem. Really the Government should be doing much

more about it there. Is some willingness, interestingly...

That's not an argument for legalising it. You can make the

argument that treatment should get better, and you are right, but

that's not an argument for legalising it. ALL TALK AT ONCE

Hold on, Peter. No, it is time somebody said something intefplgt

fact Check can work on these. We have decriminalised drugs in this

country. If you are caught in possession, if the police can even

be bothered with somebody caught in possession of somebody with

cannabis, the most likely treatment is the cannabis warning, which was

invented by the police, not even asked for, which means you are let

off. In 1973, the well known Trotskyist Lord Hailsham instructed

magistrates to stop sending people to prison if they were in receipt

of cannabis. Why do they want a Royal Commission? Because there is

a well financed international campaign to legalise drugs so that

various wicked people can make large sums of money out of selling

them. Peter, there is no... There is no such thing thing as ho

Hillsboroughis. That is the most abject lie told by the people.

many people in this country do you think at this moment is in

possession of illegal drugs? I have no idea. How would I know? There

are statistics for it. You tell us. If you no, you say. I would say in

excess of 1 million people. You are going to have to build a lot of

prisons. Who said anything which enablinged you to say that? The

point of having a proper criminal law which is prosecuted and used is

not to put people in prison but to deter people committing stupid

crimes. That's why we have laws about drink-driving.

It is so simple. Anyone can answer Isn't it time we had a real

conversation about alternatives to criminalising drug users and

perhaps looking more at perhaps the Portuguese method where users are

offered rehabilitation access to medical advice and treatment, as

opposed to sending them down the criminal justice route, putting

more burden on the criminal justice system and essentially, as some

panellists said, creating a perpetual problem, as it were?

do that already, that's what we have been doing for 40 years.

you, Hitchens. People need to deal with some facts on this, instead of

propaganda. Stella? Actually, the experience in Portugal's been

pretty mixed but that's why this was an important report. This

report didn't call for legalisation or decriminalisation. It called for

the kind of debate. Justine, we may know some of the issues and answers

about what treatment does or doesn't work but what the report

highlighted was that the two aren't going together. That's why they

talked about having a Royal Commission. We spend �15 billion

trying to deal with the consequences of substance abuse

within our health care and criminal justice testimony so I think

there's room to look at what else might make a difference -- justice

system. It's about how you treat people and deal with addiction

because the consequences of not doing something about it are very

great for our society. I think it's a shame the Government dismissed

out of hand what was a reasoned piece of research and argument

about this being a decision that needs to happen, not just by 650

people in Parliament but needs a broader debate with perhaps even Mr

Self and Mr Hitchens taking part in that debate at the same time if

they'd let each other. The man there? It's a good idea to look at

this. We have had 40 or 50 years of this so-called war on drugs and all

it's done has make the people who grow and smuggle and sell drugs

rich and it's caused huge amounts of harm to society, people whose

homes are broken into and robbed, it's achieved nothing. We need to

step away from this, not look at it and making all drugs legal and as a

free-for-all, but a sensible policy which says if you are addicted to

heroin or crack or something, let's try doing a deal with you, if you

behave yourself, we'll gef you your happy powder and stop the drug

dealers making a fortune out of it -- give you your happy powder.

Lord Bilimoria? In countries like Holland, in certain states in the

United States, where they've tried to liberalise the usage of drugs,

it hasn't necessarily worked that well and I think the real problem

for me, my biggest fear is my children getting into drugs and

getting addicted to drugs, and what I try to do is educate them and say

don't do it. Not everyone gets addicted, you are absolutely right.

You got a peerage for flogging beer! Lord bail Bilimoria?

selling fantastic beer and we always encourage responsible

drinking! Back to the point, I think it's not about, we talk about

the treatment, it's about prevention, how can we educate

youngsters to stay away from drugs? Decriminalising them is not the

answer, it's not as simple as that. Another question from Lizzie

Morrell, please? Do you believe that the Housing

Minister was right to advise against giving food or money to

homeless people? This was Mark Prisk on Tuesday saying, donts give

money to the homeless, Christmas coming up, give them a telephone

number for a new charity and other people will look after them. Stella

Creasy? When we are seeing the levels of debt, the levels of

personal deprivation that's happening in our communities, it's

not surprising to me that we are seeing more people sleeping rough.

It's a fear for me. I spent two- and-a-half years campaigning about

legal loan sharking, trying to get the Government to do something

about those people charging huge amounts for loans because I could

see people in my community living with that cost. It's no surprise

that people have ended up on the streets and, as a basic point for

us, in society, as we deal with it. I work at my local night shelter.

I'm so worried this Government doesn't take the cost-of-living

serious because of the consequences we are seeing as a result. When you

think your housing costs go up. My part of London, it's predicted

rents will rise 25% over the next couple of years. You are veering

off the subject here. It's about how we deal with homelessness. It's

a function of society. The Housing Minister said "Most people know

that giving money or food won't help a rough sleeper find a home,

get the health care they need or simply put them in touch with

support available. Do you think that giving money or food doesn't

help? I don't think it's an either or. I work with the night shelter,

I give them food and fund-raise for them because we need them. I was it

wasn't the case and I'll fight for policies that mean we don't end up

with people living on the streets and end up with the level of debt

they have now which means they have to make those kind of choices.

Justine Greening? I don't think anybody wants to see homelessness

and what Mark was saying was what we need to do when we see people is

make sure they get help. I think perpetuating their circumstances

doesn't do them any good at all and I think what he was trying to do,

which I think he did very well because we are talking about it now,

is highlight that there is far more support there for homeless people

and that actually, what we all should be doing is trying to make

sure that when we see people like that, that we help them get that

support that's there. You, Sir, on the front row. You two, you on the

left first, then you? My view is, obviously, since I've been here in

Bristol, as a student, I've been out in the town sometimes quite

late and I've seen people that need or asked for money or food.

Personally, I believe that to not do much for them but it shows

there's a level of compassion that, there are people who walk past them

in the street and actually do care. But in terms of a long-term effect,

it doesn't do much so maybe something could be put in place to

support them or give them a number or just something to show that that

will have a longer lasting effect, rather than just feeding their

bellies. The man next to you? doesn't the Housing Minister

arrange for more houses to be built for homeless people? That's exactly

what we are doing. Local authorities are releasing public

land so we can get houses built, the Mayor in London is getting more

houses built. We are starting from a position of record low housing

stock since the 20s, but we are trying to improve that and we've

got a mole range of policies, not just to get houses built but to

help young people in particular be able to afford to buy them.

But Housing Benefit is already showing signs of people being

thrown out by landlords? recognise the welfare system got

out of whack. That's not what I asked you. A thousand families in

Walthamstow will have their Housing Benefit capped next year. There is

no spare housing. They are going to be homeless or end up with the

legal loan sharks, neither of which is a good outcome. We'll all end up

paying the costs of these families. APPLAUSE First of all, we are

saying that the sorts of Housing Benefit that we were seeing in some

parts of particularly London... I've not answered the question that

was put, you don't know what I was about to say. You talk about levels

of Housing Benefit people were claiming in London. There were a

handful of families that were getting more than �50,000 a year

Housing Benefit. You have just concentrated... In the UK, it's

about �24,000. What we are saying is that people in the public sector

needing supported housing should face the same choices as people

who're in the privats sector. don't want to go into that --

private sector. We were talking about the spillage from this, the

immediate spillage which has been reported. Hitchens, what is your

view about what the Housing Minister said? Give what you can to

a good, effective charity that will help these people out of the

problems into which they've fallen. Each time you may out of the

softness of your heart want to give people money because people do,

they see someone sitting in the street and think, that person, I

ought to give them something so they will, it may not do any good,

I don't necessarily think it will do any harm but it does much more

good if you put aside the money for a charity, there are plenty of them,

easy to find, at this time of year especially, put money into them and

it will do more good than politician will ever do you, that's

for certain. I run a food bank and there are 100,000 of those in

Britain. I'm ashamed to be living in a country where food banks have

had to come back because people are so worried.

APPLAUSE Surely homelessness is a complex

problem and just simply giving someone food and drink is not

actually going to really deal with the problem. It requires agencies

to work together and it requires a joined up thinking and I'm

convinced that's probably not the case at the moment. It requires the

Government not to put them into destitution. Will Self? Charity is

a sop that floats into societies as thaiz become more gather tearian.

You look at our society over the past 30, 40 years, the Gulf between

the richest and poorest has increased and we have more Red Nose

Days and telethons in order to help us feel better act the fact that

people are living in poverty, so what Peter suggests is just another

sticking plaster. We require a society where there isn't this with

people on the street. The woman in white there? Why do we have to rely

on charitys to help the homeless? Why at Christmas does an individual

who wants a hot meal and shelter have to go to a Crisis shelter? Why

is it all charitable giving and not actually from central Government?

Charities are better at it. point that you have just made, this

country, less than 1% of the population of the world here, and

we are still, without the empire, one of the ten wealthiest countries

in the world in absolute terms. It's phenomenal. Our welfare state,

�200 billion into welfare and pensions and still you have

homeless people and still you have poverty and child poverty in this

country. What I think is amazing, nothing is perfect, Government

tries its best, it's not always perfect. What I love about this

country is the charitable spirit, the number of charities they are

that will fill that gap with the Armed Forces charitys that I've

worked with, there are so many of the homeless who're former

sholdiers and there's no reason for them to be there but there there

because it's a complex situation. We are lucky to have an amazing

country that fill the gap of the charities. That's all we have got

time for. Time's up. This is last programme of the year. We come back

on the 10th January. We are going to be in Lewisham in South London.

We are going to be in Lincoln on 17th January, so if you would like

17th January, so if you would like to come on the 10th to Lewisham or

17th to Lincoln, apply on the website. The address is on the

screen, or call that number: It would be very good to see you.

Thank you to the panel and all of you who came to the City academy

here in Bristol, the first set up in Britain under the Labour

Government. From all of us on Question Time, everybody who works