:00:10. > :00:15.setting, City Hall on the south bank of the Thames, the home of London's
:00:15. > :00:18.government, with the city of London behind us and the tower of London
:00:18. > :00:28.over my shoulder, which used to stand as a warning to errant
:00:28. > :00:29.
:00:29. > :00:34.citizens. Welcome to Question Time. To our audience at home, the
:00:34. > :00:38.audience here, to our panel, we welcome them. The Conservative mayor
:00:38. > :00:43.of London, Boris Johnson, the Liberal Democrat energy Secretary,
:00:43. > :00:53.Ed Davey, Labour's former Olympic Minister, Tessa Jowell, Daily Mail
:00:53. > :01:07.
:01:07. > :01:11.columnist, Melanie Phillips, and question, please. Should we jail
:01:11. > :01:16.reckless bankers, and which bankers would the panel wish to be
:01:16. > :01:23.prosecuted? Should we jail reckless bankers, a proposal which came up
:01:23. > :01:25.this week, and which bankers would the panel wish to see prosecuted?
:01:25. > :01:32.think you should certainly jail anybody guilty of criminal
:01:32. > :01:38.behaviour. The trouble at the moment, what people find so
:01:38. > :01:42.frustrating, is that for all the grievous mistake is, the
:01:42. > :01:45.semi-criminal acts that bankers got up to in the period leading up to
:01:45. > :01:49.the crash, absolutely nobody has been so far successfully prosecuted,
:01:49. > :01:56.nobody has been sent to prison. There is a huge amount of anger
:01:56. > :02:00.about that. What could you send about to prison for? At the moment,
:02:00. > :02:03.the statute does not cope with the things that they were up to. You
:02:03. > :02:12.would need to frame some law that said that if they were going to
:02:12. > :02:15.imperil the asset 's, or the savings of their customers, with risky
:02:15. > :02:20.behaviour, the addictively risky behaviour they got up to, they
:02:20. > :02:28.should face some sort of penalty. You could imagine a criminal
:02:28. > :02:33.sanction, a law against such behaviour. How do you distinguish
:02:33. > :02:38.bad judgement as a banker from wilful, criminal attempts to take
:02:38. > :02:43.people's savings offer them? That would be a matter for the court. I
:02:43. > :02:49.do not think it would be very easily done. I think you have to be very
:02:49. > :02:53.careful how you draw that up. The general point I would make, four or
:02:53. > :02:56.five years after the whole thing exploded, is, yes, by all means
:02:56. > :03:01.let's regulate these people and make absolutely clear to them that they
:03:01. > :03:08.got it wrong. But I really do not see any long-term advantage to this
:03:08. > :03:15.city, or this country, in continuing with an all G of anchor bashing,
:03:15. > :03:19.bashing financial services, when, don't forget, there are hundreds of
:03:19. > :03:25.thousands of people in this city who are not on big incomes, who do not
:03:25. > :03:29.take huge bonuses, who are earning very modest salaries, but whose
:03:29. > :03:33.livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families depend entirely on
:03:33. > :03:36.the success of financial services in London. Don't forget that fact.
:03:37. > :03:45.Don't imperil London's position as the greatest financial capital on
:03:45. > :03:50.earth. Maybe we have bankers and financiers here. If anyone has read
:03:50. > :03:55.the Stanford prison experiment, it shows that good people do bad things
:03:55. > :04:02.if the system let them do it. I wonder how much the system is to
:04:02. > :04:05.blame, rather than individuals. feel the gentleman has a point. The
:04:05. > :04:11.interesting thing about this commission's report is that it does
:04:11. > :04:15.not just say, jail the bankers. If there is a criminal offence, it will
:04:15. > :04:18.be a high test and that will be the ultimate sanction. Commission also
:04:18. > :04:21.talks about ensuring there is individual responsibility, that
:04:21. > :04:25.systems are changed. What I found astonishing during the banking
:04:25. > :04:29.crisis is some of the people at the top of the banks were able to say,
:04:29. > :04:34.we did not know what was going on, we did not understand the risks that
:04:34. > :04:38.our banks were taking. That is just not acceptable. Look at the mess it
:04:38. > :04:42.has got our banking system and economy into. We are right to take
:04:42. > :04:48.these measures. The government has been acting. We have the biggest set
:04:48. > :04:51.of reforms to the British banking system ever. We have a new
:04:51. > :04:54.regulatory system with the Bank of England in charge. We have ring
:04:55. > :04:59.fenced the casino banks from the banks that you and I invest in. We
:04:59. > :05:04.have the toughest regime on bonuses in the world. We have done a whole
:05:04. > :05:09.range of things. The good thing about this banking commission is it
:05:09. > :05:13.gives another set of ideas to make sure we reform our banks. Boris is
:05:13. > :05:16.right, banks play a critical role in our economy. But I do not think
:05:16. > :05:21.there is enough competition in the sector, so I would like to see these
:05:21. > :05:29.reforms and take them further. would you like to see prosecuted?
:05:29. > :05:34.Anybody? Before the offence has even been brought in, we should not start
:05:34. > :05:41.retrospectively applying it. And all G of anchor bashing, Russell Brand,
:05:41. > :05:48.do you think that is happening? -- banker bashing. That would be the
:05:48. > :05:54.best kind of or GI can imagine. What you said was wicked, I thought. The
:05:54. > :05:57.system encourages that behaviour. When looking for the culprits after
:05:57. > :06:01.these transgressions, look for the people that after the crash where
:06:01. > :06:05.people lost loads of money, look for people who got loads of bonuses and
:06:05. > :06:10.loads of money. They are the people that are criminal. Those are the
:06:10. > :06:14.people that need to be prosecuted. Whilst to a degree we have to
:06:14. > :06:20.placate the city, don't you think it has happened too much, that they can
:06:20. > :06:23.behave in this manner while ordinary people suffer? I think we need
:06:23. > :06:27.punitive measures immediately employed so it does not continue to
:06:27. > :06:31.occur. Not because of some weird, lefty agenda, but because if there
:06:31. > :06:34.are not penalties, the behaviour will happen in cycles. People need
:06:34. > :06:44.to go down, and it is the people that have got the money that need to
:06:44. > :06:47.
:06:47. > :06:57.go down. If we are going to prosecute tankers for making
:06:57. > :07:01.
:07:01. > :07:04.mistakes, surely we should also prosecute politicians? I have
:07:04. > :07:07.sympathy with that point of view and I think that is what the previous
:07:07. > :07:11.gentleman was getting at with reference to the system. There may
:07:11. > :07:14.be good reason for bringing in a new criminal offence and there may be
:07:14. > :07:18.individual bankers who should be deemed to be guilty and should be
:07:19. > :07:25.prosecuted and found guilty of that or other offences. But I think it is
:07:25. > :07:29.very easy to whip up a witchhunt atmosphere against bankers. One of
:07:29. > :07:33.the reasons why the banking crisis happened, it was not simply the
:07:33. > :07:38.greed of individual bankers, be that as it made. It was the fact that the
:07:38. > :07:43.Bank of England took its eye off the ball. The Treasury basically said,
:07:43. > :07:49.let rip. We are going to lift up the regulatory system in order to let
:07:49. > :07:53.rip, because we want to get the money coming in. There is a
:07:53. > :07:57.responsibility for politicians to bear in all of this. I am not saying
:07:57. > :08:03.they should be prosecuted, but it is very easy to single out bankers.
:08:03. > :08:07.Everyone hates bankers, don't they, because they are rich? It is so easy
:08:07. > :08:11.to raise a cheer against bankers, isn't it? But it may be that other
:08:11. > :08:16.people are responsible, and it may be that when you look at what they
:08:16. > :08:23.actually did, is it always going to be so easy to decide when it was a
:08:23. > :08:29.bad judgement, which is culpable, negligent, incompetent, and where
:08:29. > :08:31.that shades into kind of deliberate and even malicious recklessness. I
:08:31. > :08:38.think we all feel recklessness should be punished, but I think we
:08:38. > :08:41.have to be very careful not to just dam everybody. Melanie, what I am
:08:41. > :08:46.thinking is that incompetence of that degree, that has those
:08:46. > :08:49.consequences, is indistinguishable from malice, in my opinion. Do you
:08:49. > :08:52.think it might be likely that if 50% of Tory party funding comes from
:08:52. > :08:57.bankers, it might be hard for them to think up ways of penalising their
:08:57. > :09:01.mates? That is where they get their funding. If I was 50% funded by
:09:01. > :09:06.people, I would be reluctant to Pina lies them. When you say politicians
:09:06. > :09:14.and bankers, there is not much of a distinction, as far as I can work
:09:14. > :09:19.out. I am with you, Russell, on that last point. The chap in spectacles,
:09:19. > :09:23.who asked how you target the right culprits, that seems to be the key
:09:23. > :09:27.problem. You probably could frame a law that would stop bankers who took
:09:27. > :09:31.extreme risks with other people's money, but what about the Labour
:09:31. > :09:36.government, who were in power in the period, as Melanie indicates,
:09:36. > :09:42.leading up to the crisis? They were sitting there, deregulating. Gordon
:09:42. > :09:47.Brown went to the city of London in June 2007 and said, we are entering
:09:47. > :09:51.a golden age of banking in the city of London. What kind of signal did
:09:51. > :09:59.that send to those people? Now, should Gordon Brown be sent to
:09:59. > :10:07.prison? Yes.Tessa Jowell, she was part of that government. Should she
:10:07. > :10:16.be sent to prison? I would go and visit a in prison. She might not
:10:16. > :10:20.welcome that. First of all, to answer the question, yes, it is
:10:20. > :10:26.right that criminal sanctions are introduced. Why? Because of the
:10:26. > :10:31.scale of damage that the malpractice, the incompetence, the
:10:31. > :10:36.malevolent practice by some bankers, completely unaccountable,
:10:36. > :10:45.because of the scale of damage that it did to the economy. And yes, it
:10:45. > :10:49.is right that our economy is heavily dependent, has been very heavily
:10:49. > :10:56.dependent on the tax receipts from the financial services and from the
:10:56. > :11:00.banks. And yes, it is right that financial services and the banks
:11:00. > :11:05.were under regulated, and were under regulated while we were in
:11:05. > :11:10.government. And we have recognised that. But what is also important to
:11:10. > :11:15.recognise is that the Tories, and I think even you, Boris, were saying,
:11:15. > :11:20.even in that under regulated time, the banks were to regulated. So
:11:20. > :11:25.there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this. And the fact is
:11:25. > :11:29.that criminal sanctions will be one thing, but also, let's hear it for
:11:29. > :11:35.women on the trading floor, women in the boardrooms, changing the culture
:11:35. > :11:40.of banking. Because it is the culture that was as much to blame as
:11:40. > :11:47.the behaviour of irresponsible and reprehensible individuals.
:11:47. > :11:53.women? Do they behave differently on the floor of banks? Are they less
:11:53. > :12:03.competitive? There is plenty of evidence to show all that. You have
:12:03. > :12:06.answered your own question. female Prime Minister would have
:12:06. > :12:10.recklessly racked up the deficit in the way that Gordon Brown did.
:12:10. > :12:20.Margaret Thatcher, for instance. know that we well that the deficit
:12:20. > :12:26.
:12:26. > :12:30.was considered a cause, the global collapse of the financial sector.
:12:30. > :12:33.am concerned about our expectation of bankers to be the moral barometer
:12:33. > :12:37.of what is acceptable in that environment. There were no rules.
:12:37. > :12:41.They were able to push the boundaries to the apex of what was
:12:41. > :12:45.acceptable. So I think we do not need to look back on what we should
:12:45. > :12:49.be doing, but we need to look forward about what we need to do to
:12:49. > :12:52.make sure. Because they do, at the end of the day, it is a very
:12:52. > :12:59.aggressive job and they do make money for our pensions. So we need
:13:00. > :13:03.them, but we need them to be more responsible.
:13:03. > :13:07.I agree that the Conservative party supported deregulation of the banks
:13:07. > :13:12.and should not forget that. But I am one of the people that Boris
:13:12. > :13:15.mentioned who works in one of these banks, one of these moderately paid
:13:15. > :13:20.people who works in these banks. What I think is important is that
:13:20. > :13:24.there are plenty of people there who do work hard and honestly. But there
:13:24. > :13:27.are not enough of us. Something needs to be done to support people
:13:27. > :13:32.who want to work honestly within these organisations to make them
:13:32. > :13:38.better. I do not want to intrude on your professional life, but are you
:13:38. > :13:41.in a position where you have people above you whose behaviour you are
:13:41. > :13:48.critical of, or despise? Are you forced to do things you do not want
:13:48. > :13:57.to do? Don't lose your job on hair! I have absolutely resigned my
:13:57. > :14:01.position. You can answer them.I would never say I have been forced
:14:01. > :14:05.to do anything wrong. But there are behaviours I have witnessed, almost
:14:05. > :14:11.on a daily basis, that I am critical of all stop compliance issues that
:14:11. > :14:20.people laugh off. That should not be allowed to happen. Perhaps there
:14:20. > :14:30.needs to be some external, in-house regulation. Is this in a big trading
:14:30. > :14:31.
:14:31. > :14:36.bank? An investment bank. The woman in the fourth row. I would like to
:14:36. > :14:41.hear what Tessa thought of women in banks and boardrooms before she was
:14:41. > :14:50.rudely interrupted. Probably by me. That's alright. That's part of the
:14:50. > :14:55.game. Christine lag Aircast head of the IMF -- Christine Lagarde head of
:14:55. > :15:01.the IMF said if it had been the Lehman Sisters it wouldn't have
:15:01. > :15:07.started. You know if women are present, women act differently. More
:15:07. > :15:14.consensually, more risk averse, more... Sexy.
:15:14. > :15:20.LAUGHTER Maybe that too, Russell. Part of the problem has been the
:15:20. > :15:24.macho male go for it, very gross, "I'm in it for my bonus at the end
:15:24. > :15:28.of the year." That's the culture that's got to change. You were
:15:28. > :15:34.absolutely right. There are thousand thousands of people, decent people,
:15:34. > :15:37.working hard in banking in this City. It is important we remain the
:15:37. > :15:45.banking capital, the financial capital of the world, with a decent
:15:45. > :15:52.banking system. APPLAUSE
:15:52. > :15:57.I can't say I entirely share Tessa's optimism about women being the
:15:57. > :16:00.paragons of integrity and competence. We may come later to the
:16:00. > :16:04.Care Quality Commission, headed by women. It is not exactly a great
:16:04. > :16:08.advertisement. I don't think it is the case that men or women are more
:16:08. > :16:13.susceptible to corruption or fraud or incompetence or malice or
:16:13. > :16:17.reckless. I think we are all frail. We all need to have systems of
:16:17. > :16:21.regulation put in place and we need to be in a society with a shared
:16:21. > :16:24.culture of integrity and trust and honesty. That's what we have all
:16:24. > :16:27.lost. APPLAUSE
:16:27. > :16:32.We'll go on to another question. A lot of questions, including possibly
:16:32. > :16:42.one on the NHS. You can of course join in tonight's
:16:42. > :16:46.
:16:46. > :16:49.debate by text or on Twitter. Russell Brand, you have 6. 5 million
:16:49. > :16:55.followers, I don't think Question Time has quite that, but it is
:16:55. > :17:00.building up. We can unify our followers if we are allowed to
:17:00. > :17:05.establish a single agenda. Particularly ton banking issue. Say
:17:05. > :17:14.the banks - I heard this, nationalise them banks, because you
:17:14. > :17:17.know how we have to bail them out when they lose our money. Don't flog
:17:17. > :17:22.Lloyds Banking Group, as George Osborne said, to his mates, keep
:17:22. > :17:32.them banks to us the so we'll reap the benefits as well as the
:17:32. > :17:36.
:17:36. > :17:39.deficits. Peter less than even, please. Are UK drugs laws working?
:17:39. > :17:43.Melanie Phillips, do you think the drug laws are working in this
:17:43. > :17:47.country? According to the statistics that I read, fewer people now are
:17:47. > :17:52.taking drugs. Drug use is going down, so from that point of view
:17:52. > :17:56.drug laws are working. I think that they are working in so far as they
:17:56. > :18:01.are working with it is against a background of a movement to stop
:18:01. > :18:05.them working at all. This idea that it is not the drugs that are the
:18:05. > :18:12.problem, it is the laws that are the problem, that we've had a failed war
:18:12. > :18:17.on drugs. I don't see it that way myself. I see in the last few years,
:18:17. > :18:22.or several years in fact, a policy which has been to have a move away
:18:22. > :18:27.from law enforcement into what's called harm-reduction. What that
:18:27. > :18:32.means that you don't try as a society to stop people using drugs,
:18:32. > :18:39.on the basis that all illegal drug use is harmful to the person and a
:18:39. > :18:44.sociality don't try and stop that. Harm reduction means that you accept
:18:44. > :18:48.that it is going to happen and mitigate the harm. In my view that
:18:48. > :18:56.gives a green light for people to take drugs and more people get
:18:56. > :19:01.hooked on taking trust. On -- on taking drugs. In Sweden, they have a
:19:01. > :19:05.kind of "zero tolerance" of drugs, which means not that every drug user
:19:05. > :19:10.gets locked up but every drug user is regarded as a problem, not a
:19:10. > :19:14.victim, who needs some kind of attention. He may, he or she may be
:19:14. > :19:18.sent to prison, but not that often, especially if they are not dealing.
:19:18. > :19:24.What they are made to do is have some sort of attention, which helps
:19:24. > :19:27.them kick the habit, which helps them into treatment. It makes them
:19:27. > :19:30.have whatever is considered appropriate. So you are not in
:19:30. > :19:34.favour of criminalising in the sense that anyone found with drugs should
:19:34. > :19:38.be sent to jail or banged up, you think there are other ways of
:19:38. > :19:40.dealing with it? Is those are two different questions. You can
:19:41. > :19:45.criminalise something by making the possession or use of something
:19:45. > :19:48.illegal, but it doesn't mean you have to lock them up. That in my
:19:48. > :19:54.view may be appropriate in some circumstances but not in others.
:19:54. > :19:59.Russell Brand? Well, mate, I don't think drug laws are working, because
:19:59. > :20:06.people taking drugs all the time. People take drugs because of social,
:20:06. > :20:11.psychological and emotional reasons. Are Yous section lot are in the
:20:11. > :20:16.young pad on-line you might not be the most vulnerable to addiction.
:20:16. > :20:19.For me it is about treating people with addiction issues in a
:20:19. > :20:23.compassionate and empathetic way, the opposite of what Melanie is
:20:23. > :20:30.saying, who on a personal level is really lovely, I was chatting to
:20:30. > :20:35.her. But on that issue I disagree with her wholeheartedly. When I was
:20:35. > :20:39.using drugs, I don't care if they are illegal. If I'm in pain inside,
:20:39. > :20:43.I'm taking drugs. If you criminalise them and marginalise them you place
:20:43. > :20:46.an industry in the hands of criminals and you make it difficult
:20:46. > :20:50.and shaming for them to get treatment. That's the wrong way to
:20:50. > :20:56.handle the situation. We have to reach out to people compassionately
:20:56. > :21:01.and then we have a chance of a solution. Would you like
:21:01. > :21:06.decriminalisation of all drugs? Mate... Sir David. Just David will
:21:06. > :21:10.do. I don't like to be drawn on that. People that are suffering from
:21:10. > :21:16.drug problems don't care about the law. They care about getting the
:21:16. > :21:21.right treatment, which I believe is abstinence-based treatment.
:21:21. > :21:27.APPLAUSE Is it not sometimes necessary to
:21:27. > :21:30.criminalise these people to show other people, such as young people
:21:30. > :21:34.at college that I'm with at the moment, that that isn't the road to
:21:34. > :21:39.go, and that in fact there is another path of education and
:21:40. > :21:44.working towards a better future? Boris Johnson, due agree with that?
:21:44. > :21:49.I think your drugs policies should be dictated by what you are trying
:21:49. > :21:54.to achieve. We are trying to reduce drug use overall. And we are trying
:21:55. > :22:00.to fight crime. The two most important things. Listening to what
:22:00. > :22:04.Melanie had to say, I'm a huge admirer of Melanie generally, but
:22:04. > :22:10.there was a contradiction. I began by saying rightly that drug use in
:22:10. > :22:13.this country is at an all-time low. That is partly because we are
:22:13. > :22:18.pursuing sensible rehabilitation policies, looking at the problems of
:22:18. > :22:24.the users, trying to deal with their struggle with addiction, and so on
:22:24. > :22:29.and so forth. That's right way to do it. You simultaneously have to have
:22:29. > :22:35.a tough law and order response. That is working too. Crime is well down
:22:35. > :22:41.in London over the last few years. By 6% in the last year alone.
:22:41. > :22:45.Drugs-related crime is down. So in that context, I would myself be
:22:45. > :22:50.pretty reluctant to change the law in order to make drugs more readily
:22:50. > :22:55.available. I think I would, I think we've got the balance about right,
:22:55. > :23:00.and when I look at other cities, which I don't need to name to you,
:23:00. > :23:05.where they do... You had better not, you've got bad previous on that,
:23:05. > :23:10.man! I don't mind being sent to apologise to the people of Amsterdam
:23:10. > :23:14.or wherever it is. When I do look at areas where they have had an
:23:14. > :23:17.experiment, I'm not convinced that the quality of life, the kind of
:23:17. > :23:25.stuff that's associated with that area is the kind of thing we want to
:23:25. > :23:29.see in London, so I'm pretty fixed on the way things are. OK. Aren't we
:23:29. > :23:37.sending a conflicting message to people by having some drugs as
:23:37. > :23:40.illegal and others such as alcohol and nicotine as being legal?
:23:40. > :23:44.APPLAUSE Ed Davey? I think that question
:23:44. > :23:49.shows we need to be evidence-led. We need to look at the evidence. I
:23:49. > :23:52.think there is some evidence that drug policy is working on the
:23:52. > :23:57.rehabilitation side, as Russell said. If we can treat people with
:23:57. > :24:01.humanity when never got on addiction and try to help them get off this di
:24:01. > :24:07.diction, that can make a difference to that person's life and to wider
:24:07. > :24:11.society. But I'm not convinced yet we've won the war on drugs. There
:24:11. > :24:15.are still thousands of people dying from drugs. They scar communities.
:24:15. > :24:19.There are drug barons making billions from this. I think we do
:24:19. > :24:24.need to review the drug laws. I think we need to look at the
:24:24. > :24:31.evidence. Nick Clegg's asked our ministerial colleague Germany Brown
:24:31. > :24:35.to look at the experience in Portugal, in Amsterdam, in the
:24:35. > :24:40.United States, in the Czech Republic and other places, where they've
:24:40. > :24:44.changed some of the laws. Let's look at the evidence. If changing the law
:24:44. > :24:50.leads the a positive effect for society, we should consider that.
:24:50. > :24:58.Can you clarify what changing the law means, in your mind? Abandoning
:24:58. > :25:03.the legality of certain drugs -- illegality. There is a debate
:25:03. > :25:06.whether we should decriminalise the use of cannabis. I've never been
:25:06. > :25:10.convinced of that, but I'm determined we should review the laws
:25:11. > :25:15.from the evidence. There's been a lack of policy based on evidence in
:25:15. > :25:23.this area. That's what we should do. You've had evidence in Holland
:25:23. > :25:26.haven't you? There's been some quite new changes. It is rather more
:25:26. > :25:30.complicated than just following one particular country. There are a
:25:30. > :25:36.number of places around the world in certain states in the US, in
:25:36. > :25:41.Portugal and the Czech Republic, and in Amsterdam where they've made
:25:41. > :25:46.changes. It may mean as a result we don't make any changes but we should
:25:46. > :25:49.be based on evidence. But you are encouraging people to think that you
:25:49. > :25:56.would. Boris is against change. Melanie is against change and you
:25:56. > :25:59.are saying let's look at how it works and maybe we'll change.
:25:59. > :26:04.already spending �500 million a year, rightly in my view, on
:26:04. > :26:09.rehabilitation. We are spending lots more, billions more, on dealing with
:26:09. > :26:13.the crimes. And a lot of money is going to these wicked organised
:26:13. > :26:17.criminals. I'm wanting to make sure we are more effective. And if as a
:26:17. > :26:27.result of the review of the laws we got a better policy, surely that's
:26:27. > :26:29.
:26:29. > :26:34.From what I understand, the budgets for the treatment centres have gone
:26:34. > :26:38.down in the last few years, so I don't think it is much of a sign of
:26:38. > :26:45.commitment to the treatments that people have been referring to.
:26:45. > :26:52.are seeing more people under rehabilitation. Downlike?I was
:26:52. > :26:55.taken by -- Tessa Jowell? L?? I remember when I was Public Health
:26:55. > :27:00.Minister many years ago now and we were very concerned to reduce
:27:00. > :27:05.smoking and the harm caused by smoking, and if you are poor you are
:27:05. > :27:09.more likely to die from smoking-related diseases. The Chief
:27:09. > :27:13.Medical Officer at the time observed that if tobacco was being introduced
:27:13. > :27:20.today it would be classed as an illegal drug, as there is no safe
:27:20. > :27:25.level at which you can smoke. I agree with the balance in Boris's
:27:25. > :27:30.answer - a combination of legislation, which is properly
:27:30. > :27:37.enforced, but the point about treatment and help for people who
:27:37. > :27:44.either don't want to form a habit, who want to kick the habit, is
:27:44. > :27:50.absolutely vital. I think that, for me, what effects mean most about
:27:50. > :27:54.this is the fact my constituents of Dulwich and West Norwood is about
:27:55. > :28:00.three miles down the road. I see week in, week out, the effect on
:28:00. > :28:05.young people of gang violence, gang intimidation, by people who've made
:28:05. > :28:11.enormous amounts of money and destroyed the lives of young people,
:28:11. > :28:17.and they were the drug barons. I would be absolutely horrified if we
:28:17. > :28:22.did anything at all that made life easier or more profitable for them.
:28:22. > :28:25.You say it is not working? I agree with you. We've got to make sure
:28:25. > :28:29.these criminals are brought to book and aren't making billions of pounds
:28:29. > :28:32.out of vulnerable people. The question is, what is the best drugs
:28:32. > :28:36.policy? I think we've made some improvements over the years,
:28:36. > :28:40.particularly on rehab, as I've said, but if there is evidence from abroad
:28:40. > :28:44.that we can learn from to test whether we make the changes, surely
:28:44. > :28:50.you would want to do that. I'm open minded about that. And prepared to
:28:50. > :28:56.go a with the evidence. My question to others why not go with the
:28:56. > :29:01.evidence? As a person who knows about addiction, the it is from the
:29:01. > :29:04.Dark Ages, the way we are people with addiction we are a couple of
:29:04. > :29:07.miles from Shoreditch where the streets are alive with people
:29:07. > :29:12.affected by this disease. The treatment has to be available to
:29:12. > :29:19.them. People do want to get clean and the more we stigmatise and
:29:19. > :29:29.alienate them, the less likely it is that they are going to get help.
:29:29. > :29:30.
:29:30. > :29:38.William Simmons. With MPs set to vote on arming rebels, will such an
:29:38. > :29:47.action only lead to bloodshed? think that I would vote against
:29:47. > :29:51.arming Syrian rebels, putting more arms into Syria. I think the
:29:51. > :29:57.situation has changed over the last year. Those who are allied with the
:29:57. > :30:07.rebels are not just Syrian national insurgents, but Al-Qaeda, other
:30:07. > :30:07.
:30:07. > :30:11.jihadists groups. I think it defies belief that you can provide weapons
:30:12. > :30:17.only to the people that you want to receive those weapons. I think what
:30:17. > :30:27.we should be doing is twofold. First of all, taking a lead on the rather
:30:27. > :30:32.paltry start that was made at the G8 earlier this week, to reach a
:30:32. > :30:38.negotiated solution, which has got to include the Russians. And I think
:30:38. > :30:42.with new leadership in Iran, it may also be the time to bring in Iran
:30:42. > :30:47.into and around the negotiating table. And also, to redouble our
:30:47. > :30:53.efforts to deal with the appalling humanitarian suffering of civilians
:30:53. > :30:57.in Syria itself, but then also the displaced people in refugee camps on
:30:57. > :31:07.the borders of Syria. That is where our effort ought to be going, not on
:31:07. > :31:09.
:31:09. > :31:18.harming the rebels. -- arming. Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary
:31:18. > :31:20.are at least considering arming the rebels. What is your view? The Prime
:31:20. > :31:26.Minister and William Hague are doing the honourable thing in trying to
:31:26. > :31:34.put pressure on Assad of Syria, who is running a nightmarish regime that
:31:35. > :31:37.is killing hundreds, tens of thousands of its own citizens.
:31:37. > :31:45.83,000-90,000 people have died. That is the diplomatic little objective
:31:45. > :31:49.in talking about arming the rebels. -- political objective. It is trying
:31:49. > :31:56.to get Vladimir Putin to focus on what is happening, to put pressure
:31:56. > :32:02.on him, and trying to get Assad to draw back from carnage. I have to
:32:02. > :32:06.tell you, and you agreed with me just now, that I do not share
:32:06. > :32:11.anybody's optimism that you can get those arms to the right people. I
:32:11. > :32:17.think you are right in what you say, Tessa, some of the people who are
:32:17. > :32:21.fighting on behalf of the rebel army are some of the most unpleasant
:32:21. > :32:25.jihadists that you can think of. You will have seen some of the stories
:32:25. > :32:29.about atrocities they have been committing. As far as I can make
:32:29. > :32:34.out, those are not false stories. There are some terrible things being
:32:34. > :32:38.done in the name of the rebellion in Syria, and I do worry that any
:32:38. > :32:43.engagement by us in trying to harm them will simply intensify that
:32:43. > :32:46.conflict. Then we would be in the terrible position of trying to make
:32:46. > :32:51.sure ourselves, physically, that we were getting arms to the right
:32:51. > :32:55.people, to the so-called Democrats. I am not sure that we could ensure
:32:55. > :33:01.that. Even if we could arm the rebels to the point where they
:33:01. > :33:07.defeat Assad and install a new regime in Syria, it is far from
:33:07. > :33:12.clear to me what kind of regime that would be. I am afraid this is one of
:33:12. > :33:16.those appallingly difficult choices. I understand totally what David
:33:16. > :33:21.Cameron is trying to do. I think he handled it very, very well at the G8
:33:21. > :33:29.the other day. He is trying to put maximum pressure on the Russians.
:33:29. > :33:32.But I would not vote for arming those rebels. You say you would not
:33:32. > :33:41.vote for it, not that you have a vote in the House of Commons, but
:33:41. > :33:46.isn't it dangerous to talk up the possibility of giving alms? You say
:33:46. > :33:54.it is a way of getting Assad to the table, but if you do not intend to
:33:54. > :33:58.use arms, is it right to say that you might? Of course, the UK
:33:58. > :34:01.government is not alone in this and this is something that is an option
:34:01. > :34:06.being canvassed by other EU countries and indeed the United
:34:06. > :34:09.States. When the United States speaks, people around the world, in
:34:09. > :34:14.the Middle East, know that they carry a big stick. People will be
:34:14. > :34:21.aware of what has happened to regimes in the United States has
:34:21. > :34:23.threatened in the past. It is not a wholly meaningless threat. But in my
:34:23. > :34:33.own judgement, it would be absolutely impossible to carry it
:34:33. > :34:34.
:34:34. > :34:38.out. Why are we even considering arming external forces when we are
:34:38. > :34:41.sacking 5000 of our top troops with 15 years experience, recruiting new
:34:41. > :34:46.recruits for our army at minimum salaries and sending them
:34:46. > :34:53.ill-equipped into these war zones? Why are we sending millions
:34:53. > :34:57.elsewhere? I am a former Army officer myself,
:34:57. > :35:04.and that is complete rubbish. Our troops go into battle fully equipped
:35:04. > :35:09.nowadays. It is rubbish that we are minus body armour, etc. I fully
:35:09. > :35:12.disagree with arming the rebels. I know that arms change hands in the
:35:12. > :35:17.blink of an eye in the Middle East. They would be used against us in a
:35:17. > :35:27.matter of months. Leave the weapons out of it and look at humanitarian
:35:27. > :35:33.
:35:33. > :35:37.I definitely agree that arming the Syrian rebels is wrong. I think it
:35:37. > :35:42.is against UN policy, if I am not wrong. It is also the question of
:35:42. > :35:47.the Syrian government's sovereignty. More should be done to work with
:35:47. > :35:50.China and Russia to broker a peace deal. Sovereignty, meaning Assad
:35:50. > :35:57.should be allowed to sort out his own country. Melanie Phillips, do
:35:57. > :36:02.you agree? I agree with what has been said, that arming the Syrian
:36:02. > :36:07.rebels would be a bad move. But this is a hideous situation. There are no
:36:07. > :36:14.good outcomes for us, or for anyone, from this. What you have is a war
:36:14. > :36:18.between on the one hand Assad, Iran and the soviet union, versus rebels,
:36:18. > :36:22.Al-Qaeda, Islamist, and possibly America. I do not think the Prime
:36:22. > :36:28.Minister had a good G8 at all. I think what he did was foolish in the
:36:28. > :36:33.extreme, extremely stupid, anti diplomats see, made the British look
:36:33. > :36:36.ridiculous and allowed President Putin, who does not seem to me to be
:36:36. > :36:43.someone I would want to have acted tea with my grandma, look as if he
:36:43. > :36:48.was running the show. -- back to tea with my grandma. And I read in the
:36:48. > :36:54.press that it was Mr Cameron who tried to gee up a very reluctant
:36:54. > :36:59.President Obama to think about arming the Syrian rebels, and thus
:36:59. > :37:04.led him to the brink of doing that. And then he said, my goodness, I
:37:04. > :37:09.cannot get it through my own parliament. What a mess! The fact is
:37:09. > :37:13.that if the rebels, Al-Qaeda, win in Syria, nobody should be under any
:37:13. > :37:18.illusion that there will be human rights and democracy. It will be
:37:18. > :37:22.awful for the Syrians and awful for us. But no one should be under any
:37:22. > :37:26.illusion that if Assad remains, it will be terrible for his people, who
:37:26. > :37:32.he has butchered in such large number, but also terrible for us,
:37:32. > :37:38.because Syria is a rogue state which has been funding, arming, organising
:37:38. > :37:48.terror against Western interests for many years, and it is the porn of
:37:48. > :37:58.
:37:58. > :38:04.Iran. And this is the bigger game going to do anything, we should have
:38:04. > :38:11.our eye fixed on where our interests live. And where our interests lie,
:38:11. > :38:15.as the West, is in neutralising Iran. We have allowed Iran the time,
:38:15. > :38:23.over many years, through this farce of talking to people who cannot be
:38:23. > :38:29.talked to, to pursue its pursuit of a nuclear bomb with which it
:38:29. > :38:35.intends, it says, to commit genocide against Israel, a state which has
:38:35. > :38:40.declared for the last 25 years war against us. That is the problem.
:38:40. > :38:48.That is the problem, the defeatism of the British people against a
:38:48. > :38:58.clear threat to this country's interest is. You are the problem.
:38:58. > :39:03.was with you all the way until you said we have to neutralise Iran.
:39:03. > :39:07.laugh. Neutralise Iran. The British audience laughs. How trivial of
:39:07. > :39:17.you. How incredibly ignorant of you. Do you not understand what the
:39:17. > :39:22.
:39:22. > :39:26.threat this country is to us? No, you do not. Paranoia? All right. Who
:39:26. > :39:36.said paranoia? Maybe you want to comment, in large on what you said.
:39:36. > :39:39.You do not want to speak. You do. This would turn into a proxy war
:39:39. > :39:44.between America on one hand and Iran on the other. Wider she always had
:39:44. > :39:49.to bring it back to Iran, and we cannot negotiate with Iran and
:39:49. > :39:53.Israel. It is very irrational. Why can we not deal with Iran? Where is
:39:53. > :40:01.your evidence that we cannot deal with Iran? And where is your
:40:01. > :40:05.evidence that Syria... It is not rational to think you can negotiate
:40:05. > :40:08.with Iran because it is currently run by people who believe, as a
:40:08. > :40:15.matter of religious belief, that if they bring about the apocalypse,
:40:15. > :40:21.literally the end of the world... Who said that? That is false.
:40:21. > :40:23.you let me speak? Is it rational to stop somebody speaking? They believe
:40:23. > :40:33.if they bring about the apocalypse they will bring to earth the
:40:33. > :40:38.Messiah. That is the people you are dealing with. They do not believe
:40:38. > :40:43.that. You are simply ignorant. Melanie Phillips said the Prime
:40:43. > :40:51.Minister made a mess of the G8, in effect, by encouraging Obama to send
:40:51. > :40:58.forces into Syria. Your comments, Melanie, on Iran, could not be more
:40:58. > :41:03.poorly timed. There has just been an election in Iran. Oh, please!We
:41:03. > :41:06.have a new president in Iran. In the Financial Times today, one of his
:41:06. > :41:10.advisers has written about wanting to make sure that we can reach out,
:41:10. > :41:14.and is telling the West that if we can reach out there are ways to deal
:41:14. > :41:17.with the nuclear problem and the other tensions. Surely we should be
:41:17. > :41:24.doing that, rather than some of the words we have just heard from
:41:24. > :41:30.Melanie. Let him finish his point. Coming back to the question, which
:41:30. > :41:33.was on Syria, there are a few things... This current government
:41:33. > :41:39.broke promises to us. Who is to say the Iranians government will not
:41:39. > :41:47.break promises? Do not put the microphone to people unless I call
:41:47. > :41:51.them, if you don't mind. We are not arming the Syrian rebels. We are
:41:51. > :41:56.giving huge amounts of human Terry and assistance. We are providing
:41:56. > :42:00.non-lethal assistance to the rebels. -- humanitarian assistance. Far from
:42:00. > :42:03.the prime and is the failing at the G8, quite the contrary. He managed
:42:03. > :42:09.to get an agreement with seven actions, with all the members of the
:42:09. > :42:16.G8 signing up to it. That was a real achievement and I think the
:42:16. > :42:20.relationship between Balmer and Putin, between Kerry and Hague, has
:42:20. > :42:23.been improving. -- between President Obama and Putin. We are going to
:42:23. > :42:29.have to try to work with the Russians to turn this round, because
:42:29. > :42:33.they are the biggest sponsor of the Assad regime. Unless we get the
:42:33. > :42:37.diplomacy with the Russians right, nothing will happen. So diplomacy is
:42:37. > :42:42.the main thing, and working with the Russians is right, and you could not
:42:42. > :42:46.be more wrong. Just before we leave that, I will come to you rustle in a
:42:46. > :42:51.moment, if you are not going to use weapons, why go to the trouble of
:42:51. > :42:56.getting the EU to lift the ban on providing weapons? Boris was right,
:42:56. > :43:00.it is about raising the pressure. it not dangerous, if you do not
:43:00. > :43:05.intend to do it. He does not think the government is going to do it,
:43:06. > :43:09.and Tessa Jowell says nobody will do it. It is a bluff. We have to raise
:43:09. > :43:13.the pressure on the Assad regime, just like the Prime Minister was
:43:13. > :43:18.talking about at the G8, that Assad had to go. The military regime under
:43:18. > :43:22.Assad, we will work with them for a transitional government if they get
:43:22. > :43:26.rid of Assad. All of this is about putting pressure on the Syrian
:43:26. > :43:29.regime so we can get a peaceful solution, without resorting to
:43:29. > :43:38.violence. I think that is a very constructive approach by the Prime
:43:38. > :43:43.Minister. I lost my faith in what the Government thinks after the Iraq
:43:43. > :43:46.works when they voted for that. APPLAUSE
:43:46. > :43:52.I know you never voted for it but some of the other people here voted
:43:52. > :43:57.for it. For me, my trust has been diminished. You are an Army officer
:43:57. > :44:04.aren't you mate, so you know the score. We need to focus on the
:44:04. > :44:09.humanitarian component. There's 4 million refugees inside the borders,
:44:09. > :44:16.1 million outside the border. This is world refugee day, which no-one
:44:16. > :44:21.seems to care about. Our leaders like to be heard being militant and
:44:21. > :44:26.bellicose, but that's not helpful for us to exacerbate conflict in
:44:26. > :44:34.Syria because there may be chemical weapons. I don't totally know the
:44:34. > :44:36.deal on that, but Patrick Coburn says it is highly dubious that the
:44:36. > :44:41.weapons are, there the same with weapons of mass destruction. And we
:44:41. > :44:47.mead to be cautious, like our man said there.
:44:47. > :44:53.APPLAUSE A couple of points and we'll go on.
:44:53. > :44:57.We thought the same about Iraq when we decided that yes they have
:44:57. > :45:02.weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons and now we seem to
:45:02. > :45:06.be pointing the finger at Iran. They've just had a new President, so
:45:06. > :45:14.they should be give an chance. at the back on the left. I have two
:45:14. > :45:24.points. One point if you would.I'm from a Shia Muslim background and I
:45:24. > :45:27.
:45:27. > :45:31.find that statement extremely offensive. You at the back there and
:45:31. > :45:35.then the woman. I find it really concerning that this week the Prime
:45:35. > :45:42.Minister said if conditions were right, he could arm the rebels as a
:45:43. > :45:46.country without a vote. I would like Ed Davey's assurance as a Cabinet
:45:46. > :45:51.Minister, as a coalition Government the Liberal Democrats won't let this
:45:51. > :45:56.happen? There is no proposal to arm the rebels at the moment. We've
:45:56. > :46:01.debated it at the Security Council... I'm a Liberal Democrat
:46:01. > :46:06.myself. I'm pleading with you that, as a party, we won't let this
:46:07. > :46:11.happen. We know there are lots of arguments against arming the rebels.
:46:11. > :46:16.Just as Boris said, I've heard those concerns and we are debating those
:46:16. > :46:19.concerns. The reason why we are not taking it off the table is we want
:46:19. > :46:24.to ratchet up the pressure. What about the question, if there is a
:46:24. > :46:30.vote in the House of Commons, the vote is no? If I answered that
:46:30. > :46:34.question, I would undermine the ability to ratchet up the pressure.
:46:34. > :46:38.There's got to be a vote, absolutely, there's got to be a
:46:38. > :46:46.vote. The Prime Minister has said, if there was military action, there
:46:46. > :46:51.would be a vote. And want would the vote be, advisory, or a vote which
:46:51. > :46:56.the Speaker says it ought to be, decisive? If there is a vote against
:46:56. > :47:01.the Government policy, the Government could would have to take
:47:01. > :47:06.it as binding. So is that a vote at least? I think that's what you've
:47:06. > :47:12.got. As I understand it, the Prime Minister said if there is military
:47:12. > :47:17.action, we would have to... You sit in the Cabinet, so you should know
:47:17. > :47:22.what is going on. And I sit in the Security Council, where we've
:47:22. > :47:26.debated this on a number of occasions. We've debated is the
:47:26. > :47:31.issue of Syria at length. We haven't debated the question that my
:47:31. > :47:40.colleague has raised, but the Prime Minister has said, as I understand
:47:40. > :47:46.it, if there was military action there would be a vote. OK. With the
:47:46. > :47:49.new Iranian President Mr Rouhani, who has promised more nuclear
:47:49. > :47:58.transparency, don't you think the international community should
:47:58. > :48:03.demand the same thing from Israel? APPLAUSE
:48:03. > :48:08.Boris Johnson? It is a curious fact that as far as I can make out Iran
:48:09. > :48:14.is is not in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. I don't
:48:14. > :48:19.think a lot of people realise this. Nor is there yet any convincing
:48:19. > :48:24.evidence that I'm aware of that Iran is actually in the process of
:48:24. > :48:29.developing a nuclear weapon. I don't mean to say that they don't intend
:48:29. > :48:34.to or they don't want to, but studying the evidence that we've got
:48:34. > :48:41.that is publicly available, I'm not aware of it. I think what is going
:48:41. > :48:45.on at the moment is unquestionably to do with a desire to use the
:48:45. > :48:50.nuclear issue, the ugly reprehensible things that the
:48:50. > :48:55.Iranian regime has said as a means of driving regime change in Tehran.
:48:55. > :48:58.I think that's basically what the United States wants. I'm not
:48:58. > :49:03.convinced they are going to achieve it. The risk is on the contrary they
:49:03. > :49:12.will just entrench that regime in power. I must go on, because we only
:49:12. > :49:17.have ten minutes left. German Munoz, please. With UK with
:49:17. > :49:21.average house price rising to new highs and wages falling in real
:49:21. > :49:29.terms, should younger people get used to the idea of a lifetime of
:49:29. > :49:33.renting? Russell Brand, house-owns, renting, price up. You know the
:49:33. > :49:37.score. I think if we continue to organise a seat around protecting
:49:37. > :49:41.the privileges of people that are already rich, not prosecuting
:49:41. > :49:48.bankers, allowing people to cleverly avoid taxes, then yeah, ordinary
:49:48. > :49:54.people are going to be penalised and aren't going to be able to pursue
:49:54. > :49:59.the dream that Thatcher left us of owning council houses. Unless there
:49:59. > :50:05.are changes where we get our revenue from, and I might suggest people in
:50:05. > :50:09.the top tax bracket, like me, mate. I'm happy to pay more tax. I'm sure
:50:09. > :50:12.the Government would accept a voluntary contribution.
:50:12. > :50:17.APPLAUSE If I was going to voluntarily hand
:50:17. > :50:21.over my money, it would not be to the Tory Government, man. I don't
:50:21. > :50:26.trust them people, they exist solely to protect the interests of the rich
:50:26. > :50:30.and powerful. They are not there for you, you are know that in your
:50:30. > :50:34.heart, so yeah, get used to a lifetime of renting unless you want
:50:34. > :50:38.to do something serious about it. Boris Johnson? It is absolutely
:50:38. > :50:43.true, I think owner occupation in London is now beneath 50% for the
:50:43. > :50:47.first time in our lifetimes. More and more people are driven to rent.
:50:47. > :50:55.Rents are skyrocketing. We've got a terrible shortage of house housing
:50:55. > :51:02.overall. The best answer is just to build more. We've got, you will see
:51:02. > :51:06.in this fantastic volume which I make no excuse for plugging on this
:51:06. > :51:13.show. What is that? You are not allowed to show things like that. It
:51:13. > :51:18.is written we you! -- it is written by you! It is written by me.
:51:18. > :51:22.LAUGHTER You will find in it just some of the 33 opportunity areas and
:51:22. > :51:32.intensification areas in London. What about controlling rents in
:51:32. > :51:33.
:51:33. > :51:38.London so people didn't have rents that go up? I don't have Rental
:51:38. > :51:43.prices in London are becoming extortionate. Wait until the
:51:43. > :51:47.microphone comes to you. When are you going to introduce a cap on
:51:47. > :51:53.crippling rental prices in London, because it is now exceeding what an
:51:53. > :51:59.average mortgage would cost somebody? It is.They have it in New
:51:59. > :52:04.York. Why not here, Boris. You failed to meet your targets. You can
:52:04. > :52:09.take the microphone away now. She says in New York it happens. And in
:52:09. > :52:13.Germany. Why not in London, why not in Britain? In New York they are
:52:13. > :52:19.moving away from it actually now. They are moving away from rent
:52:19. > :52:24.controls. The difficulty is that you choke off supply. What we've got to
:52:24. > :52:31.do is to increase the amount of housing. The point I was going to
:52:32. > :52:35.make before you confiscated my report is that we've got within it
:52:35. > :52:40.ambitions for opportunity areas. Contrary to what you have just said,
:52:40. > :52:45.we built a record number of new affordable homes in London. Who are
:52:45. > :52:51.they affordable for, mate? 44,000. They are affordable for people, they
:52:51. > :52:59.are both for social people, who need homes for social rent, but they are
:52:59. > :53:03.also there, and you slightly powered scorn on the idea of a home-owning
:53:03. > :53:07.democracy but I think there are many hundreds of thousands of people in
:53:07. > :53:12.this city who would welcome the opportunity to get just a share of
:53:12. > :53:17.the equity. What's the answer about affordable that Russell wanted?
:53:17. > :53:24.answer is to build more homes. about the ones you've been boasting
:53:24. > :53:32.about, what price are they at, who can afford them? They are at normal,
:53:32. > :53:39.they are about, 17 or 18% of the newest ones are at council, normal,
:53:39. > :53:42.I think and we have a huge number that are part-buy, part rent. If you
:53:42. > :53:48.look at what we've done over the last four years, it is a record
:53:48. > :53:54.number. And the programme that we've got will deliver 100,000 over the
:53:54. > :53:58.eight-year term. Now that is far more than the previous Government
:53:59. > :54:03.achieved when they were awash with money. I'm not denying that there's
:54:03. > :54:11.a massive shortage of housing. have to ask you to stop, as we only
:54:11. > :54:16.have three minutes left. This is lick Just A Minute. You've had your
:54:16. > :54:22.minute. You are supporting a lovely development on the outskirts of
:54:22. > :54:32.cowls den and the first phase under pre-application isn't for affordable
:54:32. > :54:36.housing but the ones at the top of the hill. There are 78 five-bed
:54:37. > :54:41.proposed and 200 and something three beds. The little one and two beds,
:54:41. > :54:46.I'm trying to talk to Croydon council about it and you are not
:54:46. > :54:50.having it. Melanie Phillips? There's a need for more affordable housing.
:54:50. > :54:56.Young people do have a difficult time of it at the moment in terms of
:54:56. > :55:01.either getting on the housing lad tore boy a house or affording rents.
:55:01. > :55:06.I don't think one can avoid saying that people of my generation, we saw
:55:06. > :55:11.house prices in London become just dizzyingly go into the stratosphere.
:55:11. > :55:18.Why that happened was quite a complicated procedure I think, but
:55:18. > :55:23.part of the reason was that we were the victim of London's own success.
:55:23. > :55:28.London attracts over this period a very large number of extremely
:55:28. > :55:33.wealthy people who were pushing up house prices. Have young people got
:55:33. > :55:36.to get used to the idea of renting now as a lifetime's way of living or
:55:36. > :55:42.living with parents until they are 40? At the moment that's the case.
:55:42. > :55:49.Whether it will endure, that's another matter. We have to press on.
:55:49. > :55:52.I think young people have to get used to renting. When we come out of
:55:52. > :55:58.university we are already in debt, so we have to pay off that debt
:55:58. > :56:08.before anything else. Do you resent that? Yes, buzz the Lib Dems
:56:08. > :56:14.promised they wouldn't put up the amount and it is now �9,000.
:56:14. > :56:19.Davey? When you leave university you'll be paying back less a money
:56:19. > :56:24.than under the old reef. It is going to be easier, with less money coming
:56:24. > :56:29.from your pocket once you've graduated. There is no doubt that
:56:29. > :56:33.housing is one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem in London. I
:56:33. > :56:37.have advice surgeries in London and the biggest problem has always been
:56:37. > :56:41.since I became an MP in 1997 has been housing, overcrowding, poor
:56:41. > :56:46.housing, people who are homeless. I see that every week in my surgery.
:56:46. > :56:51.This is a problem. The person asking the question is right. What can we
:56:51. > :56:56.do about it? The Government has been trying a huge number of initiatives
:56:56. > :56:59.to get the housing market working again. One of the reasons why
:56:59. > :57:03.developers weren't building houses is that house prices were going down
:57:03. > :57:08.and down and they didn't want to build an asset that would reduce in
:57:08. > :57:12.value, so getting the housing market working is critical. I hope we'll
:57:12. > :57:15.see more house building promoted by this Government. You will see next
:57:15. > :57:21.week when the Spending Review is announced that housing is a
:57:21. > :57:29.priority. You must start adding also. I have to stop the programme.
:57:29. > :57:33.A huge investment in London, which is housing as well. Town? The most
:57:33. > :57:41.important thing, build more homes. The Mayor has to up his game on
:57:41. > :57:46.this. I've done far better than Ken. Also let's take all the profiteering
:57:46. > :57:51.out of the process of renting and let's get shared equity schemes.
:57:51. > :58:01.There are 3,000 homes about to be let in the Olympic Park. Through for
:58:01. > :58:03.
:58:03. > :58:10.keeping it short. 50%...Shush! This is a television programme, not a
:58:10. > :58:15.mayoral press conference. I forget where I am! Our hour is up, sadly.
:58:15. > :58:19.I'm sorry we couldn't get to the last question, who has more power,
:58:19. > :58:22.politicians or pop stars, but our time's up. Next week we are in