:00:00. > :00:17.Tonight, we are in St Andrews Hall in Norwich, and welcome to Question
:00:18. > :00:22.Time. And welcome to you at home, to our
:00:23. > :00:26.audience who will be asking the questions, to our panel, who have
:00:27. > :00:30.not the slightest clue what the questions will be. They are the
:00:31. > :00:35.Conservative cabinet minister, Ken Clarke, Labour's Shadow Attorney
:00:36. > :00:40.General, Emily Thornberry, Liberal Democrat peer and former City of
:00:41. > :00:43.London investment manager, Lord Oakeshott, director-general of the
:00:44. > :00:48.free-market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, Mark
:00:49. > :00:48.Littlewood, and the comedian and feminist campaigner Kate
:00:49. > :01:10.Smurthwaite. As Matthew Oakeshott points out, he
:01:11. > :01:12.is still a City of London investment manager. We had announced that
:01:13. > :01:16.Charles Kennedy would be here tonight but he had to go to a
:01:17. > :01:20.funeral in Scotland today unexpectedly and sent his apologies.
:01:21. > :01:27.Our first question from Jonathan Winslade. Will the revival of the
:01:28. > :01:33.50p tax rate lead to the wealthiest individuals leaving the UK? If
:01:34. > :01:37.Labour goes ahead with that policy, will it lead to the wealthiest
:01:38. > :01:42.individuals leaving, Ken Clarke? Well, it would be a signal that we
:01:43. > :01:46.were going back to a politically higher tax regime than we have had
:01:47. > :01:50.for about 20 years, because it was only announced before the election
:01:51. > :01:54.by the Labour Party. They did not have a 50p tax rate when they were
:01:55. > :01:59.in office. And this is not the right time to be doing that. We are trying
:02:00. > :02:03.to encourage entrepreneurs and investment, which is slow coming
:02:04. > :02:06.because there is not confidence. We need to attract inward investment
:02:07. > :02:10.and restore London as a financial centre, and attract investors to
:02:11. > :02:15.make us a stronger manufacturing country. I think the message to the
:02:16. > :02:20.outside world would be, it is the same old politics in Britain. No
:02:21. > :02:23.doubt you would get some votes from those feeling hard up at the moment
:02:24. > :02:29.but the national interest would, I think, be damaged. It is a pretty
:02:30. > :02:33.old-fashioned, simplistic way to appeal for the votes of people
:02:34. > :02:38.feeling a bit hard up, to tell them that you are somehow going to raise
:02:39. > :02:41.vast sums of money from the rich. We never have in the past, and we do
:02:42. > :02:48.not want to drift back into that again. What do you think? Once
:02:49. > :02:52.again, we see the Labour Party being delusional with economic policy. We
:02:53. > :02:57.are just seeing growth getting back to the levels of 2007. Do we want to
:02:58. > :03:00.damage current and future leaders of business and get them to leave the
:03:01. > :03:08.UK? Where does that leave our growth. Emily Thornberry. There are
:03:09. > :03:12.two things that people say who are against it. First they say it will
:03:13. > :03:17.not raise any money, and other people say it will hurt business. It
:03:18. > :03:21.can't do both. The reason we think we should introduce the 50p rate is
:03:22. > :03:26.because we are all in it together. Remember the Tories saying that?
:03:27. > :03:29.When Cameron said that, he said that was why we should keep the 50p tax
:03:30. > :03:33.rate, because when they were in opposition they said they would keep
:03:34. > :03:36.it. When they got into government they gave the millionaire 's attacks
:03:37. > :03:42.rake in which meant the average millionaire got ?100,000 tax break
:03:43. > :03:47.each year as a result of lowering taxes. It seems to me that when
:03:48. > :03:53.people's wagers are worth the equivalent of ?1600 less, every year
:03:54. > :03:57.people are feeling poorer, prices are rising faster than wages, we are
:03:58. > :04:02.all supposed to be shouldering the burden equally, and the richer
:04:03. > :04:04.proportion of society is not. That is why we want to introduce a higher
:04:05. > :04:16.rate of tax. The question, though, was whether it
:04:17. > :04:21.would lead to the wealthiest individuals leaving the UK. I don't
:04:22. > :04:25.believe it would. It has not in the past, and the reason it has not is
:04:26. > :04:30.because actually Britain is a really good place for people to live. We
:04:31. > :04:35.have a good, stable society, we have wonderful culture, good schools.
:04:36. > :04:39.People enjoy a good life living in Britain. In the end, those that move
:04:40. > :04:46.away tend to come back because Britain is the best place to be. I
:04:47. > :04:50.just want to come back to that gentleman about his question about
:04:51. > :04:55.whether the wealthiest, it would encourage them to leave the UK. To
:04:56. > :05:01.be honest, the wealthiest are not contributing to this country anyway,
:05:02. > :05:05.because all the wealth is stashed offshore. I don't think we are
:05:06. > :05:10.taxing the wealthiest in enough. People at the very bottom are
:05:11. > :05:13.suffering and struggling, and that step is not going anywhere near to
:05:14. > :05:24.redressing the balance in this country. Emily said there are two
:05:25. > :05:28.criticisms of bringing back the 50p rate. One that it will not raise
:05:29. > :05:33.money, and the second that it will harm business, and they can't be
:05:34. > :05:35.true. I'm afraid they are both true. If you are to believe the
:05:36. > :05:40.independent experts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this might raise
:05:41. > :05:48.?100 million. That is thereafter guess. That pays for about 70
:05:49. > :05:51.minutes of government expenditure. I do not know how the Labour Party
:05:52. > :05:54.will fund the rest of the annual government budget. It will harm
:05:55. > :05:59.business, not for the reasons the question implied. It is not as if
:06:00. > :06:03.you bring in a 50p rate and everybody earning over ?150 flees
:06:04. > :06:12.the country and gets the first flight out. ?150,000. They are not
:06:13. > :06:17.going to flee the country overnight. Some of them might decide to leave,
:06:18. > :06:20.I guess. It is more question of a multinational company thinking,
:06:21. > :06:25.shall we relocate more people to London, to Singapore? It might be
:06:26. > :06:30.that they decide to go to Singapore. It might be people who are doing
:06:31. > :06:34.very well in their 50s and 60s. Am I going to work next year or retire
:06:35. > :06:39.early? There are a multitude of reasons why it would dis-
:06:40. > :06:43.incentivise people at the high-end. We are in a global economy and if
:06:44. > :06:48.you want to help business and see the risk -- the recovery secured,
:06:49. > :06:51.bear in mind the top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of income
:06:52. > :06:57.tax receipts at the moment, maybe not enough as you up -- as far as
:06:58. > :07:01.you are concerned, but it is 30%. If you put the rates up far higher, you
:07:02. > :07:09.will not get the money to spend on the poor and other things we want to
:07:10. > :07:13.help this country with. I would like to pose a question to Emily
:07:14. > :07:17.Thornberry. Do you think this country, the voting population, do
:07:18. > :07:21.you think we are stupid? Look what happened under new Labour. Tony
:07:22. > :07:24.Blair was absolutely complicit in generating the wealth, doing deals
:07:25. > :07:32.with Murdoch, Bernie Ecclestone, generating all this wealth. Tax was
:07:33. > :07:35.lower under new Labour. I find it incredible to think that raising the
:07:36. > :07:43.tax will make you think you are more electable. Just tell me, how
:07:44. > :07:47.electable work Michael foot and Neil Kinnock when they were leading the
:07:48. > :07:59.Labour Party. It is total rank socialist hypocrisy. It seems to me
:08:00. > :08:03.that the problem we have is that the current government has decided it
:08:04. > :08:12.needs to save money and has turned and hit the poorest and most needy
:08:13. > :08:15.in the most brutal way. The Labour Party are saying, and I think it is
:08:16. > :08:19.a fairer and nothing to say, that what we need to do is to start
:08:20. > :08:22.taxing some of the richer, to increase taxes, but these things
:08:23. > :08:27.back up. Lots of countries have a 50%, or a higher top rate of tax,
:08:28. > :08:31.and there is not a flood of people leaving. I think they are right to
:08:32. > :08:35.do that. But both groups are missing the fact that there is a third group
:08:36. > :08:40.of people who pay virtually no tax, the very highest earners in our
:08:41. > :08:44.society. Almost one third of the world's money sits in tax havens,
:08:45. > :08:53.and we continue to support that. That is where we need to access the
:08:54. > :08:56.money and stop supporting. Matthew Oakeshott, we will bring in Emily in
:08:57. > :09:02.a moment but the accusation was that the 50p tax rate is a politically
:09:03. > :09:10.destructive move. I don't think it is. You are in favour. What really
:09:11. > :09:16.matters is wealth. I remember the argument, we brought in our policy
:09:17. > :09:20.of a mansion tax through houses of over ?2 million. We had talk about
:09:21. > :09:25.people leaving the country. I don't believe it. Frankly, if people are
:09:26. > :09:29.going to leave because the top rate of income tax is 50p, rather than
:09:30. > :09:34.45p, I don't want them in this country, frankly. What is more
:09:35. > :09:37.worrying too big is less than serious business is not what the top
:09:38. > :09:42.rate of tax is but the increasing threats we are getting not just from
:09:43. > :09:45.UKIP but the UKIP wing of the Tory party that we might leave the
:09:46. > :09:51.European Union. That would really destroy jobs and hit investment.
:09:52. > :09:55.What you have got to do is to have a tax, as Kate said, a tax that people
:09:56. > :10:00.cannot avoid. That is why we must have wealth taxes. That is where the
:10:01. > :10:05.really big difference is. It is not on income but on wealth. The Liberal
:10:06. > :10:09.Democrats had a virtually tied vote at our conference. Most of us are
:10:10. > :10:13.simple that it to a 50p rate, but we do not think it is the key thing.
:10:14. > :10:18.The key thing is to tax wealth and deal with tax dodgers. What is the
:10:19. > :10:26.Liberal Democrat view about how much it would raise? Well, the general
:10:27. > :10:32.evidence is that most people think it would raise a bit. And there is
:10:33. > :10:40.no evidence, I think... What is a bit? 100 million, 200 million. That
:10:41. > :10:45.is enough? No one is saying it would not raise any money. I think it is
:10:46. > :10:49.important, when things are so difficult, that there is a message
:10:50. > :10:53.of fairness. At the key thing is to deal with the enormous inequality in
:10:54. > :10:58.wealth in this country. -- but the key thing is to deal with the
:10:59. > :11:03.enormous inequality in wealth. The amount it would raise must be
:11:04. > :11:08.important. Answer that gentlemen, it is a destructive socialist policy
:11:09. > :11:17.that will lose the election. If it is going to raise 3 billion a
:11:18. > :11:19.year... The Tory line seems to be, don't tax people too much, otherwise
:11:20. > :11:24.they will avoid tax. don't tax people too much, otherwise
:11:25. > :11:27.they It seems to me that the role of government is that you set a tax
:11:28. > :11:34.rate and make sure that people do not avoid tax. Another question we
:11:35. > :11:38.ought to ask tonight, and Cameron was asked this three times at Prime
:11:39. > :11:42.Minister 's questions, is is it the Tory policy to lower tax rates to
:11:43. > :11:50.40p. He has not answered. I don't know if you can help. 40p was the
:11:51. > :11:54.new Labour rate. These high rates of tax were abolished by Nigel Lawson
:11:55. > :11:58.as we got into the modern era and developed a competitive economy. Our
:11:59. > :12:03.big task now is to develop a modern, competitive economy to attract the
:12:04. > :12:12.right kind of investment to this country. Throughout new Labour's
:12:13. > :12:16.period, the top tax was 40p. It was a few weeks ago, head of an election
:12:17. > :12:19.in which you were doomed, that you put it up. The only reason you are
:12:20. > :12:23.announcing a change is that you are trying to get back to a responsible
:12:24. > :12:27.economic lessee. You started attending that you have suddenly
:12:28. > :12:32.been converted, after four years, to the idea of tackling the deficit and
:12:33. > :12:36.the debt. I am in favour of that. We are well on the way, with Labour
:12:37. > :12:41.voting against us every time we do it. They are not prepared to say how
:12:42. > :12:44.they will match us and get us into surplus, how they are going to
:12:45. > :12:49.tackle the deficit and debt. The only thing they have is this the aft
:12:50. > :12:52.idea that you raise 100 million or so by going to a level of taxation
:12:53. > :12:58.which new Labour never levied throughout their time in office.
:12:59. > :13:04.Through three years of the 50p tax rate, ?10 billion was raised. That
:13:05. > :13:07.is the numbers, OK. We can bandy around numbers as much as we want
:13:08. > :13:14.but this is about fairness and making sure everyone shoulders the
:13:15. > :13:19.burden. Let me have the man in spectacles. There is no
:13:20. > :13:23.manufacturing in this country, we are not building our own stuff, not
:13:24. > :13:30.making this and that, bringing in products, how we generating our own
:13:31. > :13:40.money? We are so privatised that we have no room, Nouveau. -- no room
:13:41. > :13:44.for manoeuvre. No matter what you set the highest
:13:45. > :13:48.rate of tax at, someone will find a way of getting round it. If you want
:13:49. > :13:53.a fairer society, pick a flat rate, clamp down on tax evasion and
:13:54. > :13:58.avoidance, clamp-down on business practices designed to reduce the tax
:13:59. > :14:01.burden and make sure everyone contributes the same level of their
:14:02. > :14:09.income, whether a street sweeper or Google. What about the 50%? You
:14:10. > :14:11.would not have it? It is pointless. Get everybody to contribute the same
:14:12. > :14:20.amount of their income and cut down on avoidance. now the recovery has
:14:21. > :14:29.started to take base, I think people have a very short memory. At the
:14:30. > :14:32.heart of the financial crisis, when the Coalition Government came in and
:14:33. > :14:37.basically picked it up, two things were said by both party leaders, by
:14:38. > :14:44.Ed Miliband and David Cameron, the fact that it was time to build a
:14:45. > :14:48.fairer economy. Miliband called that a responsible economy. Cameron
:14:49. > :14:54.called that a moral economy. Both of them said this was our chance to do
:14:55. > :15:01.this. Hasn't happened? I think what has happened now, with the recovery
:15:02. > :15:05.is that has been forgotten. I think Labour are trying to, if you look at
:15:06. > :15:10.their policies, they are talking about energy companies, OK? They are
:15:11. > :15:12.talking about the 50p tax, they are talking about all sorts of things
:15:13. > :15:16.that talk about the person on the ground and supporting them, trying
:15:17. > :15:22.to reclaim some of the wealth. But I think that the conservatives,
:15:23. > :15:31.unfortunately, have forgotten about what Mr Cameron said. At 45p, our
:15:32. > :15:35.top tax rate is higher now than it was the round Gordon Brown's entire
:15:36. > :15:38.period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I mean, we are in a
:15:39. > :15:42.serious situation in this country. We are slowly getting back to
:15:43. > :15:46.recovery, it's very hard work, we got to be competitive. We have to
:15:47. > :15:51.stop fooling about with old-fashioned political gestures
:15:52. > :15:57.like this. Can I just return on that? No, we have heard from you.
:15:58. > :16:01.The man above you? It seems naive that people seem to lose track and
:16:02. > :16:04.think the only way to keep the wealthy happy is to allow them to
:16:05. > :16:10.keep more of their wealth, while those at the bottom server. Recent
:16:11. > :16:14.figures suggest that the top 85 wealthiest individuals in the world
:16:15. > :16:19.have more money than the bottom 70 billion. People say we have to push
:16:20. > :16:26.that further in favour of the wealthy.
:16:27. > :16:34.We are going to go back to the question then move on to another
:16:35. > :16:39.one. I think Ken Clarke's comment about people being a bit harder
:16:40. > :16:43.shows how elitist and out of touch this government is. It's insulting.
:16:44. > :16:50.People are having to survive on food banks. You have ministers laughing
:16:51. > :16:55.about it. I'm not laughing about it. In Parliament, they were laughing
:16:56. > :16:59.about it. We inherited the problem and we are tackling it. I'm
:17:00. > :17:03.explaining that in the modern world a 50p tax rate will not help. Doing
:17:04. > :17:08.what we are doing now, creating a competitive economy, it is the only
:17:09. > :17:12.way you're going to raise the living standards of ordinary people in this
:17:13. > :17:17.country. Living standards have suffered because there has been a
:17:18. > :17:19.recession that we did not cause, because there was irresponsible
:17:20. > :17:30.mismanagement of the economy in the last arcade. -- decade. I think
:17:31. > :17:33.people who claim to understand about economic summits in one important
:17:34. > :17:36.point. When you allow the wealthy to have a bit more money, they put it
:17:37. > :17:39.in the bank with the other money they have already got. If we have
:17:40. > :17:48.learned one thing from watching benefits Street, it is that people
:17:49. > :17:51.will wait until midnight to get hold of it, they spend it within 30
:17:52. > :17:54.minutes of getting it. If we wanted to get the economy moving, injecting
:17:55. > :17:59.more money at the top, where it goes into savings, does nothing. We need
:18:00. > :18:00.to inject money at the bottom, where people need it, they will spend it
:18:01. > :18:09.and put straight into the economy. That is why we have been
:18:10. > :18:13.concentrating on taking millions of people out of tax at the bottom,
:18:14. > :18:17.moving up the tax threshold, with our policies to make sure that
:18:18. > :18:22.happens. As you say, and pensioners also, they are the people that spend
:18:23. > :18:26.the money and get jobs going. What is the justification of supporting
:18:27. > :18:30.the bedroom tax? We are all in it together and people have got to pay
:18:31. > :18:33.that? It is not fair. It seems to be fair to attack the poorest, but
:18:34. > :18:40.somehow it is not fair to expect the richest to pay more. A last word
:18:41. > :18:46.from the person who set the question question mark we have had two embers
:18:47. > :18:55.of the people saying people will not leave the country. We have had a
:18:56. > :19:01.property boom in London from people coming from other countries. If we
:19:02. > :19:06.get rid of them, we are not going to have the money to help the people at
:19:07. > :19:10.the bottom. I don't think people coming and pushing up house prices
:19:11. > :19:14.in London is helping anyone. I think it is really hard to live in London,
:19:15. > :19:17.those under 40 cannot afford to live in London, they cannot afford
:19:18. > :19:21.council properties or to be able to buy. I think having a boom in the
:19:22. > :19:29.economy based on house prices in London and the south-east is not
:19:30. > :19:32.sustainable growth. They are not moving to London, they are buying
:19:33. > :19:39.blocks of flats and leaving them empty. Was it high taxes in France
:19:40. > :19:43.that made London the sixth most French city, as it is claimed now?
:19:44. > :19:48.There are more French people living in London and Bordeaux, because of
:19:49. > :19:51.tax. I think there are a lot of British people living in Bordeaux as
:19:52. > :19:55.well. People move around. One of the reasons we have a lot of French
:19:56. > :20:01.people in my part of London is because of the banking sector. Why
:20:02. > :20:07.not go for a 75% tax rate? That is what Hollande has gone for. 50p is
:20:08. > :20:12.fair, because there is a crisis. And because everyone should... At home,
:20:13. > :20:20.you can join in this debate and all of the other topics we go through
:20:21. > :20:27.through text and Twitter. I don't know what you've heard is, tweeting?
:20:28. > :20:45.Twittering? I always say twittering. You can also text comments. You can
:20:46. > :20:50.use the red button to see what other people are saying.
:20:51. > :20:57.Let's have a question from Chris Lambert. If you have chosen to live
:20:58. > :21:04.below sea level in Somerset, is it reasonable to assume that you will
:21:05. > :21:05.be flooded? If you've chosen to live below sea level, is it reasonable to
:21:06. > :21:17.assume you'll be flooded? When people bought their homes,
:21:18. > :21:22.nobody said, I'd like to live next to the sea, where is the sea? Up
:21:23. > :21:26.there? There are places below sea level but they have been reclaimed
:21:27. > :21:30.land, a lot of projects in place to make liveable over hundreds of
:21:31. > :21:33.years. What we have now is a situation where some of those
:21:34. > :21:37.defences have not been maintained, rivers have not been dredged, that
:21:38. > :21:40.have been dredged for many years, and where protections and barriers
:21:41. > :21:44.have not been maintained. What we are seeing is that now the
:21:45. > :21:46.combination of the expected flooding and the impacts of global climate
:21:47. > :21:54.change mean that people are much more at risk than they have ever
:21:55. > :21:57.been. At the same time, we have an Environment Secretary who will not
:21:58. > :22:04.confirm he even believes in climate change. He has slashed the budget
:22:05. > :22:10.for climate change and it is... -- climate change initiatives, we have
:22:11. > :22:14.initiatives working out where it is going to be, it includes carbon
:22:15. > :22:18.capture and all of that stuff, that is about half what we spend on the
:22:19. > :22:21.Queen and that is what we are spending on what scientists around
:22:22. > :22:22.the world agree is the single greatest danger to the future of the
:22:23. > :22:39.human race, that is appalling. Is it reasonable to assume that you
:22:40. > :22:45.will be flooded? I think it is reasonable to expect people assume
:22:46. > :22:49.they are taking a risk of that. I live in a high crime area in London,
:22:50. > :22:52.I am aware I am running a higher risk than most people that I will be
:22:53. > :22:56.mugged, stabbed or whatever. That is part of the risk of the place I
:22:57. > :22:59.choose to live in. That doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for the
:23:00. > :23:14.people afflicted by this. Yes, but people who choose to live... In
:23:15. > :23:18.places which flowed, -- flowed, the solution is not to have Owen
:23:19. > :23:21.Paterson, however he sent a man he may be, and the Environment Agency
:23:22. > :23:25.in Whitehall trying to coordinate all of this. What we need to get
:23:26. > :23:29.back to is to give the powers to the local communities and the local
:23:30. > :23:34.councils to deal with particular local problems. My local area would
:23:35. > :23:39.have a crime problem, not a flooding problem. Somerset will have a
:23:40. > :23:42.flooding problem and less of a crime problem. There has been a lot of
:23:43. > :23:45.criticism of the Environment Agency and you used to be their press
:23:46. > :23:50.spokesman. Do you think they are a good outfit? Do they do a good job,
:23:51. > :23:56.do they work their socks off, like Lord Smith does? I think they do
:23:57. > :23:59.their best, but I don't think they are set up the right way. How you
:24:00. > :24:02.deal with Somerset, the problems with draining and dredging,
:24:03. > :24:07.whatever, from an office in Whitehall, is ridiculous. We have
:24:08. > :24:13.got to get these powers and responsibilities back to ground
:24:14. > :24:15.level. It is not a criticism of the Environment Agency, it is a
:24:16. > :24:19.criticism of the structure. It should not be organised by a cabinet
:24:20. > :24:23.minister in Whitehall. You have to put these powers on the ground.
:24:24. > :24:27.Allow people to raise the resources and spend the resources on combating
:24:28. > :24:35.these problems at local level. The woman up there? There was flooding
:24:36. > :24:38.in Norfolk recently as well. David Cameron actually came to see the
:24:39. > :24:45.flooding there. There was an example of local people actually managing
:24:46. > :24:52.that situation. Local flood wardens were able to coordinate it, and it
:24:53. > :24:57.was efficiently run. Were their criticisms of the Environment
:24:58. > :25:02.Agency? I don't know, but it was well run by local people and saved a
:25:03. > :25:06.lot of disaster. Over the last few weeks, we have seen a lot of local
:25:07. > :25:09.people in all of these areas that have been flooded in the
:25:10. > :25:16.south-west. They mostly come out with the same historic information,
:25:17. > :25:19.that they have always known that when rivers were dredged all the way
:25:20. > :25:23.down to sea level that this was never a problem, even when we had
:25:24. > :25:28.torrents of rain. When have the so-called experts who are paid a
:25:29. > :25:34.huge sum of money in their salaries, when they going to start
:25:35. > :25:38.taking notice? With great respect, I think it has become a bit of a
:25:39. > :25:41.modern cliche that every time we have a disaster, and no doubt this
:25:42. > :25:45.is a terrible disaster for people living there, they must be having an
:25:46. > :25:48.absolute nightmare time for the past few weeks, somebody has to be
:25:49. > :25:54.blamed. I don't blame the inhabitants, that is for sure. It is
:25:55. > :25:58.famous wetland. The background is that they have had more rain there
:25:59. > :26:04.than anybody for 100 years. And it is still raining. You know, it is a
:26:05. > :26:09.once in 100 year episode. Nobody can find in historic times such heavy
:26:10. > :26:13.rainfall in January. When this is all over, of course, you need green
:26:14. > :26:24.checks burps, actually, to examine what more can be done. -- drainage
:26:25. > :26:30.experts. In perhaps a sensible way. I am not an expert in land
:26:31. > :26:32.drainage. I understand why the locals are clean to things like
:26:33. > :26:40.saying, oh, you should dredge the rivers more frequently. If it would
:26:41. > :26:43.make a difference, I think that is highly controversial. Obviously you
:26:44. > :26:47.need to dredge them occasionally. This is a real tragedy, a
:26:48. > :26:50.consequence of a freak... Well, not a freak, it is the kind of thing
:26:51. > :26:59.that happens now and again. It is the winter, it is wet, it has
:27:00. > :27:02.rained. I don't know if we can put it down to climate change. I have
:27:03. > :27:07.noticed some windmills, solar panels, I have noticed energy bills
:27:08. > :27:10.going up and people saying we are going to have a political price on
:27:11. > :27:12.energy, when you have an international wholesale market and
:27:13. > :27:20.we are trying to reduce carbon levels. I do think the present fewer
:27:21. > :27:23.or about Somerset, who is to blame, somebody has to be summoned and it
:27:24. > :27:33.is lynch mob stuff. I don't think it is relevant to the people suffering
:27:34. > :27:37.there. I believe in climate change. How much more evidence do we need?
:27:38. > :27:41.We just had January, the wettest month in this country ever. Clearly,
:27:42. > :27:45.the pressure is building up. Answering the question, many people
:27:46. > :27:49.in many parts of the world live at sea level or below sea-level. The
:27:50. > :27:53.question is if it can be managed and if you are having many more floods
:27:54. > :27:56.and than you used to. You buy a house for a long time. To me, the
:27:57. > :27:59.evidence is building up quite quickly that we are having far more
:28:00. > :28:04.variable weather and far more problems. We have got to face up to
:28:05. > :28:08.this and deal with it. It will not just be Somerset, but all sorts of
:28:09. > :28:10.places in all sorts of ways. It is actually pretty shocking you have a
:28:11. > :28:15.climate change denier responsible for this problem.
:28:16. > :28:25.Who are you saying it's a climate denying charge? Isn't he extremely
:28:26. > :28:30.sceptical about it? The Prime Minister seems to think he is rather
:28:31. > :28:40.convinced. That is excellent, news to me. You are agnostic, Ken Clarke?
:28:41. > :28:43.No, no. The little egret is now eight common bird across the country
:28:44. > :28:46.and I used to get excited when I saw it in southern France. We have
:28:47. > :28:50.policies in climate change. It's difficult, energy policy. You've got
:28:51. > :28:53.to get the balance right between getting down carbon emissions to the
:28:54. > :28:57.right level while keeping it sufficiently affordable to stop
:28:58. > :29:08.praising all of our businesses out of international markets. We are
:29:09. > :29:13.engaged in that, seriously. A flood, every flood, to turn it into a
:29:14. > :29:17.political judgement. It's not every rainstorm and every flood. We have
:29:18. > :29:20.had one of the wettest winters for 100 years. You keep breaking all of
:29:21. > :29:23.the records. It keeps happening again and again in different parts
:29:24. > :29:27.of the country. The reason for that is because of climate change. It is
:29:28. > :29:31.not global warming. People like the idea, well, global warming, I will
:29:32. > :29:35.be able to grow olives in my back garden. It is not like that. It is
:29:36. > :29:41.unpredictable, major weather changes and we need to make sure that we are
:29:42. > :29:45.up for it and we are protected. The government is doing a good job on
:29:46. > :29:50.this commie thing? I think somebody who is unable to have a cull in
:29:51. > :29:53.badgers in charge of defending is against this major change in climate
:29:54. > :29:57.is not necessarily the best policy. I know he was going to have a
:29:58. > :30:00.review, a concrete policy, he said, in six weeks time. The Prime
:30:01. > :30:05.Minister said last night he was going to call in the army. The army
:30:06. > :30:10.arrived and went home again. This is policy-making by photo opportunity.
:30:11. > :30:14.It is very unfortunate. You can't just say the army arrived, two
:30:15. > :30:23.Majors arrived. If that is the army, we are in real trouble. It will be,
:30:24. > :30:26.soon. We heard he had called in the army, than we see that it was two
:30:27. > :30:34.Majors that went home. This is not the way we should be running things.
:30:35. > :30:39.The problem is what Ken Clarke has just said - I have noticed windmills
:30:40. > :30:42.and solar panels. We have not noticed the greenest government in
:30:43. > :30:51.history. We were told that and we didn't get it. We have an enormous
:30:52. > :30:55.energy Bill, green levies, a big investment in offshore wind and
:30:56. > :31:02.solar going ahead, a pattern of subsidies. And fracking as well. We
:31:03. > :31:05.have a serious policy on climate change which is interrupted by daft
:31:06. > :31:15.pumice is about fixing the energy price. -- daft promises. Our weather
:31:16. > :31:21.is not going to change. What are we going to do to help these people? We
:31:22. > :31:26.have millions of pounds put into foreign aid, but what about English
:31:27. > :31:31.aid. Can't we have a big bucket for all of these extra taxes going to
:31:32. > :31:34.English aid to support these people? Some of them can't afford insurance
:31:35. > :31:38.because they are on the poverty line. Some of them have not got
:31:39. > :31:44.houses. When are we going to help our own people? You would give a
:31:45. > :31:49.large sum of money to people in Somerset as an area in special need?
:31:50. > :31:53.People are talking about wealth taxes, but we need a new bucket for
:31:54. > :32:03.ordinary people, when we have not got enough money to help ourselves.
:32:04. > :32:08.You in the third row. With the increase in what is called global
:32:09. > :32:11.warming, wouldn't people see that, I guess, that things like this are a
:32:12. > :32:15.much higher possibility, and shouldn't things have been put in
:32:16. > :32:29.place such as flood offences, or the need to stop this?
:32:30. > :32:38.The grey-haired man. Well, it is not what it was when you were born,
:32:39. > :32:41.exact early! When I was 11, doing geography at high school I learned
:32:42. > :32:44.that flood lanes were for floodwaters. When are we going to
:32:45. > :32:55.stop building houses and factories on flood planes, which pushes water
:32:56. > :32:59.further down the system? The man in the brown jacket. I think it is a
:33:00. > :33:06.strange thing to complain that we are not giving enough money in
:33:07. > :33:10.English aid, when things like Syria are happening right now. Yes,
:33:11. > :33:13.flooding is terrible, but as the question pointed out, you accept
:33:14. > :33:20.that the risk by living on a flood Lane. If you are Syrian, you have
:33:21. > :33:27.not accepted to be in a civil war. -- you accepted the risk by choosing
:33:28. > :33:30.to live in a flood plain. Should foreign-born criminals be
:33:31. > :33:38.able to have their citizenship revoked? This is this complicated
:33:39. > :33:42.thing. There was a proposal from the Home Secretary that citizenship
:33:43. > :33:45.should be taken away from people born outside this country who then
:33:46. > :33:51.came in, and she was told it was not support. Also through the House of
:33:52. > :33:54.Commons today, there was an argument about whether you can say, if you
:33:55. > :33:59.are found guilty of a criminal offence, that you are entitled to a
:34:00. > :34:03.family life and can therefore stay in this country. They are two
:34:04. > :34:10.conflated issues. Should foreign-born criminals be able to
:34:11. > :34:17.have the dish citizenship revoked? -- British citizenship. I bow to no
:34:18. > :34:23.one in support of human rights and Civil Liberties. But I think in
:34:24. > :34:27.certain circumstances the answer to this question is yes. I am not
:34:28. > :34:32.saying there are no circumstances in which citizenship should not be
:34:33. > :34:35.revoked. Had Osama Bin Laden qualified for British citizenship
:34:36. > :34:40.presumably we would sought to revoke it. That does not mean you kick
:34:41. > :34:43.people out for being shoplifters, but it means there needs to be a
:34:44. > :34:47.test under which, in certain circumstances, if you were not born
:34:48. > :34:54.here and have been granted British citizenship, it can be removed. To
:34:55. > :34:58.the supplementary point about under what terms can we expel you from the
:34:59. > :35:02.country, again, I think that is a relatively high test, but if you
:35:03. > :35:07.have earned British citizenship, or qualified for it by means other than
:35:08. > :35:11.being born here, you have actually been granted a privilege as well as
:35:12. > :35:16.a right. I think that river which can and should be revoked in certain
:35:17. > :35:20.circumstances. You need to make sure it is fairly done, not arbitrary. I
:35:21. > :35:25.am a bit worried about politicians making the decision rather than
:35:26. > :35:28.judges, but yes, I reckon if you are given citizenship and you miss
:35:29. > :35:31.behave in a criminal fashion to an intolerable level, then it is
:35:32. > :35:47.reasonable to revoke that citizenship. Emily Thornberry,
:35:48. > :35:50.Shadow Attorney General. I was in Parliament today and I have to say
:35:51. > :35:55.was really confusing as to what on earth was going on. We had
:35:56. > :35:58.amendments being rushed up overnight, announced on the today
:35:59. > :36:03.programme, others being handed in in handwritten script. We had people in
:36:04. > :36:08.Parliament saying, I do not even know what we are debating. It is on
:36:09. > :36:13.a piece of paper outside. If I go outside I cannot be in the debate.
:36:14. > :36:16.So it went on. You have the Home Secretary saying the amendment was
:36:17. > :36:21.illegal, as far as her advice was concerned. You had Dominic Raab
:36:22. > :36:25.saying that the Home Office advice was that it was legal. The Prime
:36:26. > :36:30.Minister was saying he would like to support the amendment but could not.
:36:31. > :36:43.And so it went on. We had all of these different things. What do you
:36:44. > :36:46.think? What I think... The point I was trying to make work that the
:36:47. > :36:50.chaotic way in which it was being dealt with in Parliament today is
:36:51. > :36:56.not the way of dealing with it. And what is your answer to the question?
:36:57. > :37:01.My answer is that people have different and competing rights. We
:37:02. > :37:05.have a universal declaration of human rights which is universal, it
:37:06. > :37:08.is in the title, and everyone should have rights, no matter how
:37:09. > :37:13.despicable they are, no matter how much we hate them. They have rights,
:37:14. > :37:17.and we have rights, too. We have rights to be protected against these
:37:18. > :37:21.people. They have rights to have a family life, and their children have
:37:22. > :37:25.rights to have a parent. If I was the child of a foreign-born
:37:26. > :37:29.criminal, I would want my father around, and the court would need to
:37:30. > :37:33.decide whether my right to have a dad was greater than someone else's
:37:34. > :37:36.right to be protected. Those decisions are made within the
:37:37. > :37:40.courts. What they were trying to do today was pass laws that would not
:37:41. > :37:43.allow the courts to make decisions. It seems to me that these are
:37:44. > :37:48.difficult, delicate issues that need to be debated carefully. And the
:37:49. > :37:51.chaotic way in which the government were doing it today was more about
:37:52. > :37:55.posturing and trying to get the right headlines in a chaotic party
:37:56. > :38:04.that cannot hang together on this issue. To Reza May was talking about
:38:05. > :38:13.terror suspects, stripping them of citizenship. -- to Reza May. What we
:38:14. > :38:17.have said is that we cannot have overnight this sort of clause being
:38:18. > :38:25.put before parliament without being able to look carefully at what it
:38:26. > :38:29.means. Does it mean somebody who is Somali born, come to Britain, has
:38:30. > :38:32.British nationality, has gone off and Fort Al-Shabab, come back and
:38:33. > :38:36.raise money for Al-Shabab and then gone back to Somalia and then we are
:38:37. > :38:42.trying to take away citizenship, that might be one circumstance. The
:38:43. > :38:47.point is, how do you pass a law... Would that be justifiable, in your
:38:48. > :38:52.view, to strip them of citizenship? I think it is something we need to
:38:53. > :38:56.think about. I think it is something that we need to consider because of
:38:57. > :38:59.the right that we have to protect ourselves, but we need to make sure
:39:00. > :39:02.that when we pass laws in relation to issues as difficult as that, we
:39:03. > :39:08.get it right and we do not pass something that the Dangerous Dogs
:39:09. > :39:13.Act, which we passed in a moment of, we have to do something, and passed
:39:14. > :39:20.a law which is bad. These rules are very difficult and have to be got
:39:21. > :39:23.right. We have just had a very long and complicated example of how
:39:24. > :39:35.Labour, and it was even worse under Tony Blair, do not know where they
:39:36. > :39:38.stand on Civil Liberties. I am not defending the position the
:39:39. > :39:43.Conservatives got themselves into today, where they had more positions
:39:44. > :39:47.than the Kama Sutra in Parliament this afternoon. We had Labour and
:39:48. > :39:50.the Lib Dems voting one way, the Tory government abs staining on
:39:51. > :39:56.something they said was illegal, others voting against. But I must
:39:57. > :39:59.say, it would be good if Labour could say more clearly which civil
:40:00. > :40:03.rights they believe and what they don't. We believe in the human
:40:04. > :40:09.rights act which we introduced into law. I am saying, as the audience
:40:10. > :40:17.can see, that you have spent a long time not saying where you are. I am
:40:18. > :40:19.trying to... You spent a long time talking about Parliamentary
:40:20. > :40:24.procedure which no one is interested in. I think people should know that
:40:25. > :40:28.this particular proposal is actually not about the courts taking
:40:29. > :40:35.citizenship away, but the Home Secretary being able to. Are you in
:40:36. > :40:41.favour or not. I am very doubtful about it. No, I am not. It is only
:40:42. > :40:46.if people are made stateless. This is just the kind of thing that comes
:40:47. > :40:48.out, that we in the House of Lords have to look at very carefully and
:40:49. > :40:54.have many amendments and protections. We need to be very
:40:55. > :41:02.careful. You teased her for not having a view. What is your view on
:41:03. > :41:07.that issue? I am very sceptical indeed. That does not mean anything.
:41:08. > :41:12.She gave an example of somebody from Somalia who had fought for
:41:13. > :41:15.Al-Shabab, raised money in Britain, gone back to Somalia. In those
:41:16. > :41:20.circumstances, would you agree that citizenship should be withdrawn? It
:41:21. > :41:24.could be. You would need a lot of safeguards and I do not want this
:41:25. > :41:32.done by the Home Secretary. I want it done in the courts. First of
:41:33. > :41:36.all, I think this debate is horrible. If people commit crime in
:41:37. > :41:39.this country, we should deal with it in this country. This is different
:41:40. > :41:43.if people want them extradited overseas. What is our role as a
:41:44. > :41:50.responsible global player, to say we do not like people so we will send
:41:51. > :41:52.them around the world? Secondly, there is something absolutely
:41:53. > :41:56.frightening in the language I have just heard and the language the Home
:41:57. > :42:00.Secretary has used. One minute we were talking about foreign
:42:01. > :42:06.criminals, and the next minute we were talking about terror suspects.
:42:07. > :42:09.As soon as we are deporting people because we suspect them of something
:42:10. > :42:21.they have not been convicted of, it is us who are the criminals. Do you
:42:22. > :42:26.agree with that, Ken Clarke? I am very proud of our record on the rule
:42:27. > :42:29.of law, protecting human rights. We take a very strong stand on human
:42:30. > :42:32.rights against dictatorial governments around the world and it
:42:33. > :42:38.would be ridiculous if we abandon our standards in this country,
:42:39. > :42:43.saying it was all for the Chinese but not quite the same here. I was
:42:44. > :42:49.at a meeting with businessmen in Ipswich today. If this comes forward
:42:50. > :42:51.as a proposal, I will recall, when I studied international law, my
:42:52. > :42:55.understanding was you could not make people stateless. You were not
:42:56. > :43:00.allowed to say you would not take your own citizens back. If this is
:43:01. > :43:05.actually a proposition that's going to be put forward and develop, I
:43:06. > :43:10.would consult my very good friend the Attorney General, Dominic
:43:11. > :43:13.Grieve, and ask for his opinion, and ask him to satisfy me that we were
:43:14. > :43:17.doing so in a way that was compatible with the rule of law. And
:43:18. > :43:23.I don't think he would give a long, rambling don't know, like his
:43:24. > :43:26.opponent. He would have been able to read it through properly, not to be
:43:27. > :43:32.expected on the basis of a couple of hours to make a decision. That is
:43:33. > :43:36.what you were doing today. I know you weren't there. You used to be
:43:37. > :43:40.Lord Chancellor. Your advice today would have been quite welcome. I am
:43:41. > :43:43.sure the businessmen you were speaking to enjoy your company but
:43:44. > :43:48.it would have been good for you to have been in Parliament, because the
:43:49. > :43:52.Tory party were in disarray. I don't think your only problem was that you
:43:53. > :43:58.did not have time to read it. Your obvious problem was that you didn't
:43:59. > :44:01.know what to say. I made perfectly clear that we need more time to
:44:02. > :44:04.consider it properly, and thank goodness we have the House of Lords
:44:05. > :44:08.that will have more time to consider it rapidly. You should not be trying
:44:09. > :44:14.to pass legislation like this as fast as you did. It is wrong. It was
:44:15. > :44:21.not being proposed today, not being put forward. Just leave the
:44:22. > :44:28.Parliamentary procedure to my. Just for a moment. We almost that
:44:29. > :44:31.politicians can talk forever about that. It is so much easier than
:44:32. > :44:39.talking about the issue of and support. I find it really worrying
:44:40. > :44:43.that the pair of you can't be clear about your stance on this issue and
:44:44. > :44:47.how all you can talk about is how chaotic it is in parliament. Why is
:44:48. > :44:52.that? Why can't you be quite clear about it? I don't think we need to
:44:53. > :44:55.go any further down that road, we have seen the evidence. We have ten
:44:56. > :45:04.or 15 minutes and I would like to get a couple more questions in. Amy
:45:05. > :45:12.Rust. Is the UK Government doing enough to help Syrian refugees?
:45:13. > :45:16.Emily Thornberry? I think we are doing the right thing in terms of
:45:17. > :45:20.the money that we are giving to the campus. I think most of the refugees
:45:21. > :45:25.have gone to the nearest country, places like Jordan and Lebanon.
:45:26. > :45:29.Those places are poor countries and it is right for us to give the
:45:30. > :45:32.amount of aid that we are to make sure that the camps are run as well
:45:33. > :45:36.as they can be. There are people who, even though on the face of it
:45:37. > :45:40.it may be a safe haven, going to Jordan, are so vulnerable because
:45:41. > :45:43.they have been raped or because they are youngsters who do not have any
:45:44. > :45:47.parents and they need to have more protection than the camps can give.
:45:48. > :45:51.The United Nations has said there was very vulnerable people should be
:45:52. > :45:53.sent to rich, Western countries are unaware they can be given more
:45:54. > :46:01.assistance than they will do in a camp in Jordan. I think it was sad,
:46:02. > :46:04.in the circumstances, that the British Government didn't sign up to
:46:05. > :46:08.be one of those countries that would happily give a place to those
:46:09. > :46:12.refugees. We have a great tradition of giving refuge to people and I
:46:13. > :46:17.think it was a shame we didn't. I'm glad that the government has had a
:46:18. > :46:20.change of heart and I pay tribute to the charities that have campaigned
:46:21. > :46:30.so hard to make sure we finally do the right thing. And what the Home
:46:31. > :46:35.Secretary said... I don't want to bandy about these figures, what the
:46:36. > :46:38.Home Secretary said on Tuesday was that 3500 Syrian refugees and asylum
:46:39. > :46:42.seekers were already in Britain, which compares very favourably with
:46:43. > :46:46.most other countries involved in the scheme. I don't know if that is
:46:47. > :46:50.true. Ken Clarke? Saw the country is said to be taken several hundred or
:46:51. > :46:55.1000 are counting asylum seekers. -- some of the countries. As you say,
:46:56. > :46:59.we have several thousand here already. The answer to the question
:47:00. > :47:03.is that we will take several hundred, we are working with the
:47:04. > :47:06.United Nations on identifying the most vulnerable. There is no point
:47:07. > :47:14.in counting heads and taking the first 500 that line-up. Also, bear
:47:15. > :47:18.in mind, we are miles ahead of most of our allies and friends in the
:47:19. > :47:23.world in the effort we are putting into the humanitarian assistance in
:47:24. > :47:27.Syria. Only America, only the United States of America has put more money
:47:28. > :47:34.and funding, and effort, into what is going on in Syria. Some of these
:47:35. > :47:39.countries that have signed up to the UN saying they would take 500 have
:47:40. > :47:42.so far given scarcely anything to the humanitarian effort. You need
:47:43. > :47:50.both. It is a terrible thing that is happening. There is a real politic
:47:51. > :47:55.reason for it. Those people saying look after our own people, someone
:47:56. > :47:59.earlier was saying it is always overseas aid, but these are
:48:00. > :48:02.dangerous parts of the world and your moral behaviour, the fact that
:48:03. > :48:06.you help, might ease the political tensions. The main thing is to take
:48:07. > :48:10.in the vulnerable, paying our share, to what we're doing on the
:48:11. > :48:16.humanitarian effort by trying to identify the most vulnerable
:48:17. > :48:25.people. That is what we are going to do. I agree, they are in trouble,
:48:26. > :48:28.right? But that is not our problem. We are helping them when we have got
:48:29. > :48:31.people who are homeless in that country that can't afford to eat.
:48:32. > :48:36.Shouldn't the money be going on our own people? Don't shout him down,
:48:37. > :48:40.what is your point? That we shouldn't be sending aid to Syria?
:48:41. > :48:43.I'm not saying we shouldn't help them at all, but we have problems in
:48:44. > :48:49.our own country. We should be helping our own. That's interesting,
:48:50. > :48:52.but I don't think we can wash our hands on what is happening there. I
:48:53. > :48:57.think we do need to take our share. The question was, are we doing
:48:58. > :49:01.enough to help Syrian refugees? My answer is no. I am proud that Nick
:49:02. > :49:06.Clegg has announced we are going to take some, but the scale is
:49:07. > :49:10.enormous. 6.5 million people have been internally displaced in Syria
:49:11. > :49:16.by this awful war. 2.4 million were seeking asylum just recently. I
:49:17. > :49:24.really hope that we do do more than quite a few hundred. Germany, not
:49:25. > :49:27.much different from us, they have pledged 7000 people, the Americans
:49:28. > :49:35.haven't set a limit at all. I hope that we will do more. Mark
:49:36. > :49:51.Littlewood? If you are going to have an international aid budget,
:49:52. > :49:53.emergency relief, not giving the Indian government more than it
:49:54. > :49:59.spends on a mission to Mars. Emergency relief is what it should
:50:00. > :50:02.be spent on. I have some sympathy with what Matthew said. Let's be
:50:03. > :50:06.honest, the people that we could give refuge to in the United Kingdom
:50:07. > :50:13.are likely to be the elderly, the injured, the sexually abused, the
:50:14. > :50:24.infirm. It is not in our narrow interest to let them in. On this
:50:25. > :50:38.occasion, I think humanitarian concerns out trump our interests. I
:50:39. > :50:42.agree with the things about the British aid, we do have to help our
:50:43. > :50:46.homeless, but everybody's country affect everybody else's. All
:50:47. > :50:48.economies are intertwined. If you ignore problems in foreign
:50:49. > :50:53.countries, you are pretty much ignoring the aid that we could get
:50:54. > :51:03.through economic growth, because it is just... It is ignorant. I'd like
:51:04. > :51:11.to ask Kenneth Clarke why the Tories took so long to have Syrian
:51:12. > :51:17.refugees. Can you be brief? We talk about a week. We didn't say 500, we
:51:18. > :51:20.took a week to do it. But we are miles ahead of everybody else in
:51:21. > :51:25.intervening in humanitarian problems. You said you weren't going
:51:26. > :51:28.to. You said the money that you were sending over to the surrounding
:51:29. > :51:32.countries was sufficient and you're not go to take anybody in. You will
:51:33. > :51:37.remember that we have been pushing you on this, so have the charities.
:51:38. > :51:39.Good, you have finally made the right decision, but you should have
:51:40. > :51:47.done it straightaway. You should not have needed pushing. It's great we
:51:48. > :51:50.are doing something, it is great we are taking some. As Matthew points
:51:51. > :51:55.out, it's nowhere near enough. We will take 500 of the most
:51:56. > :51:59.vulnerable, what are we going to do when the 501st person turns up and
:52:00. > :52:02.we say, we don't think you have experienced another rape for
:52:03. > :52:06.torture. We need to take the people that make it to our shores that need
:52:07. > :52:10.our help. That is part of our responsibility as part of the United
:52:11. > :52:12.Nations. I think it is shameful that the Conservatives have been
:52:13. > :52:15.negotiating with the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees. We
:52:16. > :52:19.should going to them and saying what can we do to help? We want to be
:52:20. > :52:23.part of the global solution, a global player, and we should be
:52:24. > :52:27.helping a lot more than that. On top of taking a lot more than 500 Syrian
:52:28. > :52:32.refugees, we also need to have a really long, hard look at our asylum
:52:33. > :52:35.process, and one of the things I do is somewhere in London teaching
:52:36. > :52:38.English to asylum seekers that have come to London. I work with women
:52:39. > :52:42.that have been in the UK from places where they have been raped, in the
:52:43. > :52:45.Congo, they have come to the UK because of their sexuality, from
:52:46. > :52:49.places like Russia and Uganda. They have been kept waiting for eight,
:52:50. > :52:54.ten years. They have been locked up for no good reason. They have been
:52:55. > :52:58.treated despicably and been left destitute over and over again. Until
:52:59. > :53:01.we stop doing that, we have no place telling the United Nations what we
:53:02. > :53:03.should and should not do. We have to sort our own house first and make
:53:04. > :53:10.sure we treat everybody with the human rights they deserve.
:53:11. > :53:27.We have got a few minutes left. Victoria Group, -- Hook. Is banning
:53:28. > :53:31.smoking in cars with children and infringement of our personal
:53:32. > :53:38.freedoms? Mark Littlewood, you are a smoker? I am. It's absurd. Hardly a
:53:39. > :53:41.week goes by without some further restriction on tobacco. I'm not sure
:53:42. > :53:46.if you are aware in the audience for the viewer at home, smoking tobacco
:53:47. > :53:50.can be bad for you. Are you aware of that? Most people are generally
:53:51. > :53:52.aware of that fact. It's fairly unpleasant to smoker on people that
:53:53. > :53:58.don't like the smell. It might even have some modest, effects on them.
:53:59. > :54:04.But the idea that the state should regulate whether or not you smoke in
:54:05. > :54:07.a car is absolutely mad. I think an increasingly, there is basically a
:54:08. > :54:14.squad of these health nut jobs who are rolling out, day after day, yet
:54:15. > :54:17.another restriction on tobacco. The argument is that children have no
:54:18. > :54:24.option, they are sitting in a car and their parents stop smoking, they
:54:25. > :54:26.can't move away. It is if you want the Labour Party public-health
:54:27. > :54:29.minister to basically be the parent of your children or whether we're
:54:30. > :54:35.going to trust parents to drive cars to make those decisions themselves.
:54:36. > :54:38.I speak as an ex-smoker. I know that I could not have given up without
:54:39. > :54:42.the smoking ban in pubs and clubs. It was so hard, such a hard thing to
:54:43. > :54:48.quit. And yet almost every smoker I... But let's talk about the
:54:49. > :54:54.banning cars. If you smoke in a car with the windows closed, the density
:54:55. > :54:59.of that smokers about 11 times what you use to get in a crowded, smoky
:55:00. > :55:02.pub. I think it is of fears that children should not be there. You
:55:03. > :55:06.are right, most results will parents would not do that. So let's just
:55:07. > :55:16.pass a law to make sure that the small number of irresponsible
:55:17. > :55:21.parents also can't do that. Matthew? I actually voted for this ban in the
:55:22. > :55:26.House of Lords last night. And it won. Can I say one thing to mark?
:55:27. > :55:29.It's not just about smoking, he says the state can't regulate, they
:55:30. > :55:32.deregulate people using mobile phones in cars. I don't think people
:55:33. > :55:45.should be smoking in cars, they should be concentrating on driving.
:55:46. > :55:50.Hang on, you said you don't think people should be smoking, they
:55:51. > :55:52.should be concentrating on driving? You would ban adults from smoking in
:55:53. > :56:01.cars alone? The key point is the damage to
:56:02. > :56:07.children. I'm afraid I see this morning that Nick Clegg does not
:56:08. > :56:11.agree on that. But my wife is a doctor and I'm afraid if I have a
:56:12. > :56:18.choice between defying my leader and defying my wife, there is only ever
:56:19. > :56:22.going to be one winner. It would not be the first time you have defied
:56:23. > :56:28.your leader. No, but it would be the first time I defied my wife. Since
:56:29. > :56:31.we are all admitting our status as smokers or not, I am currently a
:56:32. > :56:35.nonsmoker and have not smoked this year. I hope I will be able to
:56:36. > :56:38.continue that. I never wanted to be the sort of is nonsmoker that
:56:39. > :56:42.dictated to the people and told them what to do. Therefore, I voted
:56:43. > :56:48.against banning smoking from pubs. And I was wrong, actually. I think
:56:49. > :56:52.it is right, and I have thought about it somewhat. I also think that
:56:53. > :56:54.smoking in a car and provincial in at risk, because children are
:56:55. > :56:57.particularly at risk when they are younger and their lungs have been
:56:58. > :57:04.formed, you did not smoke in a car with children, and I think it should
:57:05. > :57:08.be banned. If you smoke with an adult in the car, they can say, put
:57:09. > :57:14.the cigarette out or I will get the tube. Children are not able to do
:57:15. > :57:20.that. I was smoking on the way here, it is probably very wise to
:57:21. > :57:24.advise people don't do it when you've got children in the car. We
:57:25. > :57:28.do keep creating new traffic offences. I don't think our traffic
:57:29. > :57:32.police are going to be concentrating an enormous effort in racing up and
:57:33. > :57:36.down the motorway peering into cars trying to see if there is a child
:57:37. > :57:40.in. We do create too many traffic offences and I really think it is
:57:41. > :57:47.gesture politics to pass this kind of thing. They will probably find
:57:48. > :57:51.two or three people every year, when they are unlucky enough to have a
:57:52. > :57:57.policeman spot them. Helps change people's perceptions and behaviours.
:57:58. > :58:00.Sorry, if we go to talk about the lobbyists, Conservative Party and
:58:01. > :58:08.tobacco, are there not some other things we should mention? You think
:58:09. > :58:19.this is political? Not at all. You are obsessed! Not at all. Not at
:58:20. > :58:22.all. What I am saying is that there may be public-health lobbyists that
:58:23. > :58:25.have a view on what is best for smoking, but if we are going to talk
:58:26. > :58:28.about lobbyists is influencing Government with relation to tobacco,
:58:29. > :58:31.we should talk about the plain packaging and the fact that this
:58:32. > :58:38.Government continues to sit in bed with tobacco companies.
:58:39. > :58:44.That is for another programme. Our hour is up. We are going to be in
:58:45. > :58:49.chilling in Kent next week with Tessa Jowell, David Starkey is going
:58:50. > :58:50.to be there and George Galloway, together on the programme. I know, I
:58:51. > :59:00.know! I was not warned. The week after that we are going to
:59:01. > :59:05.be in Scunthorpe. If you would like to be there, you can go to the
:59:06. > :59:08.website. The addresses on the bottom of the screen. Or you can the
:59:09. > :59:15.telephone number. If you are listening to this on BBC, you can
:59:16. > :59:22.continue the debate on Question Time Extra Time. It just leaves me to
:59:23. > :59:34.thank our panel very much, all of you who came here to take part in
:59:35. > :59:39.this programme from The Holes in Norwich, good night. -- Halls.