13/02/2014 Question Time

welcome to Question Time. Welcome to you at home, to our audience, who

will ask the questions, and our panel, who do not know the questions

until they hear them. Conservative Home Office Minister, Damian Green,

Labour Shadow employment minister, Chris Bryant, from UKIP, one of

their leading candidates for the European elections, Janice Atkinson,

Daily Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone, and Labour peer, broadcast

and Professor of science and society at Imperial College London, Robert

Winston. The first question from Max Bell,

please. Why does it take flooding to hit the south-east of England before

the Westminster village notice or even care? Damian Green. I think

that is half fare. Which bit? When you say the Westminster village, it

is certainly true that the 24-hour news channels found it easier to get

to the Thames Valley than they did to the Somerset Levels. But the

truth is that the spread of the floods, and the incessant nature of

the bad weather, has just made this a more important and bigger

emergency as the weeks have passed. We now know that we have had the

wettest period for 215 is, so it is not surprising that various

authorities dealing with it are having to catch up around the

country. -- 250 years. That is why we have schemes to help not just

householders, but separate schemes to help farmers, rate relief for

businesses and so on, because this is a very serious emergency in large

parts of the country, and people need and deserve that help. That is

why the Army have come in, and obviously the police are doing a

good job, as always. But his point is different, that this has only

happened because the flooding is in the south-east. Isn't that right?

Absolutely. In Scunthorpe we have the River Trent and the River Humber

which are extremely liable to flooding. Back in December, hundreds

of people had to be evacuated. There are members of the audience here who

had to raise thousands of pounds because they were not getting any

help. There was no news coverage, nobody cared, there were no

statements, nobody looking daft in wellies. It is -- if it is not

within ten miles of London, they don't care. Do you agree at the

back? I would like to quote some figures in relation to flooding

historically in the UK. There is a blog currently on with Paul Hudson,

that presents north-west weather. He has quoted that in 2007, there were

23,500 homes flooded in the UK. Last year, in the Yorkshire and Humber

region, there were 66,000 homes flooded. And you can compare that to

the Somerset Levels which, apparently, 40 houses were flooded.

I understand there are print -- plenty of other properties that were

cut off, and I understand that in comparison to the south of England

currently that pales into insignificance. You have heard the

number of people complaining about how they were treated. I would be

spitting with fury if I lived up here. Today it is announced that the

people who were flooded in December will get the same money it was

announced by David Cameron earlier this week and is going to people in

the Thames Valley and in Somerset. Why did that not happen in Sepp Ash

in December? -- why did it not happen in December. In 2007 there

was major flooding in Hull. We had a scheme in place in two weeks. It is

two months we have been talking about here, and longer in relation

to the north-east. I remember when I was first elected in 2001, we had

terrible flooding in the Rhondda Valley in two very small areas,

basically because the local authority had not cleaned out the

water channels for a long time. There were bricks and all sorts of

stuff in there, which meant the water built up behind. Secondly,

because the pumping station was frankly Victorian. I get really

depressed that we still talk about Brunel's engineering and wanting to

protect that. What about modern engineering? Why are we relying on

Victorian engineering? You attacked the government, and everybody here

was critical of the government for doing nothing in December. The

?5,000 people are getting as a result of what happened in the

Thames Valley, why wasn't it here? As I remember, the local council

actually set up a compensation scheme straightaway which was very

good and sensible. I remember at the time thinking, why is this not being

reported? The truth was, as I remember, it coincided with the

death of Nelson Mandela and the entire world media decamped to South

Africa. Actually, I agree, it was certainly under reported. You, on

the right. I think there is a serious lack of planning for

flooding. David Cameron, the reason he had no involvement for maybe six

or eight weeks was because he was letting the guys on the ground get

it into some kind of order as to what they were going to do with the

floods. For a start, people say, what is David Cameron going to do?

Build a wall around the country? There were 60 foot waves crashing on

some of those beaches. We cannot stop those floods. We are talking

about ground water coming up from the water table. We cannot prevent

that. We have that much rain coming down. When I referred to the lack of

planning, is it not time firefighters were used as a

statutory obligation to respond to floods, because at the moment they

are doing it out of goodwill and using parts of the budget that are

therefore other activities? I agree there is not much David Cameron can

do except where wellies and go around for a photo opportunity. But

there is such a thing as the environmental agency. What I would

like to point out to those of you who are very cross about the North

and lack of activity, lack of support here, I have in-laws in

Somerset and friends who are farmers in the Somerset Levels. They were

calling the Environment Agency in December, before Christmas, and

saying, look, the dredging of the rivers must happen now, because we

can see, everybody is predicting a bad winter and we can see what is

going to happen. And the Environment Agency said, no, it is not really

necessary. So I think that Cameron himself, what could he do? But there

is a regulatory body there. It is the Environment Agency. Why were

they so inactive, not responding to people who were calling and saying,

we have lived here a long time, we know what is about to happen, let's

not dilly-dally? We hear now that dredging the rivers would not

benefit people. It is just going to move the problem further downstream.

Damian Green, comment on this, because you will remember that Eric

Pickles, the Communities Secretary, said exactly what Cristina Odone is

saying, I apologise, I am really sorry, we took the advice of what we

thought, we thought we were dealing with experts. Is that right? Is it

the feeling in government that you were let down by the Environment

Agency? Or let down by Eric Pickles? There is clearly a crisis we need to

sort out. Let's stick with Eric Pickles. He was very clear, he went

on television and said, we thought we were dealing with experts. He

criticised the Environment Agency for being responsible. My

understanding, and I do not intend to become an armchair hydrologist.

The nation is now full of people, who, just as we go to war, we all

become armchair generals, we are now becoming experts on river flows and

hydrology. I am not an expert. But my understanding is that in the

Somerset Levels, dredging might have helped a bit but actually would not

have been a magic bullet. In other places, such as the Thames Valley,

there are so many locks and weirs and so on, that you do not alter the

flow very much by dredging. Let's go back to the issue of whether it was

because it was in the south-east that the government acted. Is it not

the fact that it is highlighting the north- south divide again, and there

are more Conservative seats down south than up north? Well, I don't

think it is a political issue. I think we are missing the point

entirely, actually, to tell you the truth. In a way, and I hate to say

this, because it is a terrible thing to have your house inundated like

this wherever you live, but in a way this is a good thing, because it

should be an awful warning to what is going to happen increasingly in

the future. Virtually all sensible scientific opinion is clear that we

are undergoing climate change, that there is going to be increasingly

chaotic weather around the world, overheating in some places like

Australia, flooding in places like Bangladesh, which will kill

thousands and thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people. And

even in Britain the Thames Barrier is now inadequate for the purpose.

Perhaps it would be good if Westminster were flooded. I don't

know. But actually, quite seriously, it is shocking to blame any

minister, or indeed the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has

certainly been underfunded, that is clear. Therefore, it could not

respond in the way it should have done. I think it is regrettable that

Chris Smith did not visit the places earlier, as its boss. I think there

was a big mistake. But in a sense, one has to say that 1000 years ago

we had King Canute. In a sense, David Cameron is looking like King

Canute, looking at the waves which are inevitably going to come in. The

sea level has risen. We know that there is measured heating. We know

it is changing. And we need to do something about the next generation.

For a long time, scientists have been saying, we must look at

flooding. It's going to be one of the most serious consequences of

heating. Not simply crops drying up, or the shortage of water. In some

places there will be too much water, and we are seeing that at the

moment. The trouble is that we cannot prove it is the case. But

now, in a place that Lincolnshire, you are desperately vulnerable. You

have already said that. One of the problem is, of course, is that we

know from history that you cannot beat nature. If you take reclaim the

land, nature may well try and reclaim it again, and that is a big

problem. So many hands up, I don't know where to go. I would like to

come back to the original question, and I appreciate everything that

Lord Winston has said. But my concern is that nobody did come up

to this part of the world. And on the night of December the 5th, 120

homes were devastated in one tiny village. Can any of you name that

village? Janice Atkinson. The reason they went to the south-east is

because that where the Tory heartland is. I can name it, but I

have it written down, so it would be cheating. Nobody would name it,

because if you are right that nobody knew it was happening, nobody knew

it was happening, and that 700,000 chickens died in a shared. And one

of the hotels closed and has not been able to open again. You can

name it? I can't, but I did read earlier. In December, there were

debates in the House of Commons. They were not reporting it, but

local MPs were raising these issues. Let's come back to the main

question. We have an environmental agency. They are the largest

employer of the whole of Europe. So what were they doing? They were not

dredging the Thames because they are frightened of upsetting the odd

minute, the odd mollusc. It is actually right, Robert, it really

promising us money am a blank promising us money am a blank

cheque, and open cheque. We have ?1.2 trillion of debt. Where is the

money going to come from? This government and the government before

this present coalition are spending money on useless wind farms. 1000

million pounds has been spent on useless wind farms. Coming up on the

train, just a few miles from here you have a very rich landowner and

he has invested in hundreds of the wind farms. And the reason why is

because there is a vested interest in this. It has become an industry,

the climate change industry. That man is creaming off hundreds of

thousands of pounds of taxpayers money. That is lowing come families

and pensioners. That man is David Cameron's father-in-law and I think

that is disgusting. -- low income families. If we had invested in

flood defences and dredged the rivers, we would not be in this

mess. I would say to you, the reason why it has not been reported, what

happened to people up here, is because of the London centric media

and the Tory heartland. They are all running around in their wellies in

the Somerset Levels trying to shore up their votes, not to shore up your

rivers. You are not blaming gay marriage for the God's retribution

from the floods? I have never held that position. It was never UKIP's

position? He was a Tory. He was a Tory? No, he was a Tory... So were

you, weren't you? You can never tell which party they are in! As soon as

he stepped over to UKIP, and all of a sudden, the old parties are all

over us. Chris's party has got a unit that is dealing with UKIP at

the moment. They should be dealing with the policies. Alright. Can I

return to flooding? There will be people watching this programme

worried that their house is going to flood. I think it is a serious issue

that deserves serious attention. I disagree with Janice about wind

farms. All of you do! If you take Robert seriously, who is the most

distinguished scientist on this panel, and if therefore you think it

is likely or even very possible that climate change is caused by man-made

emissions and that climate change is contributing to these terrible

events that we are seeing, then having renewable energy to generate

our electricity is a good thing. It is a good thing that we are moving

down that route. I agree. I want to disagree with another point. I don't

think dredging is always the answer. There are places where, as Richard

Benyon, a former Conservative Minister, I think he was a very good

Environment Minister. One of the things that he was saying this week

was - there are many places where, if you dredge, you will be doing

dramatic damage. You didn't want to set yourself up as a professional...

He said that! You don't mind? I'm saying that I think you have to have

different responses in different places and that is why you need...

It is also maintenance of the hedges, of the plains. It wasn't

just dredging. Let's hear more from our audience. Lord Smith said that

Government funding is only available if you get 800% economic return on

money spent. ?8 for the ?1. That is probably why the Thames easily

meets, the Thames Valley meets that criteria. We, in the rural

communities, don't. We get 50% less Government funding than urban

communities. Even in this situation, we get kicked in the teeth and say

because you don't give us enough return on investment, you don't

deserve help. OK. Hold on. The man with the beard? Given the risk of

flooding and that very likely there will be - we can't guarantee funding

in the future, do you think it might be negligent, or irresponsible of

local authorities to grant permission for housing to be

developed on floodplains? Do you think that ought to stop? Or it

should be... ? I think there may be - you may have to design - you might

be able to design housing to be able to be not so affected by flooding.

The lady in the front? I was going to say our council is about to give

planning permission for 60,000 homes on a floodplain. What will happen if

they get flooded? Are they going to be able to get insurance? The

council knows it's floodplain? Of course they do! It is under water

every winter because of the snow and the rain! You can go behind Tescos

and... Right here? Yes. You, Sir? North Lincs Council are not keen on

that but there's very little planning criteria that we can avoid

doing it. Going back... Are you on the council? Yes. You can't say no

because you get appealed and it is turned down? The appeals have cost

us ?400,000 when we have tried to stop them. That is not for flooding.

We tried to stop things. Going back to the flooding in South Ferriby, I

was down there, I got my feet wet and was there for five days

afterwards trying to help people. It was a tragedy. I came across a guy

in a foot of water in his slippers who joyfully told me I could have

done without this, I'm just back from hospital, I have had my first

chemotherapy. It was devastating. However, I do feel - and I will not

be popular - in 1953, when the flood defences were not as good as they

are now, and we were flooded by a flood that was not as serious as the

one that we have just had, 300 people were killed, 300-plus people.

Thankfully, nobody has been seriously injured or killed, apart

from 75,000 chickens, 45 sheep and a dog. Now, in looking at it, and I am

going to give a plug to the Environment Agency, the Environment

Agency invested a lot of money because we have a haven that comes

in, which was the old harbour into Barton. I was looking over that

haven. They did a big civil engineering job there and it was

within six inches of the top of it. I was head and shoulders above the

grass bank and I was on tip-toes looking over the flood defence. You

look like you are about 6ft 6in tall? I am. We would have lost 1,000

houses in Barton. Without that? If that defence hadn't been there. We

lost two. Tragic - and I have met both the families and I have been to

the families with the local MP. OK. That is true in other parts of the

country. The previous Government spent lots of money after the 2007

floods. You cut the money? No. Let's not have a partisan discussion,

Chris. There are people whose lives are under threat here. It is... If

you don't spend enough money, you won't be able to maintain the

resilience for the future. The shocking thing is, I was there and

there was nothing we could do when that flood came over apart from run

away, just like in Bangladesh. The advantage we had that the next day,

and the following days, we had the infrastructure to go in there and

help people and we had enough people in the area to also help people. We

must move on to another question. I have six solutions to the problem.

It will take 60 seconds? Very quickly. We need to do this. We are

looking so short-term. In the longer term, I think we have to invest in

nuclear power, we have to understand carbon capture, I think we need to

look at renewable energy which will include wind farms, though you have

a problem on this coast moving them in from the sea. We all need to save

energy and save water from our taps. Simple things like that. I think it

is not just housing - housing brings roads, schools, hospitals, concrete

in gardens, so there is no run-off. Most importantly of all, we need to

engage globally. Unless we do that, we are not going to solve the

problem. OK. APPLAUSE

So, do join in tonight's debate by text or Twitter. You can follow us

at www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime. If you are texting, 83981. Stuart Maw,

please? Are the British establishment trying to scare the

Scots into voting to stay in the UK by refusing to let them keep the

pound? What is your view? Well, I think Scotland are entitled to the

pound as much as England are, as we are down here. We all share it. And

I just think for once, you see it is very rare, all the parties seem to

be coming together for once. It would be nice to see it more often.

The Labour Party, the Conservative Party - or the Coalition - are all

coming together to bully the Scots into voting to stay with the UK.

Cristina Odone? Is it bullying? It did look like that when you had

Danny Alexander, George Osborne and Ed Balls ganging up and, as you

said, a political unity that the floods somehow didn't give rise to.

But I also have to say - I think the Scots are not going to put up with

it. The Scots are used to having a pound that most of my shopkeepers in

London won't accept. They are not going to be scared of being bullied

over the currency. Whether in the end it is a good thing for the more

serious question of will Scotland break away, be independent, will

Holyrood detach itself from Westminster? I'm not convinced. I

think a United Kingdom is a better kingdom.

APPLAUSE Robert Winston, you are a politician

as well as a scientist. You watch these things. Do you think this is

an attempt to scare the Scots? Or is it a serious - or do they mean it?

David Cameron has been remarkably altruistic. It's in his interests

that Scotland does succeed. It would - that would - don't you think so?

Make it easier? I disagree. Sorry. Having said that, to be serious for

a moment, I think one of the concerns that I have - I think we

are right to stay together and say you can't have bits of the United

Kingdom that you want to have and not other bits. If you have the

pound, you have responsibility for interest rates, you have

responsibility for currency control, and if the Scots want to go it

alone, it is up to them to have their own border controls and their

own currency. It won't be in their interests to join the euro. What

currency will they have? Not the dollar. Maybe they should have the

bit coin. You, Sir? Do you think the establishment in Westminster is

trying to bully the Scots into voting no? I think they have played

right into Alex Salmond's and the SNP's hands. They have stirred a

hornet's nest up there north of the border. It's almost - it is going to

backfire against them. The Scots will vote yes for independence now.

It is that big. Simply because they feel bullied? Yes, absolutely. The

Scots, we know what they are like. They are rebellious. They don't

particularly like us. Especially not the Tories. I was up there a few

days ago and they are really - a Tory Government - the next

Government will be Labour. That will be too late. I think being in

September, they will vote independence for sure. I will come

back to you. Damian Green, do you think there is an animosity towards

the Tory Party in particular, which makes this a counterproductive thing

to have done? I disagree with all of that. Robert's right and I will make

myself unpopular by speaking in praise of politicians and political

parties. Everyone assumes political parties are only in it for their own

narrow self-interest. It is clearly in the party's own interest, the

Conservative Party, for Scotland and its dozens of Labour MPs and its one

Conservative MP to break away. We are campaigning as hard as we can,

absolutely united party to skeep Scotland in the United Kingdom -- to

skeep Scotland in the United Kingdom. We think it is right for

Scotland. Anyone who says politicians are only in it for

themselves should consider that and Robert, as a member of the Labour

Party, is very good. The Prime Minister is not going up to

Scotland? He is. The Cabinet is going up to Scotland shortly. He is

not going to debate with the Scottish Nationals? Nor should he.

Why? Only the Scots have a vote. The debate needs to be between the two

campaigns in Scotland, between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling. I

don't think the Scots will feel bullied by this. I also think the

Scots will be far too sensible to vote to separate from the rest of

the United Kingdom. It's in Scotland's interest as well. This is

a reality that if you are a different country, you can't say we

are going to have a say in your currency. And you can have different

sovereign countries that come together and share a currency - and

we have seen it in the euro. That has caused a lot of strains,

particularly for smaller countries and, in effect, the Alex Salmond

plan would be to impose that kind of thing on everyone in the rest of

Britain as well. We would have two different countries trying to run a

currency. It's much more difficult to run that in the interests of both

countries. I think it is fundamentally undemocratic. If you

want to do that sort of thing, which fundamentally undemocratic. If you

has a huge effect on everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

England, Wales and Northern Ireland should have a vote on this as well.

APPLAUSE What kind of vote would you give

England, Wales and Northern Ireland, one that prevented Scotland becoming

independent if it chose to? Scotland... It would go to war if

you do that! If what Scotland is saying is that we want to run your

currency as well, then, clearly, we should have a say as well. Only in

those circumstances. Alright. I go back to you, Sir. I'm sitting on the

fence, really. It was my question. As a half Scot, my mother is

Scottish, my dad is English, I can understand where the Scots are

coming from if they do vote to go independent because they don't vote

for Conservatives in Scotland but yet are always run by Conservatives.

That - if I was living in Scotland, that would be my reason to go

independent. Irrespective of any other idea. Janice Atkinson, what do

you think of today's action from all three main parties, and UKIP as

well, or not? What has UKIP said? We can't keep the pound. He actually

sees his future in Europe, so let him have the euro and we will see

how far he gets. We believe we are stronger together, we are Better

Together. When they have their referendum, and they are lucky,

because we are being denied a referendum. David Cameron has agreed

to give them a referendum but will not give us a referendum on Europe.

We do not actually believe cast iron Dave on that one because he has

promised it before. But at least they are having their referendum.

When we have our referendum, and I hope we do in 2017, and we will have

a Parliamentary referendum next year, and it will come down to the

economy and it will come down to jobs. Those are the two main thing

is people worry about, so they will have their say. I think the Scots

are a canny lot and they will vote to stay in, because together we are

stronger. When they are on about what currency Scotland can use,

would they meet the criteria for entering the euro? Has anyone looked

at that? I don't know the specific answer to that question but it

almost certainly wouldn't be immediately. There is no guarantee

they would be allowed to join the European Union. I note that your

name is Stewart. There is quite a lot of Scott in you, and also in me

as well. My brother always used to say he was half Welsh, half English,

half Scottish, because he wasn't very good at maths! I just feel we

are all part of the same thing, aren't we? Emotionally, I disagree.

I don't think it will boil down to economics and things like that. I

think it will boil down to the emotion of it all. What about the

tactic of George Osborne going to Edinburgh and his views being

endorsed by Ed Walls, for instance? I think you have to lay out the

facts. You cannot have an independent country where you are

expecting England to prop up the Scottish banks if the banks go

under, which is what the Bank of England, presumably, would have to

do. We have ?1.2 trillion of debt. Exactly. So I think it is perfectly

legitimate to simply lay out the facts, and that is what has happened

today. I hope you are wrong, sir. The Scots I know are taking this

whole issue very seriously. It would be an enormous step into the dark, I

think. This is one of many, many issues they are going to vote on.

Didn't the Bank of England prop up the Irish banks when they went

under? They did, didn't they? ?7 billion. Is that right, when the

Irish banks went under, we said it was in our interest to keep Ireland

afloat. Which it was. Ireland is a significant trading partner.

Wouldn't Scotland be in the same position? There is a difference

between propping up someone's banks and allowing them to run your

currency. If Scotland wants to retain the English pound, as it

were, and still have a say on interest rates, I think that would

be inappropriate. The point about devaluation as well. It is just bad

economics to say, we want to be independent but keep the old

currency. The SNP still seem to be in denial about today's decision.

When are they going to shut up whingeing and start deciding what

they are going to do about it because the policy isn't going to

change? You think it is up to the SNP. They still believe we will

allow them to keep the pound. They have been told we will not. They

don't believe it. It is a stand-off. They need to come up with plan B

quickly. They just say they don't believe them. The Scottish people

will decide, as they will in a referendum. Linda Lewis, please. Can

a smoking ban in cars with children realistically be enforced? Agreed in

the House of Commons, legislation to come, detailed legislation banning

smoking in cars. Can it realistically be enforced? Janice,

what do you think? Of course it can't. Is it wrong to smoke in a car

with children? Absolutely. I am a libertarian. The only

anti-libertarian streak I have in me, I am so anti-smoking. I hate

smoking. I grew up in a house with two smokers and it made me ill. Both

my parents smoked in the car. How do you get on with Nigel Farage? He

never stops smoking. He is outside, I am inside. We don't have smoking

in our cars. I hope you don't have children either! There is a serious

point, how far do you go? We all know that if you are smoking or

drinking in pregnancy it is a harmful to the baby. So is the next

step down the line that actually we make that a criminal offence? Or

when mums go to Iceland and start loading their cars with full fat,

ready-made meals, do we make that illegal? If you think about policing

and the strains on our policing at the moment, in this area you have

violent crime rising. Your car crime is flat-lining. I would actually

prefer the police appear to be getting on with solving serious

crime and stopping violent crime. You are in favour of a legal ban on

smoking in cars with children, or not? I would prefer not to be

criminalised. We should be educating people. And tell me, how are we

going to police this? Robert Winston, is it proven that smoking

near children gives children all of these diseases? I am rather proud of

the fact that this amendment started in the House of Lords and I, among

others, voted in favour of this plan. We recognise that it is

difficult to enforce and might be impossible. But, to be honest, the

evidence that it really damages children in general, passive

smoking, is not quite as good as is made out. It probably does, but

there is not long-term evidence to clearly demonstrate that. But I

would say that smoking in a vehicle when you are driving it under any

circumstances, with or without a child, is dangerous. You were just

ban smoking in cars, period. The moment you are distracted, you drop

the cigarette on your trousers or skirt and there is a smell of

burning. You are distracted and a danger to other road users. If the

child in the back is fractious as well, you are doubly dangerous to

other road users. I think that is a real problem. You are not saying it

is a danger to children's lungs. You are saying it is bad practice when

you are driving. I am saying it probably is bad for children's

lungs. Most doctors are certain it is bad for children's lungs but the

clear evidence is not quite as clear as was stated in Parliament. It is

certainly not good to smoke around children, for lots of reasons, not

just the damage to their lungs but the habit and the copying, because

children mimic their elders. I think whether it is restrictive or not and

a law that is difficult to enforce, nowadays, with photography on

motorways and roads generally, it is very easy to actually pick up people

who are smoking in cars. You could actually see that. I think if you

are at risk of prosecution, it may not be such a massive amount of

police time after all. It is more surveillance, Big Brother watching

us. We are watched in our cars. Damian Green, what was your view? I

think smoking in cars in front of your children is disgusting and

stupid and you shouldn't do it, mostly for the reason of setting an

example. I take Robert's view on medical evidence. I was interested

in that. But you shouldn't do it. It's a bad thing to do. But I voted

against the ban, one, because I'm the police minister and therefore

spend a lot of my time worrying that the police are doing what most

people want them to be doing most of the time, and so just piling new

criminal offences onto the statute book, meaning the police have two

enforce them means, whether it is a huge amount of time or a small

amount of time, that means less police time available. In violent

crime and that kind of thing. And also because I think there are a

large range of activities that I personally disapprove of and wish

people didn't do and certainly don't want them to do anywhere near me, or

that society as a whole doesn't like people to do, but which we still

shouldn't make criminal offences. Because I think the state interferes

too much in our lives. The lady in the second row, who asked the

question. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the ban and even if it

can't be enforced, any small steps that make people think about their

actions have to be really good. I am slightly cynical about the fact that

the government is trying to bring it in. We are aware that it is down to

education. This is the government trying to close down sure start

centres, where the root of education for families is.

I would like to reiterate that point. Just because it is hard to

implement, surely that does not mean you should not implement it. It

would just make people think twice before they smoke, if a policeman is

to see them and maybe they might get caught. The problem is not to,

obviously, implement it. You need to make people think twice before they

start smoking. The problem is, and I am a parliamentarian, so I respect

the will of Parliament. I was on the losing side of this vote, so we will

go ahead with it. But the idea that you pass something into law and then

it does not matter if it is enforced or not is not true. Because if in

three years time nobody has been prosecuted for smoking in their car,

two things will happen. One, people will start doing it again. Secondly,

people would think, they are passing laws that they do not enforce, which

brings the rule of law into disrepute, and that is a bad thing

as well. But the law presently requires people seated in the

back-seat of a car to wear a seat belt. I've never seen anybody be

prosecuted for not doing that, but I think now many more people wear a

seat belt in the back of their car than used to before we changed the

law, so it must be a good change in the law. Secondly, I think probably

in my constituency, a former mining constituency, lots of people had bad

chest complaints from working in the minds, but the single most important

thing I did as an MP for the health of people in my constituency was

voting to ban smoking in public places, because it means fewer

people smoke, fewer people will die of smoking-related illnesses. The

third thing I would say is that I remember my mum. She smoked like a

chimney. She never stopped, all day, every day. The worst place for me

was in the car, because it was a really small place. She would

pretend the cigarette was outside the window but it always managed to

blow straight back into the car, and I hated it. It is a sort of set the

children free moment, I think. I fully agree with Lord Winston about

smoking in cars. People have been fined for eating apples, chocolate

bars and things like that. If you drop an apple, it is not a problem.

I used to smoke when I was younger and I have dropped cigarettes in

cars, and blind panic sets in. It is not a bad idea at all. You know

what, I don't have a car. I used to smoke. I no longer smoke, but I

still didn't like this. I just don't want laws telling me what I can do

or not do with my children in the car that we don't have. I feel

really uncomfortable with it. I think parents, yes, of course we

must promote anti-smoking education. Not legislation but

education. Tell parents again and again, don't smoke when you're

pregnant, don't smoke anywhere near your child, passive smoking is bad.

But a law to do this! It is as if the government were telling us that

the government is a better parent than we are. And do you know what,

do you know what, I don't think it is. When we have children in care of

the government, those children are not doing well. Care homes are

terrible places. Those reform institutions, where young offenders

go, they are terrible, abysmal. At is where self-harming youths and

suicides are skyrocketing. I don't think government is always best when

it comes to our children. I think we are. Now, what do you want? Thank

you. The law also presently says that if children are seated under a

certain age in the back of a car, they have to be in a children's

seat. Would you remove that legal requirement, because that is the

logic of your position? It is not the logic of my position. I think

there is a certain room for legal interference, but let's not

interfere at every step in every second of our lives. What about a

ban on children smoking in front of their parents in the car? I wish we

could do that. The gentleman in the tie? Is the slight loss of liberty

imposed by the Government not justified in the safety which is

ensured of the children in the car? Absolutely. I don't buy it. You look

like my stepson when you said that! Last point from you, up there? I

don't understand why anyone would defend the right to be able to smoke

in front of a child in the car. We have ten minutes left. I take a

question from Paul Foster. Should the UK take its lead from the Swiss

when renegotiating its relationship with Europe? Switzerland is not part

of th EU. But it has close relationships with the EU, which

involves accepting a lot of EU practices and they decided they

weren't going to do this any longer and they are going to have to

renegotiate it with the EU. Should t UK take a lead? What do you think?

Should we have a referendum on that? Well, UKIP believes we should have a

referendum on a lot of things. What do you think of the Swiss example?

Brilliant. They have control over their borders and financial services

industry. They have control over their tax. They are rich. Oh, to be

like the Swiss! There is a serious point here. Is that not a serious

point? Brussels won't allow them to keep that vote. Brussels will

overturn it because actually it's against the single market and part

of being part of the single market is open borders, completely open

borders uncontrolled immigration. So they voted against it. Like the

French were told, and the Irish, when they voted no, they didn't want

certain things. They were told to go back and get the right vote. Vivian

Reading was over in the week, she thinks that we are a bit thick to

have our own referendum because YOU don't understand the real issues

facing us at the moment. She said 710% of our -- 70% of our laws come

from Brussels. Basically, it's made them redundant, or maybe that is a

good thing. You can have a referendum on the things that you

want. To be like the Swiss? Absolutely. But the Swiss have

accepted a lot of the EU legislation, haven't they? They have

to. And you think that they won't be allowed to opt out of this? It is

fundamental. The EU will say if you do that, you are out of the deal, we

close the deal? Absolutely. You would like to see Switzerland close

the deal? You know what, Norway are contesting it now. I think you will

see a sort of complete waterfall effect here and I hope they do. The

people need to take power and sovereign Parliaments need to take

back power. Chris Bryant? I don't want to be like the Swiss. They have

to implement everything that the EU comes up with and they don't get to

sit at the table to decide on what the rules are. So, it is a nonsense

to say we should be like the Swiss. No, I don't want to say that

Europeans shouldn't be allowed to come into this country and that

there should be some kind of cap on the number of Europeans that come

into this country from other members of the EU. Guess which is the

country that has most nationals living elsewhere in Europe? The

United Kingdom. 2.6 million Brits living elsewhere. Now, yes, some of

those are retired people who are wealthy and own their own homes in

Spain. Some of them are over 65 and using the NHS for free, something

that they never contributed to. So, I want, I believe passionately in

Europe. I think in the end, I know some people dismiss and they say

that the only reason we have had peace in a continent that has been

at war for centuries and centuries is because of NATO. I don't believe

that. It is. It is because people sit round a table and negotiate

their way to peace these days and that's partly because of the

European Union. I tell you one other thing. When was it that Britain

became so pathetic that we said oh, we are worried about other people

coming here, we are not worried about what opportunities there might

be for us to make our way in France and Germany and Spain and Italy, to

make big businesses in other countries? What is the country that

invests most here? France. We should be - we should seize hold of our

membership of the EU and say yes, we believe in it, we are committed to

it. We are not going to renege on it because it's been good for this

country. You, Sir? Isn't this just a matter that the Swiss have showed us

what true democracy is? It's the will of the people. Hold on. What do

you make of the UKIP position? Are you a supporter of UKIP? I'm not. I

also think that there is something else that is much more sinister that

has motivated the Swiss. It's this fear, this alarm about the other and

it's the person who comes in into your country and is taking your job,

is taking your benefits, is taking your services and this is what

appeals to UKIP. They have the same narrative. I think you can protect

your identity, you can protect your legacy, your heritage without making

other cultures into a threat to your happiness. I think we are sitting

here in Scunthorpe and we are thinking about the biggest employer

around here, Tata Steel. It's Indian. Let's not forget. Immigrants

of all kinds are either giving us incredible opportunities like Tata

Steel, or working their somethings off and guess what? Claiming less

than 45% of the benefits and tax credits that the average domestic

worker does. So, I think there's something really sinister and it's

not the cuckoo clock, it's a kind of inherent xenophobia. This is what

appeals to UKIP and it is what appeals... OK. You were shaking your

head when Cristina Odone was talking. You don't agree with her?

If you are referring to Vivian Reading's figures, she is using the

figures about the amount of benefit being claimed by immigrants, not the

percentage of immigrants claiming benefit. What do you think of - hold

on a second. What do you think of the main issue? The point isn't just

about immigrants and migrants, it is about us being able to make our own

rules. It is about us not being dictated to by Brussels on all sorts

of policies. Such as human rights, we are not allowed to get rid of

terrorists. Which human right do you want to get rid of? We want to be

able to get rid of a terrorist that is a risk to our country. It is not

whether we can or can't, we should be able to make that decision

ourselves. Wes are being dictated to by Brussels. -- we are being

dictated to by Brussels. That is the human rights court. There are so

many parts to this other than just the people coming to the country. We

are talking about that. There are so many other things that are involved

with being in the EU. The Swiss set a good example in your view?

Absolutely. Do you agree with that? The woman there? My problem is that,

of course, I'm not English, but I'm British. The problem is that over

here, with negative propaganda by politicians, people are too scared

about any other nation but this island. Whoever comes in is an

intruder and that is not the fact. People come here to work and earn a

good living. Absolutely. And pay taxes. We want the brightest and

best from around the world. I'm quoted in the Times to say I want

the best from India and China. It's sheer numbers. Propaganda... We

need... I have to finish this. The negative propaganda, what it does

is, even though I'm working as a doctor, in the street I will be

called a lackey. That is wrong. You are very welcome to work here as a

doctor. No matter what I'm doing for society, the society is doing for

me, the baseline is we are scared of each other. Damian Green, you want

to take issue with UKIP on this? I do. Your policy at the last election

was for a five-year freeze for no immigration at all. Have you dropped

that policy? Yes - well... I'm on the policy review committee. I no e

what is happening. When we have got our policies, we will tell you.

Good. Excellent. No, they don't have a policy on this. Yes, we do. You

don't. I was the Immigration Minister for two-and-a-half years.

Exactly! Can I explain? Britain benefits from immigration, it

benefits from people coming in. I agree vment What gives rise to the

fear, which gives rise to UKIP and other parties is when immigration is

out of control. Yes. Ten years ago in this country, immigration was out

of control. If you try and change a society too fast, then people get

worried and that gives rise to unpleasant consequences. That is why

we have instituted systems of controls, that is why we have had a

cap on the number of work visas, that is why we have closed 700 bogus

colleges so people can't come here pretending to be students when they

are coming here to work. And it's a long-haul but the system is getting

better. Controlled immigration is beneficial to this country. What do

you say to the man in the centre, who said that the Swiss at least

showed they are in control of their own policies and they have a vote on

it and they decide and that is democratic? So do we. All those

things I have just explained were passed through the British

Parliament. They were put into power because we won a general election.

You, there? I want to know how you define who the brightest and the

best are. Surely that is opinion? You can't just say we are going to

have the brightest and the best people here because you cannot judge

that. Robert Winston? Whether someone has a job as a doctor

doesn't mean they are a wonderful person. I'm not saying doctors

aren't wonderful people. She maybe! -- may be! We have hugely benefitted

from people like yourselves. I'm a bit concerned Damian about what you

say. You have introduced the most restrictive Immigration Bill. There

is one area that is of concern - the restriction of students coming into

this country, which is an ?11 billion bill. The number of students

has reduced because of all these bogus students. The number of

university students coming into this country, which we want to see, has

increased, so look beneath the aggregate figures. Robert, you have

- we have 50 seconds left. Students are being put off to apply for

university in our main universities. There is no doubt, we have the

figures. It is massive. I come back to Switzerland. What Janice - she is

out of touch. You would not want to be like the Swiss. They have a

totally different system of government. First of all, there's

part of Switzerland that would like to be in the EU, around Geneva,

there is another part around Zurich that is opposed to Europe. That is

the division. Secondly, of course, they have a multiplicity of little

Parliaments that all sorts of referenda which we would never have

on insignificant subjects. Most of the time, they don't really do much

for really changing the Swiss mentality or the Swiss attitude. One

of their problems is they haven't benefitted from immigration in the

way that we have. It's been quite clear that they haven't. That's a

major reason why I don't think we would want to be like the Swiss. 25%

or more of Switzerland is immigrants? Yes, but you try and buy

property in Switzerland, you try and deal with the - they have a huge

problem with their currency. It's massively valued. I think they have

very big problems. Alright. Let's leave it there. We have to stop,

Chris. Our hour is up. Thank you all very much. Next week, we will be in

Swindon with Question Time and we will have the novelist Janette

Winterton. If you would like to come to either programme, Swindon or

Newport, you can apply on our website, or you can ring. If you are

listening to this on Radio Five Live, the debate goes on Question

Time Extra Time. I would like to thank our panel very much. And all

of you who came here to take part in this edition. Really great to see

you. Thank you very much, indeed. From Scunthorpe, until next Thursday

night, good night.