Episode 5 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: asylum seekers, deciding your gender,

and British children living in poverty.

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Oasis Academy Lord's Hill in Southampton.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

This week there's been more protesting against President Trump -

this time over his new immigration policies for people entering America

But Britain's moral high ground looks pretty shaky.

Last week a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee

slammed the quality of accommodation used to house many asylum

seekers in the UK as "a disgrace" and "shameful".

Filthy, vermin-infested conditions, inadequate support for vulnerable

people, contractors housing far more people than they are funded

for and asylum claimants being concentrated in a small number

of highly deprived areas while richer towns and

Can Britain be proud of its treatment of asylum seekers?

What do you think. What do my guests think. Gulwali Passarlay, ten years

ago, how many countries did you go from Afghanistan to here. I came

here at 12 and I'm grateful for being given protection and allowed

here and given the opportunity to study and become educated. But also

I feel there is the issue with the system. The system is not fit for

purpose. It is inhumane. You have used the word subhuman. What was the

default position to you. I was in the hands of traffickers and

smuggers and I was in prison in almost every country. I was treated

inhumanely across Europe. But in the UK I felt relief, because I wanted

to meet my brother. But there was a sense of disbelief in me, but I was

seen as a criminal. Suspicion? Yes, that it was my fault I was here. My

country was bombed. Although Social Services and immigration authorities

were trying to help me, they were making me feel, they were making me

lose hope and feel like I was a subhuman and the authorities and

Social Services were looking at me as a statistic rather than a person.

Should we be ashamed? I think we should in terms of national policy,

over the last two decades, it has been hostile to refugees. Daniel

Hannan when we hear these stories, where is our come passion? Depends

whether we want to flaunt our come passion or do what needs to be done.

We are the biggest donor of age to Syrian refugees and we can house

more families in the front line states than here. You have to make a

judgment. The real issue is that we have unprecedented people movements

in peacetime. Not all related to refugee status. I spent part of last

year volunteering in a hostel in Italy for people who had come across

the Mediterranean and the guys there were mainly west African lads and

were brave optimistic boys, and I hope I would have done what they did

in their situation. But none was a refugee as we define it. They were

fleeing from poverty and corruption rather than persecution. We need to

find some way, because no country can take unlimited numbers of

deciding who gets in. To say anyone can jump the queue by paying

smugglers get a better claim is a definition of a inhumane policy. Do

you think we are proud. Yes, Britain has given sanctuary to people... We

do have a fabulous record and we have spent more than anyone else on

Syrian refugees. But our system is a shambles, yes, because we have out

of control immigration and we have no border control. We take 39,000

people a year in Sweden. That is many more. This isn't the point. We

have had, over here in about the last ten years there have been

something of the order of 660,000 people seeking asylum. That is on

top of a migration over the same period of about six million or part

of that. And the two things have got confused. We should have a higher

proportion of asylum seekers to migrants, but when people are

seeking asylum you should, if you're an asylum seeker, you seek asylum in

the first country you come to. This isn't happening and our system is

clogged up and has numbered the numbers in four years. So they have

to go for the cheapest housing in the poorest areas, so the system is

a mess, until we address the border problem of uncontrolled borders and

economic migration, we won't help the most persecuted. I think our

borders are controlled and anyone who applies for asylum can be sent

back if they have no groupeds for asylum. It is not very well known

how difficult it is to make a claim stick. Why are you shaking your

head. The statistics tell you otherwise. At least half of people

who are refused end up staying and the process of appeals goes and of

that 660,000 who claimed it, probably two to three hundred

thousand are here who were not given it. Britain is at its best when it

acts and does the fair share. Britain hasn't taken enough

refugees. The borders are tight. It took me five years to get refugee

status. We should be proud of our record. Should we still be proud?

No, tinge I think the people should be proud, but the Government, the

state has failed the good will of the people and we make a

differentiation between the people and the establishment if that makes

sense. That word come passion is important, because we can have hard

line policies and we may need them and we are a small island and can't

take every single asylum seeker. But I'm conscious having lived abroad

that I'm, you know there by circumstances of my birth. And it is

pure luck that I happen to have grown in a comfortable country, but

it is an accident of my birth and we must have that sense of come

passion. And not just statistics. Anyone in the audience who wants to

talk? Should we be proud? I think the word come passion is important

here, I think some people use the word to say feeling sorry for or

taking pity on. For me it is a blend of empathy and wisdom and thinking

clearly about things and I think as human beings from a humanitarian

point of view, we need to recognise that anyone who has come from a

war-torn area and has been trafficked, who is seeking asylum is

the same as us. We would do the same if we were... If this was Syria, we

would do the same and would do anything to get to safety. That is

Daniel's point about economic migrants, we would do the same. It

used to b the American dream. There are increasing numbers doing it and

we don't have the capacity to allow everyone in. That is in a sense a

statement of obvious. One thing you see is people when they arrive

across the Med, the first question they were asking when I in Italy

was, where is the Wi-Fi. The smart phone was making possible a journey

that their parents couldn't consider. We have an unprecedented

movement. What should we do about the boats? We have to break the

linking between getting on a boat and being allowed to stay in Europe.

Until we break that link we will have an unlimited number. You don't

solve the crisis by stopping people coming. I think that somebody said

that there is no way that you would put your children on a boat, unless

the sea is less dangerous than the land. And I think that that is the

crisis. How do you break the link? You break the link by positive

action and actually making sure that you treat the needs of these people

to reach safety positively. Because in the vacuum of public policy,

private enterprise will go into the gap and we only take 3% of all of

Europe's migrants, all of Europes asylum seekers, Germany took 35%.

Talking about breaking the link between being on a boat and being

allowed to stay in Europe, what you're talking about is cutting

people off at the shore. We need to shift policy back, so we are given

safe treatment to people who have come here and we are looking at the

circumstances that are driving people out of their homes and out of

societies that they have invested in and they love and they would not be

leaving unless they were under the most dire duress. There is a problem

in the majority of refugees tend to be young men. There is a huge

stranded population of women and children who aren't able to make the

journeys in the same way and because we have basically surrendered any

sense of liberal interventionism, we are not doing anything to help

support governance and safety in the nations that need it. So we need

safe and legal routes, so they don't pay traffickers and risk their

lives. Last year 5,000 people lost their lives of the because of our

inaction. They are not crazy to leave their countries, they leave

because they have no choice. A million would people would qualify

if we said anyone fleeing poverty and corruption, how many billions

would come here? It is easy to virtue signal and a lot of people

are putting out their come passion. How people are prepared to take in a

male economic migrant to live in their home? Put your hand up if...

Wait a minute everyone. Cathy. You posed a question. You suggested to

whom we should put that question. The audience. Let's do it. What was

the question. How many people here would be prepared to pay the medical

expenses to look after people whether an asylum seeker or an

economic migrant in their own homes, that is what you're asking the

state. Who would be prepared to do that? Who would not? Why don't you

ask who has done it? What a compassionate audience. You would

not be prepared to do that why? Well, circumstances at home. It

wouldn't be viable. In an ideal world if those circumstances were to

be different? If my circumstances were different I would say yes. You

can see the depth of good will that exists. It is difficult for people.

Hands up if you have one. That is the difference. It is so easy to

say... Daniel first. Think about all the Labour and SNP politicians who

said I would have a a Syrian refugee, how many have done it?

Zero. The situation and it is about how asylum seekers are treated here

and the situation is different with people coming from Syria than other

countries, do you think we should institute some kind of system where

be people could for moral reasons and religious reasons be able to do

this? Yes and it is lacking. It may be thousands of people would welcome

asylum seekers, but they can't welcome them into the country,

because of the rules that are in place. But yes, it happens in any

case. There is a small programme for Syrian refugees that involved local

authorities and local authorities involve the community and it is

working very well. The notion of liberal interventionism has been

mentioned as a way to deal with migrants. In most cases, that is why

we have asylum seekers, because one of the things that this country

should be I shamed of - ashamed of is we have gone around starting wars

we have no business starting and displaced a huge number of people

and frankly there is a gentleman nad Mr Blare that is responsible for

many of these wars. I'm sure you can't afford his fee. I understand

it is very high. And Mr Cameron to be fair about this. And indeed Mr

Bush. These wars, this destabilisation of Middle East and

North Africa is what has caused this record number of people moving

across the world. President Assad. I disagree.

President Assad, not him himself, but the insurgent movement against

them, that is part of the problem. Let me ask you this. Do you think

that people's attitudes to asylum seekers, which can be negative, it

can be a very negative portrayal in the media, do you think their

attitudes to an silent sick as are informed by their suspicion of

immigration? The two have clearly been conflated. About 80% of people

in this country have felt that. No government has addressed that. -- do

you think their attitudes to asylum seekers are informed. It is also

true that the number of asylum claims are by 40% on last year.

Daniel, it is all our fault? It is not our fault. It is a very human

thing to place your self at the centre of the universe. I find were

simultaneously blamed for causing wars and Iraq and for not

intervening in Syria because it is always our fault. This migration is

coming from rising wealth and rising aspiration, which makes a journey

that would not have been technically feasible 50 years ago feasible. The

guys that were coming across the Mediterranean were not coming from

countries that we bombed. It is not always about ours. You can blame the

people traffickers, you can blame President Assad, you can blame Isis.

There is something narcissistic of seeing it is always about Britain.

It is not. 45% get through the process. Who should not get through

the process. Who should be sent by? The people who should be sent back

if they have claimed asylum should be people who have been given the

opportunity to make their case in an English court and have failed. Half

the people who make an asylum claim are refused. 45%. The problem is

that amongst those people are many people, who, giving the proper legal

assistance, would have been able to put their case in court of the high

level of persecution which you need to prove in order to get asylum

status. That is not happening. There have been restrictions on legal aid

over the last seven years which prevent that happening. 45% of

people are being accepted but you are seeing the bodies too high.

Let's get a couple of comments from the audience. I will be with you in

a second. Good morning. Good morning. Only experiences, I am a

volunteer visitor with a charity which helps asylum seekers around

here. I am speaking from six years experience of dealing with asylum

seekers. Most of them are from the position of Gulwali, who have come

here, had an absolutely terrifying experience at home, they have had to

leave their home, their friends, a good job. What is your message? When

they arrive here, they are treated by the border agency with

considerable contempt, hostility, with a lack of information, and very

often silenced for more than a year. It is an atmosphere dealing with the

authorities rather more like Stalinist Russia. In the last few

years, they have made conditions deliberately much worse. For

example, asylum seekers know have to go to Liverpool to present their

papers. That is quite a comparison, Stalinist Russia. We have to leave

it there. We have other things to discuss. Kitty, I promise to come to

you. I'm going to grant you, I said pompously, a final thought. I just

wanted to remind us of the conditions that people face, who

often have faced difficult journeys, and have come from difficult

circumstances. We do not allow them to work when they get here, it can

be two years they are waiting, we give them a level of benefits which

is 50% of the level we give them -- that we give to other people who are

not able to work, which is well below the poverty line, it is a

destitution level of support. It means that people cannot afford to

dress their children warm Leonardo to get to a doctor. We will talk

about child poverty. That is very important. Thank you for your

contributions. More to come. If you have something

to say about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

and follow the link to where you can We're also debating,

live this morning at Oasis Academy in Southampton, should

we have the right to And will more children

be raised in poverty? So, get tweeting or emailing

on those topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may

have about the show. Every February is Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual And And this year it has been

the transgender cases that have been Last week, a High Court judge

decided that the wife and children of a man who was now living

as a woman should no longer have contact with their father

in case they were excluded from their strictly

orthodox Jewish community. And another woman transitioning

to be a man decided to have a baby before continuing with her sex

change but objected to being called Others have faced problems

when placed in male or female prisons midway

through their transitioning process. And on Friday, Russell Brand

declared that he wouldn't be "forcing gender" on his

baby daughter, Mabel. Should we have the right

to decide our own gender? Of course, the very verb is

contentious. It is not a decision for some people. It is absolutely

what they are, it is escaping from what they are. Forgive my language,

but there are many different cases and examples. What is life like for

you know? Last time you were on the programme, you were Richard. Life is

very good. It has not been an easy process for those around me. For me,

it has been an incredible moment of liberation after a long struggle. I

lived with what we called gender dysphoria, I can do thanks, for most

of my life. My earliest memory, aged four, was reaching into the cupboard

at home, and pulling down my sister's underwear, putting them on

and getting a real visceral thrill and a sense of rightness. It was

hard at school. I can remember a housemaster shouting across the

rugby ground, Hoskins, you are fairly. At the age of 15, I sent off

for four months to Amsterdam. Quite unusual at the beginning of the

1980s. My father find the package when it came through the post.

Clearly worried that something was arriving from Amsterdam. He went

ballistic, and burnt it at the bottom of the garden. I lived like

that for the next 29 years of so. Difficult for teenagers. Surely

knows it is more understanding? Difficult for teenagers living in a

situation, for whatever reason, in unorthodox religious situation, the

parents do not understand, but for you it was tough. You understand the

challenges now. There must have been key moments in your life. Anything

gender segregated is massively contentious, prisons, lavatories.

Can you remember the first time you went to the ladies'? The first time

I went to the ladies' was on my appointment at the gender identity

clinic. I am no part of that system. The first time I went, it was a

moment in my life. I have never had any problem going into the ladies'

since. Living with that dysphoria is something that people need to

recognise. We talk about whether it is a choice and not but I could not

be anything other than that. Society concentrates too much on gender?

Yes, we fixate on binary thinking. I would say to anyone watching be

sure, there is support in place. What I did is what you should never

do. I started self-medicating. I ordered drugs from abroad. I was

taking things without any knowledge of my blood situation, I had no

blood tests. I nearly killed myself unintentionally twice. I was going

through hell. The boy in the river is the book you were talking about.

It is a fantastic book. There are no people who understand that there is

help. Peter Saunders from the Christian medical Fellowship, hello.

If an adolescent son or daughter of viewers wanted to transition, what

would you say to them? Let me talk about this as a doctor. Please just

answer the question. If a teenage son or daughter reviewers said they

wanted to transition, what would you say? I would encourage them not to

do so. What would you say as part of your discouragement, what arguments

would you make? I would say it depends on our understanding of this

whole phenomenon at what it is. I became acutely aware of this a

couple of years ago. One of our members, we have 5000 members, she

contacted me and said, I am a GP in University town. I get one gender

conflicted teenager seeing the everyday. They are all asking for

referral to the Tavistock and Portman clinic in London. Why do you

believe that has happened? It is a new phenomenon. We've got to ask

ourselves that. The clinic in question had 369 referrals in the

year ending 2015. It doubled to over 1400 last which included children

aged ten or less. Is it a new phenomenon and just recognition of

it? As a man of God Mike, is this not a wonderful God-given, glorious

spectrum of gender? God is gender nonspecific? I think God is very

clearly created people in his own image, male and female. I'm sorry,

that cannot mean parts of the body. I remember a Baptist deacon is in

June, lots of people think God has a Venus. It is theologically

ridiculous. I am talking about Christian theology. Whatever gender

means in a theological sense, it cannot mean bits the body. God is

not about bits of the body. This is a war on reason and the war on

science, and on men and women. This is extraordinary. Nobody has a

problem with accommodating people who are transsexual. What is

happening with the current fashion, why the numbers that Peter referred

to have gone up, this is becoming an ideology. Is it a fad? It is an

ideology, fashion, but an ideology is driving the fashion. People are

being naive in accepting it. If you were talking about creationism,

everyone would be outraged that you say evolution does not exist.

Believe me, they would not. Sex is binary. They can gender is a leftist

term designed to confuse. It is. It is X X and YY. This does not mean to

say that transsexuals... Hold on, Susie Green, the mother of a

transgender girl. When you hear that it is a fashion, and that sexes

binary, what would you say? I am not be some of my parts and neither is

anyone else. The fact is, I represent hundreds of families, and

hundreds of young people who struggle with this daily. This is

not the choice, this is not something that is chosen as

fashionable. We know that those young people are at risk of suicide

and self harm. This is not something anybody would choose. It is

difficult to come to terms with, families often struggle for years

before they seek help for their children. The children themselves

are often refused any sort of acceptance by their own parents.

Those are the young people at the highest risk. We know that parental

acceptance and support means that young people function better. We

have fully functioning members of society who go forward to live happy

lives. The thing I cannot understand, why is it anybody else's

business? Peter, we're only here once. Not everyone believes that.

Let's enjoy it, let's be who we are? It is a lot more complex than that.

Is it? It is. Gender dysphoria is a real medical condition which causes

great distress needs to be handled carefully. Do you think it is a

psychiatric condition? But when we to the situation where a gay icons

like Peter Tatchell and feminist icons like jamming Greer are being

labelled bigots and getting no platform at British universities and

denied freedom of speech simply because they have expressed the view

that trans-women are not real women, you have got to realise there is a

massive new form of political correctness on the box. The medical

profession has changed its view of this as well. I think, largely, for

ideological and political reasons, to appease people. People are tired

of political correctness. Sarah, why do some feminists have a problem

with this? What is their problem? The big problem is that there is a

massive lack of clarity about what we're talking about when we talk

about gender. And you have a class system and

you're socialised to become either a man or to be a woman with all the

attributes that women have supposed to have. And men are superior. The

problem is you're a woman because your feel like a woman inside, that

says that men have power, because they're innately supposed to have

power and women are supposed to have less power. That is a very

antifeminist argument. And that doesn't say anything about whether

people should be protected from discrimination and violence. They

should. It doesn't say anything about whether people should be

allowed to you know... Choose their names, live their lives, wear the

clothes they feel happy w have surgery. All of those things are you

know absolutely acceptable and necessary for individual people. But

what we can't give up is this understanding that gender in society

operates the class similar to women's disadvantage and men's

advantage. Is it a psychological problem, there was a study done at

the university of Oxford about a young girl that was having

dysphoria, thinking she was at times a rabbit, a cat and other things. It

was found to be a imyou know deficiency causing the brain Kem

trito be affected -- chemistry to be affected. This was a medical study

and a credible... Susie... This is not relevant. It was a medical

study. Audience, put your hands up, see what you think. A study with

28,000 transpeople who fed into the study showed the levels of

persecution, violence is horrific and you know using one single study

of somebody thinks they're a rabbit. It was a well credited study. What

do you think should we be able to decide, what do you think? The

gentleman there. Good morning. You referenced the family court judge

who made the decision up in Manchester about the ultraorthodox

Jewish community, he took five days for that decision to not allow a

transfather to have contact with his children. I would suggest that the

children would enjoy much better outcomes if they had contact with a

loving transdad than growing up within a bigoted close-minded

community. Thank you. Anyone else? Hello. I just wondered if anyone

here understood really what it took to go through the medical process of

looking at one, diagnosing a condition. It is probably far more

thorough and rigorous than you imagine. It may be there are young

people who present themselves with problems and issues that does not

mean that they will go on to treatment and transition. Thank you.

I just, for people who don't understand, there are, there is is a

vast array of to many people new terms here. Facebook has tens of

different, something like 71. Different definition. What is

non-binary? That is somebody who doesn't identify themselves within

the sex binary as in male and female. You can have people who say,

well, I'm not a male or a female, maybe I'm in the middle or they may

switch between the two. Gender fluid. That defines somebody who may

move around. The bottom line is people are people. And labels are

not necessarily very helpful. Whoever and however you live, is up

to you and if you're not hurting anybody else, you're not breaking

any laws, I don't understand what the big deal is about allowing

somebody to be themselves. Do you think we are getting to a situation

that we can see the road ahead and it leads to the end of the binary

world. Back too toilets, do you think the old ladies and gents has

served its time. The facilities here are jender neutral and everyone is

going to the toilet normally. I don't see what the big deal is. The

BMA say the recommended thing would be not to call somebody a pregnant

mother. I think that would apply if you had somebody who was not

natally... Female. You have a choice between expectant mother and

pregnant person. Why can't you be a pregnant woman. Why do you have to

choose. It is out rageous. We were talking about the idea of the system

and children sometimes present as trans. We are not just talking about

single cases. There is a 80% rate. There is no way to tell... The

studies go back to the 60s and 70s. The actual landscape for society was

far different. Multiple studied. A Mermaid, Mermaids, don't exist, what

are we into? How can anyone got no scientific. Do angels exist? Angels

don't exist. And they're gender nonspecific binary fluid. Daniel

Hannan? As a libertarian, you must think to yourself, you don't give a

fig about this? That is why Susie was right to say, why is this a

problem for anybody else. A very good question and there a core

rollry, you don't need to involve the full force of state education in

something that is a personal decision. If you consider an

employee who is saying I'm transitioning and want to use that

toilet, that is a situation that normal human relations will

accommodate and work something out and but as soon as you soon by force

of law, you're obliged to do X and Y it is no longer an employee that you

owe a duty of care. I can tell you there is still prejudice and it is

not easy and it is easy to say people are moving on. You try and

bring it home and dealing with children and people at home, they

battle with it. They want to be in a normal set up and to be approved by

their peers. There is still a huge amount of prejudice and that is

why... It is uncomfortable to say expectant mothers and people think

that is ridiculous. The point is why are we so fixated on whether we fill

in questionnaires as male or female. Why can't we allow people to express

themselves how they feel it is right and it is not just about chromosomes

and bits of body. There are hormones and the way you interpret yourself

and we need to have a society that accepts that. If you're trying to be

happy, you're not an axe-murderer. A quick word here? I went into the

toilets in ASDA in my town and spoke to a member of staff and a customer,

hello, ace walked through, put the bags in the cubicle. When I came

out, I couldn't get out. Male security guard blocking the dor way

with a female security guard and they accosted me and said what are

you doing in the ladies toilet. I said, this is the way I'm pressed, I

didn't want to go into the gents. They said you shouldn't be in there,

you're not a lady. I said how do you know. The woman said, unless you

have had the operation and can prove it you shouldn't be in here, we can

call the police. I said I shop in ASDA a lot, I have bags of shopping,

I was breaking my neck, I needed the loo, would you let me leave? So I

left the next time I went into to ASDA I say, hello it is me again, I

need the loo. Which should I used. I said maybe the disabled, he said ma

would be best. So worried no one is thinking about children. Would you

have a problem, what is your name? Hard cases make bad law. I probably

would have a problem I will be honest. Hard kafs make bad law. But

we should be humane and decent enough to accommodate individual

pieces you don't turn into it the law. If you turn it into the law,

you are doing something terribly damaging and confusing and

irresponsible to the way we bring children up. It doesn't do those

things, what happens when somebody is discriminating, the law should be

there to help to stop people doing that. We age... Would you feel

uncomfortable. It is mortifying you had such an experience, I don't

think we should concentrate on toilets. But how we move to self

identity as the only marker of sex how that affects women in prisons

and refuges and women's sports, that can't exist if male people can say

they're women. This could carry on for hours. Thank you all very much.

We have got to leave it there. You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions

and following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last Big Question too. Will more children be

raised in poverty? And if you'd like to apply to be

in the audience at a future show you We're in Leicester next week,

Edinburgh on February 19th On Friday, the MP Dan Jarvis hoped

that his private member's bill would change the Government's

approach to child poverty. It ran out of time, at least

for now, which is unfortunate as the number of children living

in poverty is already rising According to the respected

Institute for Fiscal Studies, the percentage of children living

in officially declared poverty in the UK will rise from 14.9%

to 18.3% in the decade 2010 to 2020. Relative child poverty,

that's the number of children living in households with an income less

than 60% of median earnings, will also rise over the same period

from 17.5% to 25.7%. These changes would reverse

all the improvements made to levels of child poverty

in the previous decade. But critics say the bold figures

obscure a more complex picture. Will more children be

raised in poverty? Josephine, child poverty action

group, is a target the answer? Absolutely, we know that targets can

be a spur to action for government. A target will provide action to

bring the numbers down. When we had a target for child poverty that was

set, there was a pledge in 1999 to half child poverty and we saw a real

fall thanks to a broad strategy that invested in tax credits and support

for lone parents to get into work and a large section got better off

and drove a strategy. What we are seeing now is trying to turn the

focus away from how much money families have to live on and the

refusal to accept that the Government has some accountability

in that area, at the same time as families are seeing enormous hit

toos their income through cuts to financial support they receive

through child benefits. Its about the minimum acceptable standards a

child should have to live in the particular country in which they

live. So that is basically the school trips, the pencil cases, does

its come down to pounds shillings and pence? Do we want too put a

number on it. What is the main driver child poverty? It is

common-sense, everybody knows that poverty is not having enough to buy

things you need and we need to look at the factors that feed into that.

We know that children in families on lower incomes do worse in health and

less likely to fulfil their potential at school and have worse

mental health. There is plenty of evidence that it is very damaging

for children to be left behind. No money. You want to come in. What is

the driver of child poverty? I would say it is decades of leftist

ideology that have created modern child poverty when we live in one of

the most affluent countries of world. You have to ask why we have

so many fatherless family ands you have to look at the relationship

between fatherlessness and poverty. Because of course poverty is... It

is Margaret Thatcher's leftist policies. Well in fact from 1980s we

began to intervene to support, to penalise married family ands to

support lone parenthood which is not economically or socially viable. Yes

it did with independent taxation and family law reform.

What do you mean when you say women are married to the state? Lots of

lone families could not exist because they have not set out to do

things, fundamentally there is an order, are responsible order in

life. Get a job, find a partner, or a husband or wife, and then have a

child. Nowadays, for decades, lots of people do not do it in that

order. You may smile and think that is perfectly socially acceptable,

but that is a large cause. I am only smiling because I saw the expression

on Sarah Ditum's phase. As a person who did not do things in that order

at all, I got pregnant when I was at university, and I am absolutely and

vastly grateful to the massive community of support that I had,

both from individuals and my family and beyond my family, and from the

state. If I had not had access to certain funds from the state I would

have been in a complete hole. I would not be a person who is now

able to contribute economically and personally to society. From a

conservative point of view, it is no can surprise that Dan Jarvis' bill

failed because Labour cannot organise a protest in a brewery at

the moment. There is a problem with child poverty. Conservatives are not

doing enough about it. To the asylum seeker question, most people in this

country feel like at the very least we should be taking care of

children. We are not going back to that one. We should be taking care

of children in this country before we look at other things. What are

you talking about, not having a biological nurturer? The fact is it

takes two people to bring up a child and you have to have an economically

viable unit. We have 3 million children, 1.8 million lone parent

families, mainly led by women, which are not economically viable without

massive state support. Kitty. There are many families in which children

are doing what you consider to be the right thing, with couples, in

work. Two thirds of children in the UK live in families which are

working. Where children live with the lone parent, for whatever reason

that maybe, and there are many reasons why families end up in that

situation, researchers looked carefully at this and we know that

lone parent to do itself is not damaging to children. Are you

telling me... ? THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

We may want to do what we can to keep families together and support

families where it is possible, but to say that where children live in

poverty, we have to do something else.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE Let me get Kathy's response, then my

plan is to go to Chris. We have had a cultural revolution in childcare

in the last decade. That in itself, the choices that people make, the

government invites them to me, it will leave us with child poverty for

decades to come. I am sure you would like to vent your view. We should

look at the actual facts over the last few years. You started off with

prediction from the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that child

poverty was going to rise. They also said that in 2011. It has fallen

since they made those predictions. It is interesting to see why it has

fallen. They assume that the benefits reform brought in by the

government of David Cameron would lead to people on low incomes having

even lower incomes. What did actually did what it got more people

into work. We have very low unemployment. Employment always pays

better than benefits. Everyone was predicting rising inequality, more

child poverty, lower incomes, it has not happened. We have seen falling

child and adult poverty. Rising incomes. The only income bracket

that has not gone back to pre-crush levels is the richest one fifth. The

bottom one fifth has seen the biggest rise. 13%. 3% down in the

biggest one fifth. The whole narrative is false. We are looking

at gloomy predictions rather than what is happening. I do not know for

sure it child poverty is going to rise and fall, but if you had to beg

out any given time in the last hundred years whether it was going

to rise or fall, you would be a fool to bet on it rising. We are

rationally pessimistic. Google would have said in the last hundred years,

the gap between rich and is widening, and they would always have

been wrong. Child poverty costs us billions of pounds in the long term.

Think back to your childhood, or mine, and think of the different

seating we had in our houses. The idea that child poverty is

increasing is untrue. THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Poverty can now be completely eliminated, realistically. Hang on.

There are different ways of measuring it. Some people say

relative, some people it should be absolute, others say both. It is a

complex calibration. I think I am right in saying that you have this

idea, it is not just your idea, but a shopping basket idea, different

things from different times in that basket, what we need in a particular

society at the particular time. Rather than just measuring how many

people have below 60% of whatever the average income is at the time,

there is another way of doing it. How much do you need for a decent,

healthy diet, how much do you need to spend on clothes, how much on

school trips and so on. You put all this together and you have more of

an absolute figure and you can see who cannot afford that. It is open

to abuse. You can have a generous list or you can be very frugal. That

sort of system would be better, looking at what people need, rather

than setting an arbitrary benchmark. It is a sensible way of doing it for

a point in time, but it becomes problematic when you look over time.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has done that. The measures they come up

with more generous than the 60% of median. It is a good way of tracking

over time, how families are doing compared to the norm in society.

I would also like to pick up on your point. It is not true that the

bottom of the distribution has been doing well. There is clear analysis

on that. The bottom half of the distribution last out significantly

from tax benefit changes over the last five years. But there are

incomes have risen. The incomes at top of the distribution, it has been

a redistribution, effectively. At it is the gap between the rich and

appear. Everyone's income has increased apart from the richest one

fifth. Peter Saunders. Listen, hang on a minute. Peter, you wanted to

say something and know your own. We have 2500 GPs in our organisation

who see this issue on the front line. The key question is the one

that you raised at the beginning, what are the drivers to poverty? It

is not just about benefits, and pounds, shillings and pence,

percentages. When the Centre for Social Justice look that this a few

years ago and produced their report, breakdown Britain, the identified

five major drivers to poverty, family breakdown, economic

dependency, educational failure, levels of debt, and something know

where he -- something no one here has mentioned, but which is massive,

addiction to drugs and alcohol. It is not until we start to address the

real drivers of poverty that we will deal with this problem. One point

left out of that list is geography. What is indisputable is that where

you live in this country is a massive big part of child poverty.

There is a disproportionate amount of child poverty in the north of

England. That really does need to be addressed. This mandatory pessimism

from everybody. If you look at how we were living 20 years ago, 20

years before that, there has been a solid improvement, and the biggest

improvement has been in the poorest countries. As recently as 1990, 30%

of human beings lived in extreme poverty, as defined by the UN.

Surely the merger has to be in relation to the situation at the

time in society? If you choose to Mejia rate in proportionate terms,

by the 60% of median income, the odd thing is that during the recession,

poverty by that measure tumbled. The only reason we have seen is very

slight uptake in poverty measure that way is because working families

are no increase in their incomes. It is very complicated. Quick points

from the audience. I work from a national charity. We provide free

debt counselling. Week by week, I see children in dire need. The whole

conversation has been about the money, the finance, and we provide

that, counselling service to sort out the money. That is the easy bit.

For some people, that is all they need, not there is a poverty of hope

and dignity. A child that has brought up where the parents miss

meals, where they do not have a pencil case, they miss school trips,

they are taught by their parents to hide upstairs when the debt

collectors come, and keep quiet. They grow up, I am a second-class

person, I cannot survive in this world. The system has taught them

that you cannot do this, and they have a poverty of hope and dignity.

And this lady. I work with vulnerable children and families,

and I can say quite confidently that there are significant impact on

children that are in poverty. It just seems to be rising, if

anything. Children who are growing up in poverty are less likely to

achieve academically, less likely to be able to go to university because

their parents know cannot afford for them to go. Alongside that, there

are cuts to services, drug and alcohol addiction, preventing

getting into employment. It is having an impact on the child. They

are not addressing the issues, so it goes on that cycle and its cycles

again. It is not been stopped. Someone needs to address it. We have

this debate and the question. We should be ashamed. We should be

ashamed. Where the sixth richest country on earth, and there are all

these children living in poverty. Let's not have a debate and

discussion. There is a real problem. Let's admit the problem, and work on

getting those people better. It depends on the definition. We have a

higher poverty rate in Britain than in Bangladesh based on the 60%

median income. If you do not like using the term poverty for those

children, Colin families on low income. The fact is, we know those

children are being less but -- are being left behind, they are doing

less well. We do not know what the numbers will turn out to be. Let's

look at it positively, let's agree to have a target, and put in place

policies that we know will work. Let's be ambitions. The real problem

is childcare. We have the most expensive childcare. I have to exert

control for once in my life. We're coming to the end. Kitty, what is

the best approach? The best approaches to put the target is back

in place and the strategies that went with it. Weird strategies that

made sure that every government department and local departments had

to think about poverty. Scrapping the requirement on those departments

has led to this projected rise in poverty over the next five years.

Thank you. Thank you all very much indeed. You did that brilliantly. It

has taken me to the end. I think I can just about filling. -- just

about fill in. As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter. Next week we're in Leicester,

so do join us then. But for now, it's goodbye from

Southampton and have a great Sunday. Secure your place at

the 500 Words Final, BBC Radio 2's writing competition

for kids with our honorary judge