Episode 9 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions...

The arms industry - a matter

of pride or a matter

of shame for Britain?

And obesity - whose fault

is it if you're too fat?

APPLAUSE

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell.

Welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from

Lliswerry High School

in Newport, South Wales.

Welcome, everybody,

to The Big Questions.

APPLAUSE

Britain is very good

at making weapons, armoured

vehicles, fighter planes,

bombs and ammunition.

So good that we're the second

biggest arms dealer in the world,

outgunned only by the USA.

This week, there's been a very

important customer in town -

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

of Saudi Arabia.

Lunch with the Queen,

dinner with the Prince

of Wales and Prince William,

and a meeting with the Prime

Minister at Chequers have all been

aimed at getting him to sign a deal

to buy 48 Typhoon jet fighters,

amongst other things.

The deal is good news for the 5,000

BAE Systems employees

in Lancashire that assemble them.

But protesters against

the Saudi Prince were more concerned

at the Saudi-led bombardment

and blockade of Yemen and its

ensuing humanitarian disaster.

Should Britain be proud

of its arms trade?

Brad, is the arms trade immoral?

I

think arms in themselves are immoral

and the question we talk about,

pride in what? One of the things the

arms trade will always do this if

you start to critique it, they will

immediately say you are bringing

into question the pride of the

worker, nobody I know who critiques

the arms trade wants to bring into

question the integrity of the

workers. They can only produce arms,

I do not think that. What we have to

bring into question is that arms and

the consequences. Whenever we think

about guns in America, start with

the shootings at schools, the same

with the arms trade. These weapons

are designed to kill.

We need an

army and the Army needs to be

killed.

Do we need an army? We start

this understanding of politics which

big guns -- which begins with the

fact that humans are naturally

violent, we know in the

20th-century, we know that... Can we

not think of a different type of

politics? I think human beings...

APPLAUSE

Philip Dunne, lots to get our teeth

into, let me ask you about Saudi

Arabia, why are we sucking up to a

regime which has caused thousands of

deaths in the Yemen, it flogs

atheist bloggers, stages public

beheadings, kills homosexuals,

spreads extremism across the

world...

I will answer that in the

second. I must pick up Brad's

comments...

Do the Saudi Arabia

point first.

Should we haven't

military? -- should we have a

military?

Saudi Arabia first.

2007,

the crown princes at it, to

encourage him in the work he is

doing in modernising his nation, the

first leader of that most important

country in the Gulf, a key UK ally

in trying to get to grips with

decades of internal repression and

corruption and trying to introduce

moderate Islam, rather than the

extreme version they have been

having, trying to modernise the

economy, he has tried to do a lot of

good stuff very quickly. It is

absolutely right we should welcome

him to this country, to try to

encourage him in what he is doing,

and the package you referred to

about the defence potential, it was

a small element of a much bigger

programme of economic cooperation.

It is not a small element of the

people in Yemen suffering, being

killed by the Saudi bombing. It is

really about whitewashing the Saudi

war crimes and unfortunately that is

what we see in the UK's relationship

with Saudi Arabia, it is based

largely around the arms trade and we

know what the arms are being used

for, for war crimes, for attacks on

civilians, attacks on

infrastructure. As long as the UK is

selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, we

are complicit in the violence and we

have to put an end to it.

The Army

point. We need to have an army.

I do

not think that is the question at

hand, actually.

We have plenty of

time, I would like to address that,

Brad said we do not necessarily need

one.

In an ideal world, no one wants

to see a world with the conflict we

have right now and we should keep

our eye on that aim. In the

meantime, there are specific things

we can do to reduce and to stop some

of the worst humanitarian crises,

some of the worst crimes happening

in this world, and that arms trade

is fuelling war and conflict around

the world and the UK is playing a

central role in that so the first

thing we should be doing is ending

the arms trade to countries like

Saudi Arabia, many other countries,

committing war crimes, we know what

the arms are being used for, we

cannot let them go in that way.

I am

sure we will come onto this, but the

court threw out the allegation that

there was clear evidence of

humanitarian...

It is clear.

It was

thrown out by the court. The

question web Brad started us off,

why do we have an army? We have an

army to defend the country from

threat and the threats are multiple

and growing, staked on state

threats, we thought following the

cold war much of that was behind us,

it is evident we cannot, and we are

seeing now threats coming daily,

every minute, threats coming across

the internet affecting all of our

lives potentially, and much of those

threats are dealt with with military

capability.

Attacks on civilians in

Yemen and other places, for our

security, that is preposterous.

The

attack in Salisbury last weekend,

British military scientists who

developed the diagnostic tests which

helped stamp out the Ebola virus...

And also in the 50s, developed nerve

agents as well.

Getting back to the

topic of defence exports and

capability, defence industry

supports the military in this

country and the innovation and are

indeed that comes with that, from

space, which helped to generate our

GPS, huge civilian crossover which

would not exist -- R&D.

The idea

that an army existed defend a nation

is an art model. It is international

peacekeeping, so called humanitarian

and peacekeeping, in terms of the

arms trade...

They cannot do it with

chocolate is. There is a fundamental

contradiction.

On the one hand

saying we need to go to Iraq and

liberate them, and then they will

sell arms to regime is going

precisely against the democratic

movement of the Arab Spring.

We end

up with Isis.

There is a fundamental

conflict. The fundamental question,

you are right, the question about

the Army is an existential question,

it is a fundamental aim which we

should all try to achieve because

rather than saying, let us

monopolise violence, let us put

violence itself constantly on trial,

but the arms trade is the starting

point, what does it mean to

demilitarise the world?

James

McLaren.

It is to establish the

aspect of the world order to

establish and maintain armies and

Armed Forces, it will happen, and

while you have that, you will have

an arms trade.

The challenge is to

make sure it is properly regulated,

controlled unchallenged. Is it,

James?

If you're going to ask about

this country, my view is, yes,

but... The reason I say that, in

2002, the then Labour government

introduced the export controls that,

the first time legislation around

arms sales had been reintroduced

since 1931, a stepping stone. Since

then, we have got much better in

this country with a cross

participation of government

departments to make sure our exports

are undertaken legitimately and

appropriately.

Still arming Saudi

Arabia, Egypt...

16,000 export

licences go unchallenged every year.

No one is challenging us about

selling operational patrol boats.

The. We will come back to what is

admittedly a very debatable area of

arms exports, to Saudi Arabia, but

at the strategic level, arms sales

will take place.

It about the

regulations.

Andrew Smith. UK

fighter jets are right now dropping

bombs over Yemen. If the UK

Government, it has been totally

complicit in it. This week we have

seen how low the Government is

prepared to sink to sell weapons to

a dictatorship.

If you did not have

those bombs, you would have Russian

analogue unguided cluster munitions

doing it. You would not have

oversight in the Saudi chain of

command of what actually is going

on.

This is where there is a rank

hypocrisy at the heart of the

foreign policy based on talking

about imports of human rights and

democracy while also arming and

supporting brutal regime is. Even

mentioning Russia, for example, the

UK was exporting weapons to Russia

until 2014, and we are exporting to

China as we speak, all around the

world, to regime is we would all

agree have inflicted terrible brutal

assaults on human rights...

You

represent a lot of people working in

the arms industry as well, are they

conflicted when they realise where

the end product, the end

destination, if you like, of their

labours are going?

They care about

the end destination, but the choices

in terms of the use of the arms for

politicians the regime 's that

actually have them. We as a union

take the view that military

deployment is the responsibility of

politicians and the government, but

once the Armed Forces are deployed

on civilians and support, they are

entitled to the best resources to

support them. There has been an

interesting iteration of the debate

already, the arms trade, but we are

rapidly talking about manufacture of

arms in any form, at all. I think

whilst people can have deep concerns

about the use of arms

internationally exported, the idea

that people do not want us to

manufacture arms to at least defend

national interests, but as a whole

other debate. Critically, we are

talking about hundreds of thousands

of jobs here and I have no qualms

about pointing that out. These are

jobs that are vital to

communities...

High quality.

One of

the things that I think Brad touches

on, not a single product for defence

workers, it needs to be calm and

evidence -based, the debate, because

history tells us defence

diversification is not particularly

successful. We talk about it but the

case studies do not show much in the

way of success. Defence

diversification would be happening

at a time when more than one part of

our economy is looking at the

question of transition, a lot of

members in energy, often an adjacent

sector to defence, changes from

large power stations to renewable...

A whole chain of industry is

involved and there is a simple limit

to the extent to which we can

diversify quickly.

What would these

people do, Ryvka Barnard?

It is a

really important question and what

we need is decision-makers to be

putting attention to that question

very specifically.

What is the

answer?

Everyone should have access

to good jobs providing good

livelihoods and it is a question of

political will, we need to be

forward-looking and visionary.

Where

would you put that expertise?

We

need to look at what is the

investment in industry that could

create and sustain thousands and

thousands of jobs?

What might it be?

Not leading to the destruction and

death that the arms trade is.

Renewable energy is one. It is a

question of political will, not

necessarily a question of

feasibility and we need more studies

and careful attention to this.

Renewables is the source of jobs

which is quoted by every group

interested in diversification. We

will have to create a lot of

renewables jobs to soak up the

displaced jobs.

It is a very urgent

issue in our world.

We hear about

the industrial military complex,

real relationships between

politicians and arms manufacturers,

when you were ministers for defence

procurement, I'm sure you had a lot

of meetings with arms manufacturers?

We have a very significant industry

in this country, as Mike says,

employing many people.

People are

worried about those relationships.

Many are providing and doing

multiple things. They did at the

moment for GKN, a major motor

component manufacturer, and also in

aerospace and defence. Much of the

key issue is innovation that comes

out of investing primarily initially

for military purposes and carrying

over which would not happen if we

did not have a defence purpose.

Hands up, a word on the

relationships and what people worry

about, a symbiotic relationship

between the politicians and the arms

industry, is that a genuine concern?

The arms industry is a very small

part of the economy, export jobs

account for 0.2% of jobs in the

country, a very loud voice and

power. It does employ extremely

skilled people and we want the

skills put into more positive areas

of engineering to have a more

positive impact, not an industry

which leads to war and conflict.

Such us, renewables?

Renewables

would be one area, we need to look

at other areas, what can the

Government do to grow the areas? The

arms trade as a huge amount of

political support and logistical

support from Whitehall and the

emphasis needs to be put elsewhere.

Is there a genuine concern between

the relationship between politicians

and the arms industry or is Philip

Dunne right, are they necessary?

There has to be a real concern. The

Royal family has been seeing to be

involved in arms promotion.

We have

become embedded and people listen to

it.

With the war in Yemen, where is

the diplomatic way to start that?

We

can talk about the war in Yemen if

you like.

Let's talk about the

influence we can wield in those

situations, bringing Saudi Arabia on

that progressive past. Some people

argue that... I will come to you in

a minute. Who is proud of our arms

industry in the audience? That's

come to you if you are. He was

ashamed of our arms industry?

You

are proud of it. At the end of the

day, it is fair. 142,000 people are

employed in it. It is beneficial to

the country in general.

A lot of

jobs. Anyone else want to say

anything?

Morning. Nobody here would

want, given the choice, nobody here

would want to arm any nation. It

would be fantastic if we didn't have

a need for arms. As we do, like the

gentleman in front of me mentioned,

we have to live in the world as it

is and be pragmatic about things.

There are certain areas that take us

to Amman where they are repressing

freedom of association and that is

not a good idea.

We should

scrutinise what we sell. To buy the

argument that if we were not selling

arms to these people than the would?

We have to live in the real world

and look after our own interests.

Our own strategic interests. It is

kind of a soft power, isn't it?

The

term, security, and the phrase

strategic interests get used to

cover up what really is politicians

and arms dealers getting together

and making a profit actually. Where

is the strategic interest for war

crimes in Yemen for the killing of

civilians, thousands of civilians,

many of whom are children? How does

that meet any strategic interest of

the UK?

One of the operational tasks

of the British navy which has been

in place for the last 15 years or

so, has been to keep through our

minesweeping vessels the channels

between the Gulf and outside the

golf open from harassment from

Iranians attempts to block those

channels. That provides the vast

majority of our gas resource, which

comes out of the Gulf and oil into

this country and other countries

around the world. That activity is

being provided by the British

military in conjunction with our

allies and in particular your

countrymen in the US. If we weren't

doing that, there would be a serious

risk of disruption of supplies to

the energy of this country. How many

lives? No lives have been lost

through that.

What do you mean, what

is the cost?

There is a cost of war

and a cost of conflict.

It is not

conflict, it is preventing conflict.

People are being killed in Yemen or

other places.

other places.

We are missing how the

real world works. That is how the

real world works. The war in Yemen

is a legitimate war. It is not being

prosecuted as it should be but you

are not helping the people of Yemen

who are suffering so much if you

remove what are highly capable

munitions with people who are able

to use them and advise on them with

the unguided, horrible weapons we

are seeing used in Syria if you want

to replace British munitions with

Russian barrel bombs or Syrian

barrel bombs that will not help the

Yemen people.

There is something the

arms trade does in terms of the

Logic applied to this industry and

nothing else. Our refill of Columbia

started to say, we are proud of our

cocaine industry? We know it kills

people. We can regulate it better

but another nation will produce

cocaine so we might as well produce

it. If we apply the logic that, why

do we apply this logic. In that

kills people? This is the logic we

need to be happening.

What about the

cocaine analogy?

The Constitution of

Armed Forces bears no relationship

whatsoever to the cocaine industry.

That is another rabbit hole

compensation.

People in Yemen are

injuring one of the worst

humanitarian crises in the world. In

2017 50,000 children died of

preventable causes. We have seen 1

million people being affected with

cholera in Yemen following a

breakdown of health infrastructure

up and down the country. This does

not suggest the Saudi intervention

is doing any that things were ever

told it would. It suggests Saudi

forces are not being moderated by UK

influence. What about Iran? They are

playing a negative role in the

region full is we do not support

selling weapons to Iran. We do not

support selling arms to Iran, nor

selling more arms into a region

which Reddy has quite enough arms

and quite enough conflict.

Is the

international response to Yemen

good? No, it is not. Would the

removal of UK armaments to that

debate make any difference? No, it

would not.

It would make it worse.

It would make a difference?

Absolutely it would. The arms are

fuelling the conflict and causing

civilian deaths. It would absolutely

interrupted the conflict. Instead of

focusing energy on arming the

aggressor in that situation, we

would be able to redirect resources

into looking at the humanitarian

crisis.

What about getting on the

phone to Putin?

It is as those they

are the only two possibilities. It

is an over syndication of how

international politics works. It is

not as simple as one or the other,

as though that is the end of the

conversation. We need to be

accountable in this country for what

our government does, and the

decisions that the Government is

making here. The arms trade with

Saudi Arabia and other repressive

regimes around the world has two

end.

OK.

Yes. Hello. Good morning.

We should be accountable. Why can't

we make a stand and say we care more

about human rights than making

money?

What about jobs?

What about

all the jobs? I know the jobs White

human are sacrificed.

If it is about

jobs versus human rights committee

is not a true choice.

It is being

presented in that way in the context

of a debate. The UK at his two

international treaties and has a

strong record on transparency. The

current events in the Middle East

and Saudi Arabia require the most

careful investigation and suspension

in relation to that particular

aspect of the arms trade. We get

very close when we moved from the

arms trade to manufacture of weapons

more generally. People in this

country don't expect national

security be expected. To give is the

rule of law and the space to have

debates like this. Arms provide the

rule of law ultimately. They provide

circumstances in which we can have

these debates.

If you don't mind...

I will come to you to come to that.

Let me just go to the audience.

I am

not sure it should be a clear-cut

thing as to whether we should be

proud of our arms industry in

general. We can give our military

defence without having to sell 48

Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia. We are

still saving some jobs and we don't

need to fuel the anti-human rights

countries but we can still provide

our country defence.

We have to be

realistic. Coming back to what this

gentleman said, about keeping the

avenues to bring things back into

the Suez Canal. I have been on two

cruises in Dubai, Muscat, by

Somalia, by Saudi Arabia, through

the Suez Canal. When you see on the

map, Saudi Arabia is a very big part

and to be able to protect us, we

have had frigates there. They have

to protect against Somalia. There is

a Japanese frigate there to keep the

Suez Canal open.

You need arms to do

that?

We have to trust the

politicians who know the full

details to be there.

The human

rights abuses of people in Yemen is

not contingent on us having a safe

holiday in the Suez Canal. We have

to relate these questions much more

broadly and reducing it to economic

official way of justifying violence.

You remove the ethical question. I

am not saying that overnight all of

these populations would become

unemployed but I do think the

research in investment, millions

goes into research and development

in the military. Why is it we have

this model where all the money for

research and developers goes into

the military diagram for power? That

is a political choice.

I'm afraid

that has to be counted. The conflict

in Yemen was not started by us

supplying arms to Saudi Arabia. It

was a civil war that had been going

on for four years. It was a request

to the Saudis by the legitimate

government of the yen -- the Yemen

for an intervention to try to bring

it to an end. The rebels were

starting to use Iranians missiles to

fire into Saudi Arabia. It was a

legitimate intervention. The

allegation it has led to war crimes

are serious allegations which were

put by people on your side of the

argument. Took the British

government to court and

Parliamentary committees agreed it

was appropriate for the courts to

make a decision as to whether or not

international he managed Terry and

laws have been broken. The courts

decided quite clearly that was not

the case. -- humanitarian laws.

The

regime in Yemen has a right to be

able to defend itself.

Do they not?

None of that has anything to do with

the UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia or

other places. There is a political

map we must pay attention to and

look at. Absolutely. That is the

argument we are making. When the

arms trade is at the centre of that

analysis, or at the centre of the

conversation, at the centre of

investment, we cannot have an open

and transparent conversation about

it because it is being dominated by

the sort of need for more arms

constantly. Our politicians are not

going to be making honest decisions

about this if they are being wined

and dined by the arms industry

constantly which is unfortunately

the case with many of the

politicians.

To go to court is the

highest level of scrutiny you can

have. The court agreed it had

happened but also what has happened

is the Saudis definitely have an

operational problem in the use of

some of the munitions they have. No

doubt about that. The UK Government

has offered more training and advice

on it and it is giving that to them.

There was a point made earlier about

why research and develop and is so

important. The reason is that is how

we have been able to generate the

next level of weapons technology

which we are able to discriminate.

In writing capable hands there is

not collateral damage you would have

had in previous conflicts we're not

bearing that in mind.

Just finally,

by having trade contacts with these

countries and seeing it and framing

it in the way of self power, this is

a big part of this and you will have

a say on this, can we exert an

influence and bring countries,

because the Prince is a progressive

prince, a reforming prince, can we

encourage that by having dialogues

that go in tandem with these sales?

Absolutely not. It is a myth

actually. You cannot have influence

and to stop violence for example

while giving alms to the perpetrator

of violence.

Theresa May is raising

issues with him.

Not while providing

him with weapons. Not just him, it

is actually a long problem with

Saudi Arabia and many other

repressive regimes around the world.

You don't stop violence by giving

weapons to the perpetrator of

violence. It has never happened and

it is not how it works.

We have to

leave it there. I'm so sorry. If you

have any views on obesity, please be

free to come in on the next debate.

Thank you very much indeed.

You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and following the link

to the online discussion.

Or you can tweet using #bbctbq.

I always look at that after the

show.

Tell us what you think

about our next Big Question too.

Is obesity a matter

of personal responsibility?

And if you'd like to apply

to be in the audience

at a future show, you can email

[email protected].

We're in Brighton next week,

then Glasgow on March 25th.

After the Easter break,

we'll be in York on April 8th

to make two editions -

the usual live programme

in the morning, then we're recording

a one-hour special on the future

of the National Health

Service in the afternoon.

Britain needs to go on a diet,

according to the head

of Public Health England,

Duncan Selbie.

"Children and adults routinely

eat too many calories,

and it's why so many are overweight

or obese," he said this week.

He wants a 20% reduction

in the calories contained

in foods like pizzas,

ready meals, processed

meats, and takeaways

over the next six years.

If food manufacturers

don't heed his advice,

he'll ask the Government

to legislate, just as they have

done with the sugar tax

on sweetened soft drinks,

which comes into force next month.

No one is forced to consume sugary

drinks or eat fatty foods.

It's a matter of personal

taste and choice.

Is obesity a matter

of personal responsibility?

Ashley, good morning. We need to do

something, we need to ban junk food

advertising, this sugar tax, a fact

tax, teach people to limit calories

--

-- fat tax. Something must be done.

I would disagree with that. A lot of

what is propose would make things

worse. There is a need to temper

some of the hyperbole with which the

issue is being communicated. It will

only make sense of speaking of it as

an academic if it is a

life-threatening disease, it is not.

Very very thin people and very, very

fat people. There is a slightly

decreased risk of mortality in the

so-called overweight category. There

is a lot of moralism and I think

this issue is a way of communicating

aesthetic and moral and behavioural

judgments, how people should think,

act and behave through a medicalised

vocabulary because policymakers have

lost the vocabulary to communicate

with the public in any other way.

Kathleen, you do not think there is

any need for sugary drinks?

You

would ban them? I think they should

be banned. I do not think there is

any feasible reason to have a two

litre drink that can pack 1000

calories in a 500 millilitres

serving, it is ridiculous.

You do

not have to drink it all at once.

No, but why would you choose to have

14 sugars in your cup of coffee? It

is the same thing. Why put it in a

drink when there is no need.

How

would you stop people drinking it?

This is where we get to the morally

ambiguous area.

We are there!

People

have the choice of what they are

going to put in the body,

absolutely. However, we have to

admit and understands that we do

live in what is... It is a state run

education system, everything is led

by the Government and the way we

live our lives and that access to

education we receive and everything

else is given to us by our

government. When it comes to sugary

drinks especially, should parents

have the right to serve their

children that much sugar when we

know...

Should they? When we know

the health ramifications of that...

Should they have that right?

Personally, I don't think so. I do

not think any parent in their right

mind should be feeding an infant

something...

What about an ice

cream?

Come on! Ice cream is a

treat.

A drink is a treat.

You do

not have a drink as a treat, you

have them daily. When we are talking

about the consumption of sugary

drinks, you generally find those

people who have the sugary drinks,

it builds an almost addiction so

they drink more and children, we are

seeing dental problems.

This is what

I am talking about, how it has

become a way of talking about a lot

of preoccupations, a lot of

ambivalence about parenting in

society right now, there is a

distrust of pounds has been able to

exercise has an ability -- there is

a distrust of parents being able to

exercise responsibility for the next

generation, this idea of a hapless

parent pumping sugar into their

children.

I absolutely agree with

you.

We enlist children into this as

a way of saying, people can make the

choice to live their lives as they

choose, but think of the children.

If we remove the children from the

equation, we know cigarettes are

very harmful and alcohol, cigarettes

and alcohol are taxed extremely

highly...

They are not banned.

They

are put out of the financial reach

of a lot of people. You bring in

this question, is it only the poor

people who will suffer from the

sugar tax? Is it only the property

stricken -- poverty stricken

parent...

The taxes will not do

anything, it is symbolic politics,

the sense we know the causes of the

obesity problem, we know what to

do...

Why not just get rid of the

sugary drink substance that we know

causes harm?

Getting a very hard

time, the food industry, in all

this, get rid of half of their

products, they are seen as some

people... Cocaine mentioned in the

last debate, some people look on

them as drug dealers.

I think this

is because the Government does not

feel it can do much about physical

activity, it is a rise of sedentary

lifestyles and jobs in particular

that has gone along with the rise of

obesity but it can do something

about the food industry. We see

tobacco style regulations being put

forward, junk food brand on

television, health warnings...

Are

they a good thing?

Absolutely not.

Very damaging to those...

Why? There

is no such thing as junk food.

No

legal definition. We have food high

in fat, sugar and salt and it is a

huge range of products. We would not

see Nigella Lawson's Christmas

adverts until after the watershed if

this ban came in, sugary drinks,

chocolate bars, bacon, cheese,

orange juice... That would be bad

for business and consumers and the

media, not the BBC, but the

commercial stations, the so-called

junk food brand...

It is a tale of

two industries, the arms industry

and the food industry, tremendously

important this country.

It is,

similar in the sense because people

are blaming...

One comes quickly,

the other comes slowly.

What is

going on currently and what will

happen over the next three, four

years, with this crazy policy of

reducing calories in food by 20%, we

will see products getting much less

tasty, and we will see them get

smaller because a lot of them, you

cannot reformulate them to make them

healthier, you have to make them

smaller. People are blaming it on

Brexit, smaller chocolate bars, it

is Public Health England's targets,

it is a rip-off, very bad for

consumers, not doing anything for

obesity.

Professor Nadim Haboubi, a

consultant, chairman of the Welsh

obesity society, a matter of choice?

It is not. Absolutely not. Obesity

the disease,, A complex disease. I

see thousands of patients over the

last many years, so many reasons why

they are wood-macro, genetics,

environmental, social, they are

desperate to lose weight, so many

factors that have made them obese --

they are obese. It is about

activity, not just food, it is about

sedentary lives, these people need

help. Help from wire? Health

professionals, the media. -- help

from where? The Government. Who had

the power to coordinate all of this

in order to combat the silent

killer, the disease, obesity? Only

the government. I think the

government should... I am one of

those who advocate there should be

tax on junk food because junk food

now is very affordable, that is why

I practice in the hottest obesity

spot in the UK.

What is junk food?

Anything high in calories, fat,

sugar and salt.

A little does you

good, now and again, once a week?

Wait a minute.

They can is one of

the great joys of life.

It is a

killer. -- acre Babb is one of the

great joys of life. You have to run

three miles to burn it off.

If that

is the deal, that is the deal!

You

want to translate food into this

biochemical thing, but only so much

good in your mouth as the powers

deem acceptable, but that is not

what food is about, it is a social

thing, a cultural thing, continuity

between generations, enjoyment, all

of this hectoring people, it turns

off a huge portion of the population

from the political class because it

offers nothing to people accept...

The future will be terrible, we will

take away your small pleasures, that

sort of thing, people are, like, no,

thanks.

The people having take away

several times a day, is that a

choice? Why are they doing that?

They need help.

I would like to add

in the, Professor Haboubi, I think

obesity.

Can I introduce you? Holly

MacGillivray, plus size model,

positive body campaigner.

It is one

of the only accepted prejudices

still out there. I do not have a

moral obligation to be smaller, to

go on a diet, to fit into your idea

of what I should look like and

which...

APPLAUSE

And once again, we are making

stereotypes.

Do you think I eat a

takeaway every day, Professor

Haboubi?

Did I say that?

You said,

these people, I am wood-macro, I am

not eating a takeaway every night --

I am obese.

I said it is complicated

by many factors, not caused only by

eating junk food, so many things.

Emotional things, psychological

things. I deal with the subject in

an individualised manner.

What do

you think of the body positive idea?

The bigger you are, the more

unhealthy you are, whether you like

it or not. If you are well and

healthy at the age of 20, if you are

not diabetic now, you are

prediabetic, maybe...

I agree, of

course, the bigger you are, the more

and healthy you are, I am not

ignorant of science, I totally

understand, if you eat too many

calories, your waistband will

expand. However, it is not that

simple.

Cancer is more common in

those who are obese.

This narrative

of we are eating too many calories,

it makes a nice, simple public

health message, but the science is

not that straightforward, it is

extraordinarily complicated. Say we

will reduce the calories in the

food, a huge amount of the science

is going the other direction, that

means we will probably put more

carbohydrate in the food and people

will get more hungry or reduce

portion sizes, Hector even more, bad

morality, making it difficult to

have good policy advice.

How do you

manage the problem of obesity?

Ashley, answer his question.

I do

not think there is a problem of

obesity. The number has not

increased since 2002.

The diagnosis

of diabetes has doubled over the

last 20 years.

There are children

under the age of ten...

Children

under the age of ten, you walk along

the streets, any high street, you

can see three, four-year-olds who

are clinically obese, what would you

do about it?

We are trying to say

there is a certain look which is fit

and healthy and actually other

people, would put them on trial for

the way they look, and that to me is

ethically compromised. Most of... A

lot of the most physically looking

healthy specimens which I know has

friends have had serious mental

health issues, the correlation

between health and the way your body

looks... It connects even to the

question, I do not want to defend

Donald Trump, but some of the body

shaping associated with Donald Trump

has been abhorrent -- body shaming.

People who look a certain weight,

calling them somehow disease. We

need to get out of the medicalise

language...

Sarah? I completely

agree that it is not supposed to be

about how people look.

It is

problematic to say we need to move

away from medicalise language

because the issue is not about how

people look, it is about health. We

know that being overweight or obese,

the longer it goes on, the more it

is associated with disease outcomes

like cancer, heart disease,

diabetes. While it is true to say

that in the recent past we have not

seen rates of overweight and obesity

going up, they do not seem to be

going down either, more than six in

ten UK adults are overweight or

obese, three in ten children are, we

do need to do something.

What do we

need to do?

Some people say it is about eating

takeaways and about banning junk

food. Somewhat boring Lake Manyara

is in the middle for the people have

responsibility for what at the end

of the day they put on their trays.

You would banning advertising on

television?

What Cancer Research UK

would like to see is an extension to

the current laws we have. This

marketing is bad for children and we

have banned it during kids TV. Kids

don't just watch that, they spend

times their family. It would make

sense to extend regulations that we

have put into place to do.

They

sponsor some of the great sporting

events. There are huge problems.

Let's go through. Would you like to

say?

say?

Going on from the human level,

when you look at it on the ground,

people are not that motivated today.

I was thinking of a solution to it.

If people could all come together

and encourage one another to lose

weight and so on, you don't know

what goes on in their day-to-day

lives. You might -- they might have

something happen to them which makes

them depressed. Once they lose well

and gain weight and so on, only

together with everyone involved that

we can in Courage one another and to

lift ourselves back up again.

--

encourage. It starts with education.

There is not just one solution.

Education from children, up through

to adult food. Obesity is on the

rise and it is preventable, I think.

It does not matter what you look

like, it is about health and fitness

and we are living more extension we

lifestyles. There is a lot of fat

shaming out there but we are not

talking about that. You do see

people on the high street with

children and their parents and they

do follow the example of parents. I

am a parent now and I am a good

example, hopefully, to my child not

to be fatty food. It is not about

having takeaways seven days a week.

It is about moderation. If you

wanted about by the weekend then

have it as long as there is a

calorie deficit. On the flip side

have be careful of being too

educational to the fact they possess

over calories and numbers you have

to enjoy food for food because it is

about enjoyment as well.

The

question is, is obesity a matter of

personal responsibility question in

its most basic form, it is. We live

in an obesogenic environment.

What

does that mean?

Without proper

choice? When you look at takeaways

and chicken shops, how often does a

supermarket have a buy one get one

free offer on apples, compared with

ready meals which are high in salts

and facts and that kind of thing? On

a personal level we do all have a

responsibility. I am an example of

that. I had gym membership I was

using. I went to the gym one day

nearly two years ago and stood on

the scales and saw that my weight in

stones and lbs, rather than in

kilograms which meant nothing to me

at the time, and I saw I was 17

stone. I said to myself that is

going to stop.

Never the other would

have voted because they have their

headphones on.

I saw a programme

advertised on my local newspaper

website for the two days later I

joined that. A programme called fact

that book, I now coach in Somerset.

We promote an all-round approach.

--

football. What was the Association

of willpower like?

You're lucky if

you can afford to join a gym.

So

many people cannot do that. Exactly.

Now I do not have gym membership

because I go out running and that is

free. From the willpower point of

view, it was, to me, it was taking

that responsibility. It was looking

at... I don't promote any particular

kind of diet or anything like that.

What I say to the guys in my league

and we have leaks all around the

country, they need to make

sustainable life changes.

You tell

that to somebody who's pleasure in

life is a cigarette. You need to

make a sustainable life change that

is the difficult thing, isn't it?

One problem that play, it is like, I

went online the other day just

before I wrote a piece for the

Guardian and I do it a theoretical

shop for a family of four and I did

it over a period of 14 evenings. My

mission was to feed his family of

four for 14 evenings for the

cheapest I possibly could. After

going through all of the major

supermarkets, including a rather

well-known frozen food retailer, 75

chicken nuggets in batter £3. One

chicken breast to pounds 25p. A

cabbage 60p. Eight kilo of frying

chips, 79p. When parents can all

went anyone, especially when you

take single middle-aged men are a

perfect demographic because you find

many of them are living in one room

in shared houses with no cooking

facilities. How can it be a personal

responsibility?

What to do about the

79p bag of chips?

I would make the

bad stuff more expensive and the

good stuff cheaper.

How much would

it be in your world?

Still 79p

because that is all I can afford.

If

I can come back, and I will come

back to you in a minute because you

are Health Minister for a while. We

mentioned kebabs, on a Friday night,

after you have seen Scotland losing

the rugby and you're on your way

home, at the back. The nice thing

occasionally. Would you let yourself

have occasional treats like fish and

chips?

Definitely. I was out for a

curry last night. What I have done

through sustainable life changes I

have made is I have been able to

reduce my calorie intake throughout

the week to earn the curry, as such.

Exactly. I am one of those who

advocates activity. If you

advocates activity. If you want

this, the activity symbol would say

you would need to burn off this

amount. You would be surprised. 350

calories in a sandwich or whatever.

If you put next to it you need to

run a mile to burn it off, they

would probably go for something

without mayonnaise, for example.

As

a doctor, what do you think would

happen people burnt off 2000

calories a day? You would burn off

hundreds of calories in your sleep.

Nobody burns 3000 calories in a day.

-- 2000. A normal sedentary

lifestyle you would burn 2000

calories.

The most important single

need now is actually sedentary life.

You don't have to go for a run. If

you tell people they need to burn up

every calorie they consumed by

running they would die of starvation

in a week. Also with the world of

work and time, there is a huge issue

about lifestyle and demands of work

in terms of ability to focus on

these choices.

If we don't address

that we will continue to have this

problem.

That is what people should

care about. It is an aesthetic

thing. We not shaming people, it is

about your health and medical eyes

wave making those judgments. I don't

like the you look for your fact

body. I am concerned about your

health. You do not care about that.

You have no idea what is going in

that person's body. You do not like

it because they are fat.

Without

that shaming badly, I fully agree

with you. At that particular time I

was on water retention tablets are

my heart was really bad. I got out

of hospital for pneumonia is getting

infection after infection after

infection and I ballooned. When I

tried to speak, sensibly, about that

this is food poverty can this is

what is happening this is the

situation people are living in,

there are people living in single

rooms with one microwave, how are

they going to have billions of

vegetables? What I got was, you are

fat, you obviously don't go without

food. And this is the narrative that

people are throwing back.

Philip

Dunne, does the Government need to

go further?

This is what I was going

to touch on. There is a lot of talk

today in this very interesting

debate about education and

responsibility. I think education,

the Government does have a role

buying Courage in, as Duncan Selbie

in your introduction has done last

week, publication of calorific

content in stuff that people buy. --

encouraging. It might not answer

everything but I think the activity

register is quite good idea to give

that information to people as well.

There is an educational aspect the

Government has a role to play in and

the other is in responsibility. We

have introduced corporate

responsibility to the food chain

through requesting reduction in salt

on a voluntary basis which has been

very successful in bringing down

salt content by 20%. We are doing

the same with sugar content by

requesting reduction was sugar

content and with introducing a levy

on soft drinks. Maybe more can be

done in that area. The point that

was made by the Lady of their about

the wedding advertising jarring

children's slots, some of these

price promotions encouraging people

to meet more than a treat and

routinely, there is potentially a

role for trying to do what we have

done with tobacco for you mentioned

the advertising contribution made by

food manufacturers. Formula 1 is to

be almost entirely financed by

tobacco advertisers. We banned it

and make no difference. Television

companies pay for most of Formula 1

these days.

Chris... The question

is, is obesity personal

responsibility? If it is, there is

no need for government action. We

have not got into that question. I

think it is of the US that obesity

is not a personal thing. -- it is

obvious that obesity is not a

personal thing goes that we have

someone who has lost weight and

someone who is overweight and happy

being so. There is no need for

government action. People are obese

for an obvious reason, they are not

doing enough exercise, and they are

eating too much food. It is

perfectly feasible to make a trade

off. I don't want to go to the gym

and I want to eat tasty food and I

don't appreciate the Government

taxing and reformulating soft

drinks. It will not be possible to

buy proper Ribena shortly. There are

already diet drinks for those who

want them.

We have got to leave it

there but I think Ribena is a very

good idea for another debate on The

Big Questions. As always with those

debates will continue online and on

twitter.

Next week, we're in Brighton,

so do join us then.

Enjoy your little pleasure

throughout the day. Goodbye from

Newport and have a really wonderful

Mothering Sunday.