Episode 8 The Big Questions

Good morning, welcome to The Big Questions, live from Michaelston

Community College in Cardiff. I'm Nicky Campbell. The Sun on Sunday

was launched today, despite many Sun journalists facing possible

criminal charges and News Group still settling large pay-outs on

hacked-off celebrities. Our first Big Question: Should we trust

British journalism? The former MP Lembit Opik says the press unfairly

destroyed his reputation and is now morally bankrupt. Last night there

were a lot of very inebriated people in Cardiff's Mary Street and

not just because Wales won at the rugby. Saturday night after payday

and the police and ambulance crews were out from early.

Our next Big Question: Does society pay too high a price for alcohol?

This doctor says that, if we don't change our ways, 200 people will be

dying an avoidable death from alcohol every week.

Lent began on Wednesday. It's traditionally a season of

repentance for past sins but it's become an excuse for a crash diet.

Now some church leaders think we should have a less selfish aim.

Our last Big Question: In Lent, should we repent for the planet?

The Bishop of Swansea says we should each embrace our God-given

duty to take care of his creation by changing our wasteful ways.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

This week, the death of Marie Colvin while reporting from Syria

for the Sunday Times showed journalism at its bravest and its

best. But recently there have been many more incidents exposing the

less honourable side of the press, from the dawn arrests of Sun

journalists on suspicion of bribing police officers, to the large pay-

outs to celebrities, politicians and some ordinary folk whose phones

had been hacked. Should we trust British journalism? Lembit Opik,

the Sun on Sunday launched today, and Rupert Murdoch hopes it will

uphold the highest ethical standards to Fleet Street - do you

believe him? I am sure he hoped that, but it is obvious his

newspapers have not done so in the past. There are a number of people

involved in the Sun, which are evidently linked, facing criminal

charges. You can give people a second chance. Yes, but they have

to learn that respect. I gave the press chance after chance, I think

I was naive not to sue them when they were libelling mean repeatedly,

and as a result of giving them those chances, they have used my

good faith and I am still living with the legacy of that because a

lot of people still believe the rubbish they wrote about me.

what ways did they destroy your reputation? I am grateful to the

audience for being generous because a lot of people believe things that

were written about me in terms of my personal life, which have

nothing to do with my performance as an MP. What was the biggest lie

they told? Some of this is subject to legal proceedings, but for

example they endlessly reported me as having broken up a relationship

with one person am starting to go out with someone else, which was

180 degrees wrong. That was your relationship with the cheeky girl.

Yes, they also kept attacking me about my parliamentary expenses. My

lawyer at the time wrote a letter to the Sun and they didn't even

bother replying. I had a choice to either spend tens of thousands of

pounds dragging the newspaper through the courts, when they

obviously had a very experienced and well paid legal resource of

their own, or just put up with it. I made the mistake of putting up

with it, so I have not got that faith in the press. Until we have

much stronger regulations, which mean that people who don't have

hundreds of thousands of pounds to Stent in court -- to spend in court,

until then these newspapers can carry on destroying people's lives.

I guess the other side of it is that some people will argue, there

he is, Lembit Opik is on Saturday night television dressed as a

pixie... I don't think so! being photographed at Premiere

openings, being photographed in magazines, what about that

argument? Does that mean we don't want politicians who appear in the

public eye, as well as complaining they can't reach out to the general

public? Look at how many people watch X Factor, or I'm a celebrity

- look how many people watch that. What I was trying to do was to

reach out in an unconventional way. It doesn't say anywhere in the Book

of journalism that you can libel people just because they go on

those sort of programmes. I can understand what you are saying, but

if you are going to tar the media with one brush, that is a mistake

because we'll it to the good journalist in this country. There

are some rogues, I understand that, but we have got to be very careful

here because we need a free press in this country. We need that. You,

for the record, live near to where I used to live so I know the media

locally, but nationally you did caught some of it as well. You were

right to do that, you got a lot of coverage, but if you are going to

talk about the Leveson Inquiry, that we start to lose... This is

throwing the baby out with the bathwater? It indeed. Why hasn't

the Prescott the licence to destroy his reputation? It doesn't have

that licence. Britain is the libel capital of the world. Everyone

comes here to sue. Our journalists in that sense, their research light

on them all the time. I hear what you are saying about the cost of

bringing a libel action, and at the moment there is a government

looking at that. The bottom line is you are a bit of a shrinking violet,

I know, and I think it is fair to say that it was a bit of a two way

interaction, that you did enjoy at the coverage. That is no excuse if

errors were made, they should not have been. If you were maligned,

you should have sued. It is easy for you to say that. Where do I

find �50,000 to Suva Sun? Where does it say in the Book of ethics

that I should find out my ex- partner had a miscarriage in a

headline from the News Of The World? Where is the morality in

that? That wasn't journalism, that was the moral disgrace.

journalism in this country lost its moral compass? A hit has always

been the case that there have been good and bad journalists. If you

are a footballer, who is having a fling with Nicky Campbell or

something, you would expect... have taken an injunction out about

that! And you are talking about this off the record to a tabloid

journalist, it is very possible they would betray your dirty secret.

On the other hand, if you were talking to me, a broadsheet

journalist, I would keep your confidence. There are good MPs and

bad MPs. A broadsheet journalists are different? Peter Burden, you

just said no. Last year, two young girls went undercover and made

Vince Cable say all sorts of things he shouldn't have done but you

could have expected him to do that in that circumstance - that was

pure trickery. You are saying the broadsheets don't do that, they do.

There is a public interest lying. We found out from that expose that

the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was waging a personal

more against Rupert Murdoch. think it was common knowledge.

you, maybe, but it was news and I think they did a good job. For they

could have asked him what he thought. And they would have told

him? What went wrong here was that he said it was off the record,

quite evidently said it was off the record, that used to be a sacred

commitment. Those journalists violated that. And even more

serious point here - when you are an MP you feel you should have a

relationship of trust with your constituents. Every MP now has to

be cautious about what they say to their constituents. The Press

Complaints Commission made it clear it was not acceptable so it was not

a public interest point purely to embarrass Vince Cable, it was

deeper than that. I think the Telegraph did permanent damage with

its relationship to politicians. Padraig Reidy? There is a moral

panic here. If you look back at the press in the 30s, they did

disgraceful things, but James mentioned the public interest and

that is vital. For example, people are saying it is terrible that

people pay for stories. Is it really that terrible? Think of the

expenses story, that was a lot of money handed over for private

information. Would anyone say that was not in the public interest?

Certainly not. We need to be very careful when we are talking about

ethics, but the story is that the core. Who judges what is in the

public interest? Ultimately the editor is the judge. He will always

decide in his own favour. He will always decided is in the public

interest to find out about any tittle-tattle, and that will give

him, in his view, a licence to intrude, to life, to trick, I'm

afraid. The system is not working, and the system is not working - yes,

we have bad journalists, and we always have had, but the law on

libel for example does not inhibit these people. We have had a

sequence of shocking libel cases involving a lot of papers.

Madeleine McCann's family, Christopher Jefferies, they were

mum stirred in a serial fashion. In each case the papers were sued,

they pay damages, but they didn't learn any lessons. Something is

broken here. What is the moral justification for lying about

people? There is none, and people should not lie. Journalists should

not lie about other people. There is a carriage -- caricature of

going on here about journalists. There are plenty of examples

recently of journalists on broadsheet papers making up

interviews and hacking into e-mail accounts. This is not a tabloid

issue. We must not forget that we have absolutely got to have the

people of this country engaged with the conversation, engaged with news

and politics. You will not get that if investigation is somehow closed

down, made more difficult. Journalism will become a couple of

hundred 1000 people in Islington, sitting around tables with

chattering classes. Everyone else will get their news from Facebook

and everywhere else. That is not what should happen. Better a free

press than a docile press. A former Chief Constable, I saw your hand

shooting up, but we are going into the territory whether the law

should be broken to get a story - should it? If no, I am going to say

that I defend the press and it is right that we have a free press to

raise public issues, but the moment you need to cross the legal

boundaries, actually and you have found something that says there is

something very wrong here, there are other organisations that should

deal with it. It is not for the journalists to hack people's phones,

go through their dustbins, go through those sort of things. I am

not sure journalist do that very much, because in my experience of

40 years of policing, journalists are becoming increasingly lazy.

What about the discs with MPs' expenses that were stolen - should

I am well aware from my own experience, and I am not personally

involved in the experience with the discs, that information has been

bought from sources. The information has been obtained

illegally and bought. The person who bought it new that it was

illegally obtained. There is a moral dilemma. If that information

is life-and-death, it should go to those organisations that are paid

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 183 seconds

to deal with it. It should not be If you look at all the chatter

happening around the Leveson enquiry, people are coming up with

terrifying ideas about monetary regulation and heavy fines. This is

the kind of thing that my organisation campaigned against. We

have come out very vocally against Hungry, which is looking at lost to

license journalists and newspaper owners. The press takes the

authority away from the state and brings it back towards the people.

We can open up these stories. The establishment will hold on to these

things. We're back on the air just now, so apologies for the break-up

to the satellite signal. Lembit Opik is now responsible -- Lembit

Opik is now ready to respond. has been censored! The press has

destroyed the reputation of Parliament. It is the MPs. The fact

that you think that proves the problem. There are 650 MPs, most of

whom never appeared in any of these stories. They were working 100

hours a week trying to represent their constituents and you act as

if it is a given that Parliament destroyed its own reputation. I

could not afford to take on the big newspapers. Here is the big crunch

and this is what the viewer has to decide. If they think there is

nothing wrong with the fact that people like me could not afford to

take on the press, I have one of the best libel lawyers in the

country now, but she is pretty expensive. If people think that the

press can say whatever they want and people like me cannot fight

back, if you think that an individual should have to be rich

to get justice, then we need a change. APPLAUSE What was the lie

they told about your expenses? They made up this story about the

fact that I had wasted lots of parliamentary money by having an

electrician come from Wales to fix a problem in London. Daegu claim

for a �2,500 plasmid television? Yes, but that is not the issue that

I am speaking about. -- did you claim for a plasma TV? The press

think they can say whatever they want knowing that most of the

people in this room could not afford the legal representation.

APPLAUSE For the past two years, my organisation has been running a

strong campaign backed by the Liberal Democrats on exactly the

point you address, on making the libel laws favour for journalists

and people who may be the victims of defamation.

We want to make it cheaper and fair for everyone. We have some

agreement. Bishop John, it is great to see on the programme. Have you

seen the Sun on Sunday? I know you have because we were discussing it

earlier on as we had a cup of coffee. You saw Kelly Rowland

almost naked on page three and then the column by the Archbishop of

York. He was saying that this is Britain's favourite newspaper,

seven days a week. What do you think of his involvement? I am not

impressed, and quite frankly astonished that he is saying it,

having seen the content of the paper. Driving down this morning we

were told that this was to be a family newspaper and that it had a

bias towards women and so on. If having a have naked person on page

five is good for women, well, I wonder. I am astonished that the

archbishop is contributing to it and I think he ought to change his

mind. APPLAUSE He could be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

They are a talent spotter. Is it a problem that so-called

sophisticated and intelligent people can read the newspapers that

we get and take it with a pinch of salt? That his extraordinary

snobbery. Lots of people had a gap in their lives as a result of the

News Of The World being killed, and vindictive campaign by the Guardian.

I am glad those people have got their newspaper back. Was it a

vindictive campaign against the News Of The World? The News Of The

World was killed by its own journalists. APPLAUSE Peter Burden.

The News Of The World set out to do everything it could to make people

feel uncomfortable. They went after it targets deliberately to expose

them in a way which would entertain and titillate those few million

people that buy the paper every week. There was a deliberate

decision to do it, and they used whatever methods they could to do

it. They were very good at it. I gather that this newspaper does not

have such a big budget, they have cut down on their hacking budget in

order to employ Glenn Mulcaire. That is outrageous. The News Of The

World did some of the best investigative journalism at that

this country has ever seen. Within a few months of being killed, a

deed the Pakistani cricketer exposure. That kind of journalism,

that kind of investigative journalism, it is hard to find

funding for it. I think the Sun on Sunday is a very effective product,

but even it does not have that edge of investigative journalism that

the News Of The World had. I am terrified that that journalism will

be lost in this country. I hope that maybe an extra 500,000 people

will be buying a newspaper today that would not have otherwise.

there are so many civil actions, with more to come, is that not a

massive Steyn? I am speaking about the readers who deserve a newspaper.

People in this country are not getting newspapers. Politics and

news are just going to be chatter around by a few people who argue on

The Andrew Marr Show. It will be politicians and journalists who all

know each other. We want millions of people looking at newspapers. If

this newspaper means that we will have more people buying and reading

newspapers, it is good for this country and journalism. We have to

leave it there, but give yourself so round of applause for taking

part in that first debate. APPLAUSE If you want to have your say, log

on to our website, bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions.

There are ways to continue the discussions online. We will also be

debating, does society pay too high a price for alcohol, and she'd we

repent in Lent for the planet? Tell us what do you think, please, and

send us your ideas for future debates or any comments about the

programme. Politicians have always had a love-

hate relationship with the demon alcohol, and I do not mean in the

bars of the House of Commons. It raises �9 billion in tax revenue

for the Chancellor every year, but it poses high cost for the police

and the health service, and everyone else who has to clean up

the damage caused by drinkers. Dr Kieran Moriarty, a liver specialist,

good morning. Last night in Cardiff city centre are there were

celebrations after the rugby result, but extraordinary scenes,

ambulances from 7 o'clock, looking after people who were injured as a

result of excessive drinking. There is damage to society and bear

bodies, but what kind of damage is this drug being? In financial terms

it is costing the UK economy about �55 billion every year. Estimates

range between 25 and 55. You are speaking about crime and social

disorder. That is what the Government focus on, but it has a

massive effect on family breakdowns and all forms of abuse within the

family. Workplace absenteeism, 17 million days each year are lost

from alcohol. But the main thing I want to focus on is the effect on

the National Health Service. It cost about 2.7 billion each year.

What about accident and emergency departments? That is the

consequence, at the weekend, and on Friday, they are war zones. A large

proportion of patients have an alcohol problem and it influences

the care of people who were there without alcohol problems. There are

assaults on other people and staff. What my colleagues see is the

effect on the in patience. Our liver ward is full of patients that

have alcohol-related liver damage. They are in their twenties, and 30s,

and we're now seeing teenagers. There has been a 600 % increase in

liver deaths over the last 40 years. During this time, deaths from other

conditions have fallen. What do we need to do? We need prevention and

treatment. The prevention measures will come up in the debate, but I

will focus on the treatment side, which is largely ignored. We have

written two papers in the British Society of Gastroenterology. The

main focus of these is that we need to have nurses in our hospitals.

Alcohol specialist nurses. People must -- people trust and confide in

nurses. It has been shown that for every pound you spend on nurses or

any treatment for alcohol, you save the nation �5. Our hospital has

started a world first this weekend, because our Lead Nurse has started

working seven days a week routinely, seen the patients who came men on a

Friday and Saturday night, and the earlier you see the patients, the

What do we need to do? In practical terms, what should the government

do? I think we should bring in minimum pricing. The evidence is

clear that, if you increase the price of alcohol... And I will give

you an example. My son bought a great of beer, but I couldn't drink

that so they gave it away. It is cheaper than fizzy pop. We saw the

disgraceful scenes in the parliamentary bars, and we have

seen the relationship between alcohol and the state. If you want

to pay for university, you have to drink alcohol, you can't be part of

the university team until you are part of that. We really have to

start understanding that it is incredibly damaging, but it isn't

just about students and young people, it is also, as a Baptist

minister I have buried people who have died of cirrhosis of the liver,

law-abiding citizens, but they have drunk too much. For I think this

whole argument about minimum pricing is a non starter because no

one knows what minimum pricing means. Nobody in central government

has come out and said, "This is what it means". 30p a unit? This

could stop people freeloading, drinking before they go to the pub.

First of all, we are talking about a small minority of the total

drinking population. 50 years ago, the relationship between spirits

duty and beer duty is that spirit duty was for are times the amount

of beer duty. Then two Labour councillors who wanted to defend

the Scottish drinking industry, what is driving this problem now is

access to cheap spirits. It is not cheap beer, it is cheap alcohol.

That is quite wrong. Most of the patients that icy in the deprived

parts of the country, they are drinking strong lager and strong

cider. That is what they are drinking. They can drink for �2.99

3 litres of this stuff, which is 27 units. I have had children in

drinking 55 units a day, 400 units a week. There are two parts to your

argument, the first is the cheap alcohol. The drinks industry as a

whole does not want that. The second part is social deprivation.

That is a national problem, not alcohol industry problem. That is,

hang on, let me have my moment, the issue is of social deprivation. We

talk about alcohol-related deaths. Statistics show that in 2009,

alcohol deaths overall had gone down in the UK. Let's take it one

point at a time because you will have chance to come back, Simon. Is

it about social deprivation? There is a link, and that is

throughout Britain. It is not just to do with alcohol. If you live in

certain parts of the country, you die earlier, and it is not just

drinks related. We tend to see heroin as an addictive drug, people

give up heroin but can't give up alcohol. I have seen people drink

when it is literally hurting them inside because of their condition,

and they still carry on drinking. It is a very pernicious drug and we

have to accept that. The people will always want to get out of

their box. They will choose the path of least resistance, so if

beer is cheap, they will go for that. We recognise there for a

minority of people alcohol is a real problem. You are going to get

a liver specialist saying something must be done, you will get an

alcohol campaigners saying something must be done, but if you

look at the historical record, at prohibition for example, when

government moves into regular always create more problems than it

solves. The same where the government comes in to regulate --

saying that is completely false. I work in a homeless hostel. People

have serious alcohol problems, and they are trying to recover from

that, and we can make it as sterile as we can in relation to alcohol,

obviously no alcohol in the hostel. People might not see friends they

usually drink with, but it is streamed rule on adverts constantly,

they even sponsor television programmes now, it is ridiculous.

Why it needs to be done? I would like to see advertising bound on

alcohol. It would make it easier for people to recover. -- banned.

It is that situation at school where the whole class gets get

behind because one person is naughty, and that is what you are

talking about. The ease people die. I am going to answer your position.

I am going to answer from a personal point of view. My father

was an alcoholic, the son of a brewer, and when he gave up alcohol

for the last 25 years of his life, he never once thought to make the

comments you have made that I should not drink. Hang on a moment,

we have to put this issue... I have not quite finished. I want to put

this into Total perspective. The drinks industry is that one with

you. We don't want to push alcohol upon people that don't want it. You

can raise your eyebrows, but I can assure you that is the case. We are

responsible. What we also need to understand is we are a major

employer in this country. The pubs in this country are envied the

world over. We employed tens of thousands of people. Good morning.

First of all, as a Muslim in the Koran it says there is a good side

of drinking alcohol but there are a lot of negative and wrong sides

associated with it. Isn't it the time for the British Society to

sacrifice the individual enjoyment for safer and healthier society?

Why not? Expand a little bit. value individual freedom, that is

what makes this country great. Barbara, what about when you were a

top cop? Imagine we had gone into that kind of world the lake

describes and there was very little drinking in this country - would it

have made your job easier? It would have reduced demanding -- demand on

policing certainly. You mentioned Mary Street, people out drinking,

and it would have reduced demand. We are out there to pick people up

before they get into that danger zone, before they need to go to A&E

so we tree -- treat them on the street. We are not stopping people

drinking, and looking at the earlier debate, I don't think the

father of that world year-old, who when I spoke to the child and he

told me his father had bought him some lager for his birthday, that

he would have resisted that if it cost more. There is something about

behaviour and educating people in that behaviour. Culture. Absolutely.

If people were to drink less, we could never police people drinking

in their own home, or people drinking in the park behind trees

and that sort of thing. We wouldn't want to but we want to keep people

save so we can reduce demand on policing. Tim? Advertising

contributes to that culture, and the brewer over here were saying we

don't want to sell people to -- alcohol to people who don't want it

- do you understand addiction at all? Of course, but if people want

alcohol they will find it wherever. By D regulating the industry, we

have now opened up problems that means any corner shop can sell

anything to anyone. If you ask the police, one of the biggest issues

on a Saturday night in Cardiff, is that people are arriving in town

already drunk. They have already taken the cheap supermarket alcohol.

And Alastair Campbell this week said he regrets the relaxation of

the licensing hours under the last government. I watched his programme

on Monday on Panorama, and I was shocked to hear that 100 people a

week are dying from liver disease. I think we have got to look at the

cause. I think people have a problem with coping mechanisms. On

that programme, Alastair Campbell said, coupled with alcohol, that

triggered his mental breakdown. We have a lot of people in this

country struggling from mental breakdown because they have

financial problems and relationship problems. I would love to get

involved with the government department to discuss coping. There

are people in this country who can't cope. They don't know how to

deal with financial problems. I have a lot of respect for Alastair

Campbell after that programme. He turned to alcohol as a coping

mechanism. We heard the point about treating people on the street, the

London Ambulance team dealt with 30 people the night before the

programme, and all of those were professionals from the city. The

cost of the alcohol, with the you are paying �40 a bottle or not, it

is a coping mechanism. On the other hand, for millions of people in

this country it is an innocent pleasure. Somebody you know turned

water into wine! Isn't it just the tiny minority spoiling it for

everyone else? I think you are right. There is a saying hard cases

make bad law. What one wants to see his responsibility, responsibility

in terms of the way the press operates, responsibility in terms

of the way readers operate and what they buy. I was on the other side

of the fence some years ago because I was a criminal defence solicitor,

spent several years doing that, and one of the most regular defences my

clients would come up with, "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was

doing". It is very easy to simply target the drinking because,

underlying it in many cases, apart from the middle classes drinking

themselves into a stupor in city centres, there is the element of

deprivation. Thwart other pleasure perhaps to some people half? Why

deprive them? What we need to do is try to bring into people's minds a

greater sense of personal responsibility. How do we do that?

And also, if we were starting now and alcohol was an illegal drug, I

wonder how much attraction those who were wanting to legalise it

would have. For a vision in America increased the amount of liver

disease. Regulation seems to work. I am in agreement with the book

about the fact that you are allowed to make stupid decisions, otherwise

we will be telling people how to live. For a lot of people,

alcoholism is not about the alcohol, it is a form of self- medication.

If you don't use alcohol, you will use something else. If you go

abroad, you can buy a litre of wine for less than �1. They don't have

the same problem. By simply trying to stop people being able to afford

alcohol, you are ignoring the fact Young people say that they're going

out to get smashed, they're going to be sake at the end of it. That

is learned behaviour. That is culture. Culture is what you learn

from a previous generation, from a previous family. APPLAUSE 80s down

to our generation, what is going on today.

APPLAUSE It always goes too quickly. If you have views on that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. You can continue the discussion

online. Our last big question is should we repent in Lent for the

planet? If you would like to be in the audience for a future show,

please get in touch. Next week we are in York, doing two shows, won a

special edition asking is fundamentalism undermining faith?

We are in Leicester the following week and Birmingham the week after

that. Lent used to be a time for

repentance and purification in readiness for Holy Week when we

remember Christ's suffering on the cross. Today, Lent starts with

eating pancakes and giving up booze until you can gorge yourself again

on Easter Sunday. Campaign groups would like us to share are much

bigger Lenten ambition, to save the planet. Bishop? There is a

caricature or of the Church of which says, here come the

Christians, they must be against it. They are against everything. Lent

has that kind of historical echo against it, that it is all negative

and about misery. That is not accurate. Lent was about self

discipline, but it was actually self discipline that would

hopefully benefit you and others. The word Lent itself comes from an

old English word meaning to lengthen. Is it pre-Christian?

You have Lent happening during the spring when things are starting to

come to life again. One of the things that you can do as part of

self discipline is deny yourself. Fine, you may feel a bit better if

you have given up something. I think you have given up something?

That was a private conversation before the programme! You will be

hearing from my criminal lawyers! Yes, I have given up drink for a

while. These journalists, honestly. Really, what we ought to be doing

in Lent, been serious about it, is looking at positive things we can

do for our self and others. Speak about the planet? Operation know

and those who support it have signed a declaration saying that

during the period of Lent, church leaders are to give a lead in

helping people to think seriously about the issues that affect the

planet. -- Operation Noah. Perhaps I can focus on repentance.

It means bringing about change, change in our attitude towards the

fragility of the environment. I drove over the Brecon Beacons today.

It is awful to think that they may be gone in several years' time.

that our fault? I do not believe it will be gone. What is going to

cause the Brecon Beacons to go? environment of the Brecon Beacons

will change radically. You are very peaky this morning. -- picky.

you're saying to me now that you believe that global warming is down

to man, I am saying that there is no evidence to prove that. I am an

individual who has a view and I believe that the public in the UK

have been hoodwinked by a lot of politicians with this nonsense

about where the climate change a shoe is. We know the climate is

changing but I do not believe it is down to man. We're finding that

energy companies are having to charge extra money to individuals

because they are buying this green energy in. In mid-Wales there is a

massive issue in Montgomeryshire where there are going to pick

pylons down the Severn Valley. -- put. I think this is all part of

the natural cycle, but what am trying to say is that the issue

about the green taxes will ruin this country. People are finding it

hard to pay their electricity bills. You will have massive subsidies

going on to these operators who have land and the wind farms. They

are all signed up to this project and it is totally wrong. Jane

Davidson, is it down to man? What is interesting about the way that

John came in on this debate is that the Bishop of Swansea was speaking

about wider issues in the context of the planet. The operation he was

speaking about does not speaking anyway about wind farms. It is

looking at issues around the problem that we need to be more

careful. Is this problem and make? Well, we should be more thoughtful

about what we do in the context of the planet. His climate change man-

made? Yes, I contribution to climate changes man made. What you

have to lay cat in the context of the massive amount of evidence from

climate scientists across the world, from scientists of other

disciplines working independently from each other, and finding

similar outcomes. I am not a scientist. There are probably not

many scientists in this audience today, but our job, whether or not

you're a politician or I came mother, you should say, are there

things that we can do to make our future better? Can we be

responsible? The bishop be speaking about the Church making a positive

contribution and I agree that that should be the job of the Church. I

have been looking at at the operation document which is a mix

of junk science and politics. I believe that church should be about

God and not some New Age religion. Let me read you and example. It

says, in the future, Christians may be called on to receive into their

communities refugees forced to leave their lands to climate change.

-- through climate change. This came from our prediction that was

made in 2005 that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate

refugees from islands like the Maldives which were being

overwhelmed by the sea. Bishop, can you tell me how many climate change

refugees came into 1010? I am afraid I cannot. Have I guess?

not willing to guess. I can tell you, there were none. Why are you

promoting junk science? Why are you stoking public fear about something

that is not happening to the world? I have mentioned the operation, but

that is not the issue. It is probably fair to say that mankind

is not entirely responsible for climate change that we are seeing.

That is acknowledged, but I think it is also a incontrovertible that

mankind is contributing to an acceleration of that change, and

also... APPLAUSE Surely it is desirable to do all we can to save

the species? Yes, preserving water. Preserving

tigers. But resources have been diverted into this brand new

religion, which is the global warming religion. That is nonsense.

You can say it is nonsense but you have probably been too busy writing

sermons to do the research. For it is incontrovertible that we have

increased the amount of carbon dioxide. That must be making a

difference. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE Listened to me for a minute.

I do have a scientific background, and the point gaze that as with any

household, if you think as the world at -- a few think of the

world as a household, it is important how we use our resources.

What we're getting from the church on the question of how to save the

planet is sensible housekeeping for us as a species. Anyone who watches

any major programme of on television can see that the

Antarctic is melting. That means that some islands will be sinking.

There is also a fine night changed? Resources are finite in absolute

terms. There is this idea that we must preserve scarce resources. At

the moment, under Britain, we have massive reserves of gas. In America

this has transformed the economy and the price of gas in America has

been reduced by 50 %. But getting it as it transforms the

environment? THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE There is nothing in the agenda of

things that we ought to be doing to address the threat of climate

change. We ought to be doing these things

anyway. We need to respect our environment. Our resources are not

infinite and we need to be sparing. We need to think about younger

generations not yet born who need this planet. We are wrecking it and

we should stop. APPLAUSE The science was mentioned before.

The bottom line is that people will remember that the University of

East Anglia was doing this project and they fiddled the data. These

people were very responsible people, apparently, and they manipulated it

because they did not like what they were seeing. This is very complex,

but I am very unhappy about this master plan that will have us

paying taxes. The scientists were vindicated by four independent

inquiries. What we are seeing from people who want to argue this case

is particular circumstances rather than the big picture. The big

picture is that the world does have finite resources, that is sensible

and logical. If we carry on being the kind of wasteful, faultless

society that we have been and are continuing to be, then the

resources will be depleted more quickly. If we're going to look

after future generations, we need to make sure that how we use our

resources are not just an economic issue, which is what you are doing,

but that it is also an environmental and socially just

issue as well. APPLAUSE People have done their research and read up on

this. Emotional appeals are no good. If

Lembit Opik had been in the House of Commons last week he would have

heard the world's greatest atmospheric physicist speaking

about how there is no evidence whatsoever for a catastrophic man-

made climate change caused by carbon dioxide. I do not think that

the world is going to end. If it does, all of this is irrelevant. I

reserve the right to say that I told you so now. In terms of what

you're saying, the word catastrophic is crucial. We are

clearly effecting our environment. Common sense tells us that if you

have a highly polluting factory, people get ill around the factory.

This is about been responsible. That is what the churches trying to

do. Unfortunately, I meteorite is about to strike us and I have to

say, sorry about the transmission fault earlier on. Next week we are