:00:30. > :00:35.Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions. Today
:00:36. > :00:42.we're live from Ashton Park School in Bristol. Welcome, everyone, to
:00:43. > :00:45.The Big Questions. On Tuesday, British troops handed
:00:46. > :00:49.over control of Helmand province in Afghanistan to the US Marines. The
:00:50. > :00:55.Ministry of Defence estimates our military presence there has cost ?25
:00:56. > :01:01.billion. Others say it will turn out to be much more. What is undisputed
:01:02. > :01:12.is that 448 Britons lost their lives and 600 were seriously injured. Was
:01:13. > :01:16.it worth it? Eight YouGov poll published today found only 25%
:01:17. > :01:22.thought it wasn't only 13 for the Afghan government would be able to
:01:23. > :01:26.maintain peace. Yesterday, 7 million men and women casted their votes for
:01:27. > :01:30.eight presidential candidates, from tribal warlords to a chat show
:01:31. > :01:37.host. Can Britain be proud of its role in Afghanistan? Jonathan
:01:38. > :01:47.Foreman, so many lives lost. Linz lost. What a cost. -- limbers. Can
:01:48. > :01:55.you look at the families of those people squarely and say it was worth
:01:56. > :01:57.it? I think if those families and the general public were actually
:01:58. > :02:01.able to see some of the things I have been able to see in Afghanistan
:02:02. > :02:07.recently and see how that country has been transformed for the better,
:02:08. > :02:13.it would give them some conflict. -- comfort. This country really has
:02:14. > :02:16.been transformed with economic growth and 1 million children who
:02:17. > :02:19.have been educated who wouldn't have been. Formally and girls going to
:02:20. > :02:24.school who wouldn't have gone to school. And we fought off people who
:02:25. > :02:29.murdered women for teaching girls how to read. We've had many failures
:02:30. > :02:35.and many things have gone wrong. It's all very fragile. But is the
:02:36. > :02:41.balance sheet positive? Definitely. The country is vast to different.
:02:42. > :02:45.It's more prosperous, the people are better educated, there's more
:02:46. > :02:49.justice. It's been transformed for the better. We worked with a lot of
:02:50. > :02:52.other people to do it but it was something that was really worth
:02:53. > :03:01.doing. It's one of the great aid efforts of our time. But unfinished
:03:02. > :03:07.business? Very much so. Will it turn back to what we had previously? The
:03:08. > :03:12.thug regime from before? It could easily happen. It's very different
:03:13. > :03:16.now. The population is much younger and much better educated. Much
:03:17. > :03:20.better literacy. Half the population is under the age of 25. There were
:03:21. > :03:26.no elections before and they are about to go into their second. These
:03:27. > :03:30.people who grew up without radio. They have mobile phones when nobody
:03:31. > :03:38.had mobile phones before. Is that the crowning of a democracy? It's
:03:39. > :03:43.the education, that's the biggest one, I think. Many aspects but
:03:44. > :03:50.education is the biggest thing. And the fact that we have deliberate --
:03:51. > :03:56.liberated, to a degree, half a population that was oppressed, the
:03:57. > :04:06.women under the Taliban. Sophy, you served out there -- he served out
:04:07. > :04:14.there as Wing Commander. Is he right? I don't think we can say that
:04:15. > :04:19.yet. Every life lost is a big deal, clearly not just for the families.
:04:20. > :04:22.But in terms of the commitment politicians and senior ministry
:04:23. > :04:26.people make. So I don't think it's the right time to make that final
:04:27. > :04:31.assessment but it is encouraging what happened yesterday and nobody
:04:32. > :04:33.can deny that seeing over 50% of the population take part in the
:04:34. > :04:38.democratic process is very encouraging. I have to say that.
:04:39. > :04:46.What do you say to those men and women serving under you, what did
:04:47. > :04:51.you say, when they came to you and asked, why are we here?
:04:52. > :04:58.Interestingly, the men and women who served alongside me around my rank
:04:59. > :05:03.or below mine at the time did not generally question. We were in the
:05:04. > :05:09.start of a very difficult operation and actually the military way is to
:05:10. > :05:15.do what you are tasked to do, not question the motives. Probably where
:05:16. > :05:19.it was questions -- questioned was higher up. The senior people who
:05:20. > :05:24.were leading and had relatively poor levels of resource and commitments
:05:25. > :05:30.in the MoD that perhaps on the ground didn't feel like they were
:05:31. > :05:33.being met. I think the really difficult questions were being asked
:05:34. > :05:37.at that sort of Brigadier level, where they were drawn to wrestle
:05:38. > :05:41.with an almost impossible task. At the more junior level we just wanted
:05:42. > :05:47.to do what we code and make sure people didn't die in the process as
:05:48. > :05:52.much as possible. -- do what we could. How was the question
:05:53. > :05:57.answered? I don't know that it was because we all know that we deploy
:05:58. > :06:02.with not enough troops for the task in hand in 2006. 2001 is quite
:06:03. > :06:09.different but if we're talking about 2006, it's difficult. That's a very
:06:10. > :06:13.important point to make because the invasion in 2001 was to try to drive
:06:14. > :06:19.Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan where it had been given a home by the
:06:20. > :06:24.Taliban, by the Taliban government. And I think the question that has to
:06:25. > :06:28.be asked is, did we stay too long? Now, everything Jonathan said was
:06:29. > :06:33.true. I saw wonderful things in Afghanistan, all over Afghanistan.
:06:34. > :06:36.Changes that had been made. Whether those changes will stick, of course,
:06:37. > :06:45.is another matter, because nobody has missed -- has mentioned
:06:46. > :06:48.corruption. It's probably one of the most corrupt countries in the
:06:49. > :06:52.world. It is a dreadfully corrupt country. And, as a consequence, the
:06:53. > :06:57.efforts that have been made, gigantic efforts by the Americans,
:06:58. > :07:04.British, Canadians, 36 countries from the UN were in Afghanistan and
:07:05. > :07:06.are there trying to work. That corruption was undermining
:07:07. > :07:10.everything that was going on at the same time, and my worry is that we
:07:11. > :07:17.stayed too long. The British Army, your great colleague, who does these
:07:18. > :07:26.wonderful reports from Afghanistan, he wrote a book called Butcher And
:07:27. > :07:29.Bolt, and that was the slogan of the British Army on the north-western
:07:30. > :07:34.frontier of Afghanistan. You get in there, kill as many of your enemy as
:07:35. > :07:40.you can and then get the hell out. And that is based on history. We
:07:41. > :07:43.lost a lot of people over 150 years. And I think we've got to ask that
:07:44. > :07:47.question. I think we went in there without enough good intelligence,
:07:48. > :07:53.certainly when we went to Helmand province we didn't have the
:07:54. > :07:56.intelligence we should have had, and as a consequence, a lot of people
:07:57. > :08:04.died and I don't think we gave the maximum value to the Afghan people
:08:05. > :08:11.we could have done. I would agree with all, too. I don't think in his
:08:12. > :08:16.book he is recommending we do that, David. He would probably argue,
:08:17. > :08:20.though he is not here to say, one thing that would make Afghanistan a
:08:21. > :08:24.disaster is leaving too soon. Bolting is the problem. It's leaving
:08:25. > :08:27.when things are half finished, it's running away that could threaten
:08:28. > :08:30.what has been achieved by a tremendous amount of sacrifice.
:08:31. > :08:35.That's what would be so awful, is if all these people who have given
:08:36. > :08:41.their lives, and also the incredibly brave Afghans, and people forget
:08:42. > :08:47.about that, too. Its 350,000 Afghans in their Armed Forces and those very
:08:48. > :08:51.brave... But we had the green on blue killings? Those getting into
:08:52. > :08:54.the papers because it sells newspapers. But no one talks about
:08:55. > :08:58.the achievement or the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who aren't
:08:59. > :09:03.killing troops and to fighting for them, defending them, fighting with
:09:04. > :09:11.them. It is interesting what Jonathan and Kim have said, because
:09:12. > :09:14.what they said about us leaving earlier, because nobody said when
:09:15. > :09:19.was the right time to leave Afghanistan. We didn't deceive --
:09:20. > :09:24.decide to leave until now and then it was 2014, what made, which
:09:25. > :09:34.doesn't seem to need to be a logical way to decide. So I don't think this
:09:35. > :09:40.year is about anything but that. The great problem, it seemed to be, all
:09:41. > :09:45.along, was that it was right next to Pakistan, and Pakistan was the
:09:46. > :09:49.barracks for the Taliban. 2 million Afghan refugees living on a dollar a
:09:50. > :09:55.day in terrible refugee camps in Pakistan. If somebody comes up to
:09:56. > :10:04.you from the Taliban and says, he is $50, you plant that landmine and
:10:05. > :10:08.blow up some infidels. -- here is $50. That's very difficult to turn
:10:09. > :10:12.down and that situation pertains still today and has done all along,
:10:13. > :10:17.and I think we've got to take that into account. There's only so much
:10:18. > :10:20.we can do. In the end it's got to be the Afghan people who determine the
:10:21. > :10:27.future of their own country and not the forces. Anna, I will be with you
:10:28. > :10:32.presently. I just saw the gentleman's can shoot up. We have to
:10:33. > :10:40.wait for the microphone to come to you. -- hand. I think we need to
:10:41. > :10:46.look at the question. You are saying we have handed over control to the
:10:47. > :10:50.US Army, so where is the success of what we have achieved? We haven't
:10:51. > :10:55.handed over the control to the Afghan people. The other point is,
:10:56. > :11:00.if we are so proud of what we have done there, will we do this again?
:11:01. > :11:11.The answer will be no. Yes, but that's... Once but not several
:11:12. > :11:15.times. That's a very important question. Because what sort of
:11:16. > :11:18.policy, foreign policy, does Great Britain want to follow in the
:11:19. > :11:21.future? It's condemned for intervening on behalf of people who
:11:22. > :11:24.have been murdered and suppressed by their own government and have no
:11:25. > :11:29.other way of fighting back. And if we don't do it, who does it? I
:11:30. > :11:34.really don't understand that. There's so much hypocrisy about this
:11:35. > :11:39.around. You mentioned Bosnia and Kosovo a little earlier. When people
:11:40. > :11:47.were murdered. That was before the programme, by the way! I'm sorry!
:11:48. > :11:51.But it took the RAF. And other people to sort out those murderous
:11:52. > :11:56.regimes killing their own people. It's the 20th anniversary of Rwanda.
:11:57. > :12:04.Who was supposed to go in and sort that out? Good Samaritan, you know,
:12:05. > :12:10.how can we cross the other side of the road when gay men are having
:12:11. > :12:15.rubble dropped on them? Women are having acid thrown in their faces
:12:16. > :12:18.and not being educated? It was a slave state for women who were
:12:19. > :12:22.there. They were third class citizens. How better is it getting?
:12:23. > :12:27.How much better is it getting? They passed the law in 2009, and this was
:12:28. > :12:32.under the Hamid Karzai government, that if your wife doesn't have sex
:12:33. > :12:41.with you once every four days, you have the right to starve her. Yeah.
:12:42. > :12:45.And that wasn't the Taliban. It certainly wasn't. And there's
:12:46. > :12:50.certainly a misconception that in the Hamid Karzai era things have
:12:51. > :12:55.completely changed for women across Afghanistan. They haven't. But they
:12:56. > :12:59.have been huge gains, huge gains in the city, particularly with women
:13:00. > :13:05.being educated and the amount of knowledge they have about the
:13:06. > :13:09.democratic system, participating. Yesterday, 30% of the voters were
:13:10. > :13:16.women. Does that make you feel incredibly... It was incredibly
:13:17. > :13:20.inspiring? Yes, but not only the women, but the defiance of
:13:21. > :13:23.everybody. Talking to voters, we're finding out people voting because
:13:24. > :13:27.they want to say no to the Taliban and they want to say, actually, we
:13:28. > :13:31.don't want your kind of government, we want an elected government that
:13:32. > :13:34.we participate in. And that in itself it worth it for me, anyway,
:13:35. > :13:40.in the last ten years. APPLAUSE
:13:41. > :13:44.Should we have stayed longer? Should British troops have stayed longer?
:13:45. > :13:52.Should Americans be there for the long road ahead? I think in a
:13:53. > :13:55.limited way, yes. We need to sustain our support. Talking about
:13:56. > :13:58.Afghanistan as the most corrupt country in the world but it's not by
:13:59. > :14:02.default and it wasn't always that corrupt. If you look at 2004, 2005,
:14:03. > :14:08.the ministries were doing quite well, some better than others. They
:14:09. > :14:15.were doing well with the NSP and Solidarity programme. And the
:14:16. > :14:18.corruption, incidentally, coincided with the increasing levels of aid
:14:19. > :14:25.coming in, so we have to be very careful, I think, in assigning
:14:26. > :14:27.labels of corrupt country to a place where we have actually contributed
:14:28. > :14:35.quite a lot to that escalation, I think. Have we? Does this go back to
:14:36. > :14:40.the Soviet invasion and the sponsoring and financial aid that
:14:41. > :14:44.was not pumped into the country but into the Mujahideen to fight the
:14:45. > :14:54.Soviets? Have we partially solved a problem that we partially created?
:14:55. > :14:57.We have not spent enough time looking at accountability
:14:58. > :15:02.mechanisms. We need to reduce the amount of aid we are giving to
:15:03. > :15:07.Afghanistan but do a lot more with a lot less for a longer period of
:15:08. > :15:11.time. I saw your hand up a few moments ago, I did not forget. Don't
:15:12. > :15:24.worry about democracy own, it is fine! At what cost? We have seen
:15:25. > :15:26.over $40 billion has been invested. We say Afghanistan is a corrupt
:15:27. > :15:38.country but there are many more countries which are more corrupt. I
:15:39. > :15:43.think China and India... Just one point, China is not a democratic
:15:44. > :15:47.country. Yes, there was an election yesterday but China has not seen an
:15:48. > :15:51.election for so many years and I don't Inc in future there will be an
:15:52. > :15:57.Afghanistan. Can you intervene in China? No way. -- I don't think in
:15:58. > :16:04.future. At what cost? You have got so much unemployment... Can I ask
:16:05. > :16:12.you a question? I am delighted you are here. In 2001, there were no
:16:13. > :16:19.girls being educated. In 2012, there were 2.9 million girls being
:16:20. > :16:25.educated. Do you celebrate that? Of course not but there are many more
:16:26. > :16:32.countries... You mean of course. In India, 700 million people live below
:16:33. > :16:39.$2 a day. In India, 70% of women in some provinces are illiterate. If
:16:40. > :16:43.you see by the number and not by the country, India has more problems
:16:44. > :16:50.than Afghanistan. Would you go and intervene over there? Who wants to
:16:51. > :16:54.respond? I think it is absolutely the case and it is inevitably true,
:16:55. > :16:57.there are examples all over the world of great injustices and
:16:58. > :17:02.inequalities. You take opportunities to do the right thing and when the
:17:03. > :17:05.opportunity presents itself, and it means as an international committee
:17:06. > :17:09.you can do the right thing, you don't say, we can't possibly help
:17:10. > :17:13.you because somebody over there is also suffering. You take that
:17:14. > :17:19.opportunity. Gilbert, you had your hand up. I think we are getting
:17:20. > :17:25.bogged down in a few details. Of course, I agree that the increase in
:17:26. > :17:30.education is phenomenal. All of these things which move towards
:17:31. > :17:33.democracy are great. However, we are going way away from the main
:17:34. > :17:39.question, which is Canberra to be proud of its role in Afghanistan? --
:17:40. > :17:43.can Britain be proud? I am not sure if we are in a position to say
:17:44. > :17:49.proud. It's as like we are about to wash our hands of it. Was it worth
:17:50. > :17:53.it is kind of the question? I think so. We have just had elections,
:17:54. > :17:57.there will probably be a second round in May, there have been some
:17:58. > :18:02.elections and it looks like a new and date will come in. We lost --
:18:03. > :18:07.new candidates will come in. The UK lost interest in Iraq quite soon
:18:08. > :18:12.after withdrawal. We mentioned Kosovo, we don't really hear about
:18:13. > :18:17.Kosovo, there is a Serb minority who are not really interested in being
:18:18. > :18:20.part of Kosovo. My point is we are getting very into detail and it
:18:21. > :18:24.feels like we are about to go, OK, there have been some achievements,
:18:25. > :18:28.now we are leaving. I feel like Afghanistan is going to leave the
:18:29. > :18:36.press and I think Britain's commitment has to be longer and more
:18:37. > :18:39.interested. OK, Oliver... We have an amazing amount being done for
:18:40. > :18:45.women. Some people think there is a bit of cultural imposition going on.
:18:46. > :18:48.As a way of spending $40 billion, is that the best way to spend it in
:18:49. > :18:53.terms of making the world a better place? That is the upper estimate.
:18:54. > :18:58.Something like that. Frankly I find it hilarious, we have four or five
:18:59. > :19:03.people from the military establishment all related to it,
:19:04. > :19:08.that is who you all are. Anybody talking off the record, I have
:19:09. > :19:14.spoken to security services and military, all of the speak up 's --
:19:15. > :19:18.these people speaking off the record would say something quite different.
:19:19. > :19:21.After 911 we had to get in and sort out Al-Qaeda, we did not have to
:19:22. > :19:27.invade Afghanistan, it could have been done on the quiet. Of course we
:19:28. > :19:31.did not have to invade it. If Soviet Russia could not subdue it, what on
:19:32. > :19:34.earth made anybody think we could do it? The reality is of the record,
:19:35. > :19:42.everybody agrees it is completely insane to try to invade... What
:19:43. > :19:47.about the transformation of society? For that money, you could spend it
:19:48. > :19:50.in Africa, you couldn't spend it in China because we would get nuked by
:19:51. > :19:56.them, but you could probably spend it in India and if you look at what
:19:57. > :20:03.you have bought for your money, it is ridiculous. The last word, Kim
:20:04. > :20:07.Howells. What do you think Afghanistan will be like in 20
:20:08. > :20:15.years? I hope it will be better. To return to this point, what we think
:20:16. > :20:18.of the record, I am speaking perfectly honestly and I am sure
:20:19. > :20:24.Jonathan is as well. This is just a slur, of course. That people don't
:20:25. > :20:26.actually believe these things. The men and women who went into
:20:27. > :20:31.Afghanistan went there to try to make a difference. I am talking
:20:32. > :20:38.about the senior people. I was a government minister. I am talking
:20:39. > :20:42.about MI5 and MI6. I chaired the intelligence and Security committee
:20:43. > :20:45.that overlooks MI5 and MI6. We all know about chairs of these
:20:46. > :20:50.intelligence committees like John Scarlett, who is then made head of
:20:51. > :20:54.MI6. There were great failures of intelligence gathering and I said
:20:55. > :20:57.that in my contribution. We could have done much better on that front.
:20:58. > :21:03.The notion that on the quiet you can sort out Al-Qaeda, in 2001, it is
:21:04. > :21:07.just fantasy. It is a nonsense, a conspiracy theory that is out there
:21:08. > :21:12.on the internet. It is rubbish. Are people who went in there did drive
:21:13. > :21:16.Al-Qaeda out of that country and they did us all a service, they kept
:21:17. > :21:22.those bombers off our streets for a very long time, people tend to
:21:23. > :21:26.forget that. We must leave it there, thank you so much. If you have
:21:27. > :21:29.something to say about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions
:21:30. > :21:32.and follow the link to where you can join in the discussion online. Or
:21:33. > :21:36.contribute on Twitter. We're also debating live this morning from
:21:37. > :21:41.Bristol: Should the state stop interfering in parenting? And should
:21:42. > :21:44.we have more faith in science? So get tweeting or e-mailing on those
:21:45. > :21:46.topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may have about
:21:47. > :21:54.the show. On Monday the charity Action for
:21:55. > :21:58.Children, backed by six cross-party MPs and peers, launched a campaign
:21:59. > :22:04.to make the emotional abuse of a child a crime, just as physical or
:22:05. > :22:07.sexual abuse is. Dubbed the Cinderella Law, it could result in
:22:08. > :22:10.prison sentences up to ten years for anyone over 16 who harms a child's
:22:11. > :22:18.mental health or intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural
:22:19. > :22:25.development. One Tory backbencher called it "a charter for whiny
:22:26. > :22:35.kids". Should the state stop interfering in parenting? Max
:22:36. > :22:39.Wind-Cowie, do you not think this is real progress in our society, to put
:22:40. > :22:43.emotional abuse alongside physical abuse and sexual abuse as a criminal
:22:44. > :22:49.offence? I think it is a mark that as a society, we have lost track of
:22:50. > :22:57.what it means to abuse to some -- abuse do as opposed to accidentally
:22:58. > :23:00.cause harm. We are all extremely concerned about the welfare of
:23:01. > :23:04.children, how they develop and grow up, making sure they are as happy as
:23:05. > :23:08.possible. This marks a kind of extraordinary overreach on the part
:23:09. > :23:12.of the state, saying not only are we going to judge or actions as a
:23:13. > :23:16.parent but we are going to judge your feelings, look into your soul
:23:17. > :23:20.and say that you either do or do not love your child sufficiently, and
:23:21. > :23:23.the way in which you deal with or engage with your child, for most
:23:24. > :23:27.parents that will change over time. I remember being a teenager, I am
:23:28. > :23:31.sure there were times when my parents did not like me very much
:23:32. > :23:34.and I would not want to judge them for that retrospectively and I
:23:35. > :23:38.certainly would not want to send them to prison. It is about saying
:23:39. > :23:42.to parents, if you are not able to feel what we think you ought to
:23:43. > :23:45.feel, and if we can't see that you feel that, we are going to come
:23:46. > :23:51.after you and I think that is profoundly dangerous. Matthew, you
:23:52. > :23:55.are champing at the bit here. Oliver wrote a book based on the line in
:23:56. > :24:00.that Philip Larkin poem which I can't quote but I can arrive phrase,
:24:01. > :24:03.they mess you up, your mum and dad. What are we talking about here? We
:24:04. > :24:09.have confusion over the proposed bill. Neglect is the single biggest
:24:10. > :24:13.form of child abuse in the UK. Social workers will say the most
:24:14. > :24:16.common form of neglect they have to deal with is emotional neglect. The
:24:17. > :24:22.Children's Society, we see this neglect. Neglect is a persistent and
:24:23. > :24:28.consistent way, sometimes deliberate, of neglecting or abusing
:24:29. > :24:32.a child. It is sometimes in terms of humiliating a child I make
:24:33. > :24:36.persistent level, persistently excluding a child, persistently
:24:37. > :24:41.exposing a child to degrading behaviour. The impact of that are
:24:42. > :24:45.substantial. At the Children's Society we see everyday, children
:24:46. > :24:51.who have either low well-being, expressing mental health problems,
:24:52. > :24:55.or behaviours as a result of being emotionally neglected. Not
:24:56. > :25:01.cuddling, not talking, not encouraging? Children are protected
:25:02. > :25:06.by physical neglect by the law they are protected by sexual abuse by the
:25:07. > :25:10.law, this is to bring in protection against emotional abuse. We would be
:25:11. > :25:13.the last country in Europe to have a law which protected children
:25:14. > :25:14.properly and that is a good thing to be doing for our society.
:25:15. > :25:23.APPLAUSE No one is arguing that some children
:25:24. > :25:28.don't have the fickle relationships with their parents and sometimes we
:25:29. > :25:32.might look at parents and say, you are failing to show the right amount
:25:33. > :25:36.of support and affection. Do you not think and shredding that in law has
:25:37. > :25:39.a number of difficulties? First of all the practicalities of how you
:25:40. > :25:43.are going to assess whether or not what a parent is doing is justified
:25:44. > :25:48.or not, and whether they are doing so with good intentions. Secondly,
:25:49. > :25:54.for a variety of reasons, lots of parents at various points will have
:25:55. > :25:57.emotional difficulties of their own. If you think about postnatal
:25:58. > :26:01.depression for example, something which is commonly experienced by
:26:02. > :26:05.lots of women and which can affect their relationship with their
:26:06. > :26:08.bonding, with their child. You not think it might make it substantive
:26:09. > :26:14.li harder and more difficult for parents who are struggling and in
:26:15. > :26:19.difficulty, to speak to their doctor, therapist, and say, I am
:26:20. > :26:23.having a real difficulty engaging with my child. If you are going to
:26:24. > :26:26.come after them and say, not only does this mean that social services
:26:27. > :26:31.might be involved at they might go to prison for ten years... I
:26:32. > :26:34.actually don't think that full so I am a parent, we all know that
:26:35. > :26:40.parenting is a challenging part of life.
:26:41. > :26:45.What about sending your child to boarding school at the age of seven
:26:46. > :26:52.or something like that? Is that not emotional abuse? At the moment
:26:53. > :26:59.social workers work within a framework where there is a clear
:27:00. > :27:03.civil law definition, the proposal is to also make it a criminal
:27:04. > :27:06.offence. We don't see sending HL to boarding school as being a civil
:27:07. > :27:08.offence and it would become a criminal offence # red sending a
:27:09. > :27:21.child to boarding school. The point is the consistent and
:27:22. > :27:28.deliberate, sometimes, treatment of parents which can stunt a child's
:27:29. > :27:32.ability to thrive in life and cause high risk behaviours. There is a
:27:33. > :27:35.high threshold but the right to protect a child from being abused
:27:36. > :27:42.and elected must be a primary concern as a society. Lauren
:27:43. > :27:49.Devine, is this straightforward legally? I don't think it is. The
:27:50. > :27:54.first thing to mention is that we already have section 47 of the
:27:55. > :27:58.children act 1989, the underlying framework for the civil law that
:27:59. > :28:02.social workers will implement when they conduct an investigation on the
:28:03. > :28:08.grounds of suspected abuse. I think there is a difficulty in trying to
:28:09. > :28:11.extend that in a supportive fashion into the criminal law. Immediately
:28:12. > :28:16.you have operational problems. How would you adequately define and
:28:17. > :28:22.worse than that, prove emotional abuse of a child? The problem is the
:28:23. > :28:26.definition. The world health organisation, for example, publishes
:28:27. > :28:35.a very long and comp rancid definition of child abuse including
:28:36. > :28:36.-- comp rancid definition of child abuse including emotional abuse --
:28:37. > :28:47.comprehensive definition. They are putting the number that
:28:48. > :28:53.they believe to be abused at around 10%. If you take that any other form
:28:54. > :28:56.of abuse, may also by definition include an element of emotional
:28:57. > :28:59.abuse, you are talking about potentially temper sent families in
:29:00. > :29:03.the UK affected by this law. I also think it would be profoundly
:29:04. > :29:09.dichotomous to bring onto the criminal statute books a law which,
:29:10. > :29:12.as has already been pointed out, a parent who may be struggling and is
:29:13. > :29:17.wanting support services, which is how section 47 is built, they are
:29:18. > :29:21.support services, they are supposed to be supportive, the intention is
:29:22. > :29:26.children are taken away from parents as a last resort, not as a first
:29:27. > :29:30.port of call. Bringing in the police, it may well send a message
:29:31. > :29:34.to society that we will not tolerate emotional abuse of children, but we
:29:35. > :29:39.all agree as a moral axiom it is not desirable to abuse children in any
:29:40. > :29:41.shape or form so I'm not sure what it would achieve in a real sense.
:29:42. > :29:49.Robert Matic Lee, how would we prove what is opinion and fact --
:29:50. > :29:51.problematically. The Law commission has published its report which the
:29:52. > :29:55.government has decided not to act on, talking about the scandalous
:29:56. > :30:00.cases that happened ten or 12 years ago involving Sally Clark, in
:30:01. > :30:05.relation to women who were accused of killing their babies, released on
:30:06. > :30:09.appeal and it was the expert evidence that was called into
:30:10. > :30:11.question. If we can be that uncertain about using expert
:30:12. > :30:18.evidence in the case of physical abuse, where would we sit with
:30:19. > :30:24.emotional abuse? A fascinating point. I had just went up. A quick
:30:25. > :30:31.point. I think it should be clear to everyone that emotional abuse is
:30:32. > :30:36.every bit as harmful as sexual abuse or physical abuse but in a similar
:30:37. > :30:41.way to what she said, and I'm sorry, I can't remember your first name, I
:30:42. > :30:44.think it would be very difficult to enforce because while there are some
:30:45. > :30:49.things that are obviously emotional abuse, there are other things that
:30:50. > :30:52.are entirely subjective. You made the point about boarding school.
:30:53. > :30:57.What one person's emotional abuse could be, that could be completely
:30:58. > :31:06.okayed to another child. And on that point, was in the 60s you were at
:31:07. > :31:14.Eton, at boarding school? The 70s, 80s? You are a -- you are ageless!
:31:15. > :31:28.But you must have seen boys who were breast. -- who were their -- who
:31:29. > :31:34.were distraught. The key thing here is that the scientific evidence was
:31:35. > :31:41.overwhelming. That emotional abuse, which is hostility, lack of love, is
:31:42. > :31:46.incredibly harmful. If you take, even in extreme mental illnesses
:31:47. > :31:52.like schizophrenia, emotional abuse is a bigger cause of schizophrenia
:31:53. > :31:57.than sexual or physical abuse in a survey of 41 studies. And overall,
:31:58. > :32:01.the evidence is absolutely clear that genes play a very small part in
:32:02. > :32:04.explaining why one sibling is mentally ill and not another, why
:32:05. > :32:09.one of your offspring is mentally ill and not the other. It really is
:32:10. > :32:13.about the kind of care you receive, and particularly, you need love,
:32:14. > :32:19.particularly in the first three years, and they knew not to be --
:32:20. > :32:22.you need not to be the object of hostility, favouritism and bad
:32:23. > :32:27.behaviour. It's not easy. I take your point that we are getting into
:32:28. > :32:31.a very grey area of definition. But what is important is that we
:32:32. > :32:34.signalled these kinds of laws are more than anything else signals, in
:32:35. > :32:39.the same way that they should be laws against parents hitting their
:32:40. > :32:43.children, and it's ridiculous we don't have that law. It would hardly
:32:44. > :32:48.ever be forced, in the same way when it comes to emotional abuse. Very,
:32:49. > :32:53.very few prosecutions would be brought specifically for emotional
:32:54. > :32:56.abuse or being consistently hostile. The concept would be hard to prove
:32:57. > :33:00.but we need to send out a signal saying, it is how you care for your
:33:01. > :33:03.children that is critically important for their mental health,
:33:04. > :33:07.and the solution to this is to reduce the number of low income
:33:08. > :33:10.people because we have a very unequal society and that is a major
:33:11. > :33:18.cause of mental illness. And secondly, we need to support
:33:19. > :33:23.parents. Sure Start Centres were turned into a crash facility. If
:33:24. > :33:28.they had been a way to help parents interact with their children and
:33:29. > :33:31.help them because they had been messed up in their terms and it
:33:32. > :33:37.passes down the generations, but what we are in the business of is
:33:38. > :33:44.trying to break the cycle of abuse and damage to children. So a more
:33:45. > :33:48.child-centred society and then more parent centres? Yes, let's put the
:33:49. > :33:57.meeting of the needs of children ahead of the profits of a tiny few.
:33:58. > :34:01.But they might be parents watching now, thinking, my goodness me, and
:34:02. > :34:09.my filling all the emotional needs of my child. -- there might be.
:34:10. > :34:13.Absolutely. There are lots of ways which parents can influence to a
:34:14. > :34:18.detrimental way their children. We know that parents are divorced and
:34:19. > :34:21.families that experience family breakdowns have a profoundly
:34:22. > :34:26.negative impact on that are relevant of children and we, quite rightly as
:34:27. > :34:29.a society, are not going to go around looking parents who are
:34:30. > :34:32.unable to sustain their marriages because we recognise there are other
:34:33. > :34:36.factors we have to take into account, too. The problem I have
:34:37. > :34:41.with the framing of this debate and the idea we're going to legislate
:34:42. > :34:50.this is that it is making love bureaucratic. Of course children
:34:51. > :34:54.need love, of course they do. But there is a situation where we are
:34:55. > :34:58.saying that the state can be punitive about that. In a society
:34:59. > :35:01.like that where we have a slightly less brittle approach to our
:35:02. > :35:05.children, which is entirely about what your parents do, and it is a
:35:06. > :35:14.very small, isolated unit, which is the nuclear family, and we say if
:35:15. > :35:21.they mess that up in that tight unit, then it is going to go wrong.
:35:22. > :35:25.If we can find ways of binding children into more meaningful
:35:26. > :35:32.relationships with their extended community, teachers, preachers, we
:35:33. > :35:42.might have something better. Strong language. I feel quite faint! It's
:35:43. > :35:45.only right that children need protecting from any form of abuse,
:35:46. > :35:54.but how are we going to fund this and where will the resources come
:35:55. > :35:58.from? So that's a point about the economics and politics of it. One of
:35:59. > :36:02.the things I'm looking at with my own research is the amount of annual
:36:03. > :36:05.spend on our current child protection system and whether or not
:36:06. > :36:10.it's possible to quantify in any meaningful way the extent to which
:36:11. > :36:15.children can be seen to be positively benefited by the current
:36:16. > :36:19.system. If we go back to this point about things being child-centred, I
:36:20. > :36:23.would like to ask the question, if we do criminalise emotional abuse,
:36:24. > :36:28.given all the problems we have just identified, how would we be able to
:36:29. > :36:31.measure in an identifiable way how many children it could positively
:36:32. > :36:37.benefit, or would we be able to make that assessment? Or would we simple
:36:38. > :36:41.beep -- simply be putting an unworkable law onto the statute
:36:42. > :36:49.books? It's simply about sending out a, that is all. But I learned it is
:36:50. > :36:54.very bad to make criminal laws on the basis of, something must be
:36:55. > :36:59.done, firstly, and sending a signal, especially when there are the risks
:37:00. > :37:03.we have heard. And I want to say, I don't recognise the cause of data
:37:04. > :37:08.with schizophrenia. I question whether you are right that emotional
:37:09. > :37:14.abuse is the cause. Can I just replied to that very quickly? A
:37:15. > :37:21.child who has had no adversity is... Sorry, somebody who's to --
:37:22. > :37:24.has had five or more adversities is 193 times more likely to have a
:37:25. > :37:31.mental illness than somebody who has had no adversity. And secondly, the
:37:32. > :37:34.main genetic psychologist in this country was quoted in The Guardian
:37:35. > :37:43.saying very recently, I have been looking for the genes for 15 years
:37:44. > :37:46.and I cannot find them. That's not particularly scientific. I just
:37:47. > :37:52.think we should be careful about quoting individuals. My main point
:37:53. > :37:56.is that there are risks. What you need incremental law is certainty.
:37:57. > :38:01.If it's going to be hard to define, even if the intentions are right, as
:38:02. > :38:04.I'm sure they are, you might not get a far, but there are huge risks and
:38:05. > :38:11.people might not come forward for help. And the police, bless them,
:38:12. > :38:13.are not very good social workers. We have professional social workers in
:38:14. > :38:18.this country who would do a much better job at family dynamics. The
:38:19. > :38:24.police tend to over police laws, especially with new laws. We've seen
:38:25. > :38:30.that. That is a risk with a law like this. Do you think there's a danger
:38:31. > :38:33.down the road of the challenges like historic emotional abuse cases, and
:38:34. > :38:37.we know without going to individual cases at the moment, that there's a
:38:38. > :38:42.lot of historical cases of sexual abuse, and they are evidently very
:38:43. > :38:50.difficult? Yes, and justice must be done whenever it is. Despite working
:38:51. > :38:55.for the Catholic Herald, he speaks very loudly, because that faces a
:38:56. > :39:00.big litigation risk, so it's hard to hear lectures from that side. But
:39:01. > :39:04.you can identify physical and mental harm without Trent to define what is
:39:05. > :39:09.emotional abuse in a one-year-old to a three-year-old. It's hard enough
:39:10. > :39:14.to get the definitions right. Someone's right to liberty, that's
:39:15. > :39:18.what we are talking about with a criminal offence. So I'll be very
:39:19. > :39:22.cautious about moving it away from well-trained professionals and away
:39:23. > :39:32.from a civil law. -- I would be very cautious. The point about having a
:39:33. > :39:35.child centric policy and the economics of it is very important.
:39:36. > :39:39.When you think about people who maybe have several children and use
:39:40. > :39:43.the welfare system and vilified in the press and tabloids, it's always
:39:44. > :39:46.about how awful the parents are and what they are doing and there's very
:39:47. > :39:52.little focus on what is actually right for those children regardless
:39:53. > :39:55.of their parental circumstances. And we'll have a role to play in
:39:56. > :40:02.thinking about the needs of children before we go on blaming and
:40:03. > :40:07.criticising the parents. Self-righteousness? Yes. We are
:40:08. > :40:11.going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much for your
:40:12. > :40:14.participation in that debate. You can join in all this morning's
:40:15. > :40:16.debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and
:40:17. > :40:22.following the link to the online discussion. Or you can tweet using
:40:23. > :40:25.#bbctbq. Tell us what you think about our last big question, too,
:40:26. > :40:28."should we have more faith in science?"
:40:29. > :40:33.If you would like to be in the audience at a future show, you can
:40:34. > :40:36.email us. We're not on for the next two weeks because of the London
:40:37. > :40:40.Marathon and Easter, but we'll be back from York on 27th April, where,
:40:41. > :40:44.as well as the live morning show, we'll be recording a special on
:40:45. > :40:46.atheism in the afternoon. We're also recruiting audiences in London for
:40:47. > :40:58.11th May and Walsall for 25th May. This week a report from the
:40:59. > :41:01.Independent Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading scientists from
:41:02. > :41:05.across the world, warned our world is facing serious risks. Death,
:41:06. > :41:08.injury and illness from storms, flooding and rising sea levels,
:41:09. > :41:10.mortality and morbidity from extreme heat, malnutrition and death from
:41:11. > :41:12.food shortages, disruption and loss of livelihoods, breakdowns of
:41:13. > :41:15.infrastructure networks and key services, and mass migrations,
:41:16. > :41:27.leading to global instability and conflicts. Yet despite the evidence
:41:28. > :41:30.amassed by scientists around the globe, around six out of ten Britons
:41:31. > :41:36.are not convinced that man-made climate change is happening at all.
:41:37. > :41:48.Should we have more faith in science?
:41:49. > :41:52.Professor Tim Palmer, will society, professor of climate physics at
:41:53. > :41:57.Oxford University. -- Royal Society. Do you despair that people
:41:58. > :42:02.don't buy this mandate? I don't spare. The problem with climate
:42:03. > :42:05.change, it's a scientific problem but it has great implications for
:42:06. > :42:14.society. People are concerned about things like, maybe, wind turbines,
:42:15. > :42:18.or green taxes or perceived infringements on their freedoms to
:42:19. > :42:23.drive gas-guzzling cars and things like this. I think the important
:42:24. > :42:26.point, however, is to try to disentangle these issues from the
:42:27. > :42:30.basic science. And the basic science, which I and my colleagues
:42:31. > :42:33.on the intergovernmental panel you mentioned, are just trying to
:42:34. > :42:41.approach the problem from these totally policy neutral objectives. I
:42:42. > :42:45.have no political agenda. I trained as a physicist and I believe my
:42:46. > :42:51.expertise is relevant to this problem, which is to say, as we emit
:42:52. > :42:55.ten gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, we are
:42:56. > :42:59.looking to double carbon dioxide to its preindustrial values later this
:43:00. > :43:04.century, what is this going to do to climate? What is it going to do to
:43:05. > :43:08.sea levels, drought, flooding around the world? Incidentally, not just
:43:09. > :43:11.for the next two years but the coming centuries and potentially
:43:12. > :43:15.thousands of years. And the question I think people have to try to get to
:43:16. > :43:19.grips with, and I realise it's a difficult one, is to try to leave
:43:20. > :43:24.aside the policy issue and say, do I think these are genuine risks that
:43:25. > :43:30.we are putting on our climate system that are going to be very
:43:31. > :43:35.detrimental to society? Are these serious risks we need to consider
:43:36. > :43:42.and take seriously? Now, the question then of what we should do
:43:43. > :43:47.about it is for politicians and policymakers. In this debate it
:43:48. > :43:54.relieves important to separate out these two issues, the science and
:43:55. > :43:57.the policy. We have a general discussion in the next 15 minutes
:43:58. > :44:04.about science and faith in science and scientists tell us the
:44:05. > :44:07.scientific method with hypothesis what is happening and why it is
:44:08. > :44:15.happening. They do not have an agenda. Science covers a huge range
:44:16. > :44:19.of different topics and disciplines. I used to be a particle visitors,
:44:20. > :44:24.the goals and methods are very difficult to zoology which in turn
:44:25. > :44:29.of a different to the social sciences. I think we have to
:44:30. > :44:33.distinguish what kind of science and how good is that particular kind of
:44:34. > :44:41.science. Lets leave out the social sciences for this debate. I was
:44:42. > :44:46.making a value judgement. The other thing is that a particular science
:44:47. > :44:50.is very good at doing what it does well. Physics is Bjerregaard
:44:51. > :44:54.measurement was a bit is no good at setting ethics or political policy,
:44:55. > :45:01.or teaching the appreciation of music. The problem is with the
:45:02. > :45:08.climate science, as Professor Palmer pointed out, politics has got
:45:09. > :45:13.interwoven with the scientific assessment. That is not his fault. I
:45:14. > :45:16.would be interested to question him on this because the introduction to
:45:17. > :45:19.the report is not just written by scientists, all additions do get
:45:20. > :45:24.involved, it would be interesting to hear some perspective. It is
:45:25. > :45:31.important for people to read the reports, read the IPCC, or a report
:45:32. > :45:37.which came out recently by the Royal Society which tried to set out the
:45:38. > :45:40.science. I don't think people should have blind faith in science but what
:45:41. > :45:45.they should do is look at the evidence that is put out by IPCC,
:45:46. > :45:55.the Royal Society and make up their own minds. Do you despair... Lots of
:45:56. > :46:02.despair this morning... Are you angered when you see debates on
:46:03. > :46:06.settled science like evolution or climate change or atomic theory or
:46:07. > :46:13.whatever... Or that homoeopathy is fake. And juicy equivalents on the
:46:14. > :46:17.broadcast channels, the BBC has been criticised # red and use see full so
:46:18. > :46:22.you might see Nigel Lawson against Professor Walker.
:46:23. > :46:27.It is frustrating but I like to get even. I think faith is the wrong
:46:28. > :46:33.word. We should have more confidence in science. When we get on a plane,
:46:34. > :46:38.we want to know it has been checked by the engineers, not that someone
:46:39. > :46:42.has rested, prayed over it or a politician has asserted that this is
:46:43. > :46:47.the best plane ever. It is confidence in the scientific method.
:46:48. > :46:51.The method is more than just hypothesis, experiment and
:46:52. > :46:55.conclusions. It is continuing scepticism, it is declaration of all
:46:56. > :46:58.your interests, it is having it criticised before you get your
:46:59. > :47:03.funding and before you can publish it, and it is continual building on
:47:04. > :47:08.the work of others. It is completely different from the way politics and
:47:09. > :47:12.religion works and it is why we must rely on it when we are asking
:47:13. > :47:15.important questions like vaccine safety, whether certain treatments
:47:16. > :47:18.work, whether we should have confidence in what the doctor is
:47:19. > :47:22.offering, what the crack is offering. There is a difference
:47:23. > :47:25.between evidenced -based treatment and others. And whether we are
:47:26. > :47:28.listening to whether there is a business interest on climate
:47:29. > :47:32.change, a politician like Nigel Lawson, and the overwhelming
:47:33. > :47:37.Georgie, the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion. Of course
:47:38. > :47:45.there are mavericks in science, but is important. I think we should be
:47:46. > :47:49.voting for politicians to say, I am going to make, on these issues, the
:47:50. > :47:58.policies based on what the evidence is. Drug laws are interesting. A
:47:59. > :48:04.very good example. Professor Nutt says one thing and he is
:48:05. > :48:08.marginalised. The Labour government did some good things for science but
:48:09. > :48:11.this was very bad, they prevented independent scientific advice from
:48:12. > :48:15.being independent by saying that if you argue with what we say the
:48:16. > :48:18.sciences, we will sack you. That is what happened to him and it was very
:48:19. > :48:22.wrong. APPLAUSE
:48:23. > :48:31.I want to move on to homoeopathy shortly. I would be interested to
:48:32. > :48:35.see if Professor Palmer thinks this is a peculiar problem in science.
:48:36. > :48:40.The earth is not a system we can experiment with repeatedly, as we do
:48:41. > :48:44.with other physical systems. We rely a lot on modelling, there are
:48:45. > :48:47.massive feedback problems. It would be interesting to hear, do you think
:48:48. > :48:52.there are challenges that we don't face in other kinds of sciences? You
:48:53. > :48:56.are right to say we can't do an experiment in the laboratory to see
:48:57. > :49:00.what climate change will do but we can get evidence from past climates
:49:01. > :49:07.and we have to use the laws of physics to tried understand what is
:49:08. > :49:11.going on. A key point for me which distinguishes good science from bad
:49:12. > :49:16.science or even non-science, is an ability to estimate and quantify
:49:17. > :49:21.uncertainties. You mentioned the word risk, this is an excellent
:49:22. > :49:25.word, it describes precisely how climate science tries to deal with
:49:26. > :49:29.the challenges that were mentioned. We tried to frame the problem in
:49:30. > :49:34.terms of the risk, what is the risk of exceeding two degrees, up to five
:49:35. > :49:38.degrees in the coming century. Five degrees being the difference between
:49:39. > :49:43.the last ice age and the present day, it is calamitous. Other types
:49:44. > :49:48.of astrology, for example, you don't get any indication... You will meet
:49:49. > :49:55.a tall dark stranger, but with what Rob ability? -- what probability.
:49:56. > :49:59.The Nigel Lawsons of the world are adamant that there is no danger
:50:00. > :50:05.whatsoever, but we will have dangerous climate change. -- there
:50:06. > :50:09.is no danger that we will have. There is no indication there is any
:50:10. > :50:12.uncertainty in that view and it should be a hallmark for people
:50:13. > :50:16.listening to potential science. Are they giving credible estimates of
:50:17. > :50:23.the uncertainties that undoubtedly there are? Homoeopathy, you
:50:24. > :50:35.mentioned it earlier. Where is Ian? Hello. Homoeopathic practitioner.
:50:36. > :50:40.How does it work? What is the science of it? Can I move it on
:50:41. > :50:46.because we haven't got a lot of time? There are many forms of
:50:47. > :50:50.science and different points of looking at it. Long period of time
:50:51. > :50:54.we have gathered a huge amount of evidence on the medicines we use
:50:55. > :50:59.from all sorts of sources, including our patients, who get better. We
:51:00. > :51:04.record that evidence and we match it against the individualised cases
:51:05. > :51:07.that we take of the people who come to us was that everybody is an
:51:08. > :51:15.individual foot of It is not placebo?
:51:16. > :51:26.What is happening in the body? If a person is unwell and not functioning
:51:27. > :51:29.properly and explains what the circumstances are, and we find the
:51:30. > :51:35.right remedy for that person by matching those two things I have
:51:36. > :51:38.talked about, if the remedy is the right one, the person will begin to
:51:39. > :51:44.get better from their own healing process. The body can heal itself.
:51:45. > :51:48.They get better on their own, don't they? People do use homoeopathic,
:51:49. > :51:53.people make money out of selling it, but it is usually used, and I
:51:54. > :51:57.hope it is only used for conditions that are self limiting. So people
:51:58. > :52:02.not feeling great, a touch of the nerves, and people get better. If I
:52:03. > :52:07.jump up and down and cost three times and I have a cold, a week
:52:08. > :52:11.later I will not have a cold. It won't be because of what I did, it
:52:12. > :52:15.is because of our immune systems. You cannot say scientifically that
:52:16. > :52:18.because someone gets better after they have paid you money for a sugar
:52:19. > :52:26.pill, that the sugar pill has cured them. There was a 2010 report which
:52:27. > :52:28.said it is just a placebo. I don't think all of the evidence was
:52:29. > :52:35.gathered in that parliamentary report. What is going on in the
:52:36. > :52:41.body? The body is a whole mechanism. It is holistic? We can't say it is
:52:42. > :52:46.neurological. It is part of a whole process that takes place. The
:52:47. > :52:50.healing is from within. This is the sort of...
:52:51. > :52:57.It is not science, it is nonsense or it is anti-science and it can be
:52:58. > :53:00.dangerous. It is not just harmless. People who have serious conditions
:53:01. > :53:06.that need evidence -based treatments to reverse the disease process rely
:53:07. > :53:12.on homoeopathy or snake oil or faith healing, then the risk is that they
:53:13. > :53:15.don't get the treatment they know. The placebo effect is powerful, I
:53:16. > :53:20.understand people benefit from it, but it relies on deception. It is
:53:21. > :53:23.most strong when people are deceived into thinking they are getting
:53:24. > :53:27.something when in fact with homoeopathy, they are getting
:53:28. > :53:34.something that has been practically infinitely dilutive so there is no
:53:35. > :53:38.molecule level. Many of your colleagues in Bristol who work in
:53:39. > :53:40.the Bristol homoeopathic Hospital, they have trained medically, they
:53:41. > :53:45.have moved to homoeopathy because they have seen the powers. There are
:53:46. > :53:49.always a few mavericks. Many more than a few mavericks. Without
:53:50. > :53:55.mavericks who wouldn't have a programme. Quickly if you could... I
:53:56. > :53:59.agree with this guy that healing comes from within, and I would love
:54:00. > :54:04.to see scientists work closely with people that meditate on a regular
:54:05. > :54:09.basis, in connection with changes in spiritual consciousness. Right at
:54:10. > :54:19.the end there, the gentleman with the tide. -- tie. I would say I have
:54:20. > :54:23.faith in science of the 19th century, when they body said they
:54:24. > :54:25.would pay for it. Who pays for science now? Quite often with
:54:26. > :54:32.pharmaceutical companies, somebody who pays money...
:54:33. > :54:36.APPLAUSE The companies which pay for the
:54:37. > :54:46.science, they say this is a science we could pay you for. Oliver first.
:54:47. > :54:49.Very gentlemanly of you. To go back to something, arguing about what is
:54:50. > :54:53.and isn't a science is not the most productive way forward. Six out of
:54:54. > :54:57.ten figure at the start of the segment, a lot of the people who
:54:58. > :55:02.doubt that we are making man-made climate change, they don't think
:55:03. > :55:05.they are doubting science, they have faith in what they see as an
:55:06. > :55:10.alternative science, which says climate change is not man-made. It
:55:11. > :55:15.is not a case of is this science... It is a Menorah TV but they will say
:55:16. > :55:21.it is still science, Einstein was a minority view -- it is a minority
:55:22. > :55:24.view but they will still say. The way to tackle the debate is not to
:55:25. > :55:28.say, let's have more faith in the scientific consensus but less faith
:55:29. > :55:32.in everything, let's put everything on the table. The IPCC does
:55:33. > :55:38.fantastic work with scientists and policymakers. Should we have Tim up
:55:39. > :55:42.against Nigel Lawson? Not this sequel views in the media thing,
:55:43. > :55:49.large collections of media talking... That is what happens,
:55:50. > :55:53.consensus statements in science. Otherwise you're just saying
:55:54. > :55:57.anything goes. The basis of science on contentious public policy issues
:55:58. > :56:02.is you create a consensus statement. We had it over MMR, a
:56:03. > :56:07.fraudster alleged that MMR caused autism and bowel disease. Andrew
:56:08. > :56:11.Wakefield. It caused a lot of work to be done and consensus statements
:56:12. > :56:15.came out from people who wanted to agree, because there are prizes to
:56:16. > :56:19.be got for breaking an initial consensus. I am not saying these
:56:20. > :56:29.consensus discussions don't happen. Particularly with the IPCC, the
:56:30. > :56:35.science is compensated and the policy is so compensated. I am sorry
:56:36. > :56:40.to point at you, isn't the problem that so many policymakers and
:56:41. > :56:44.politicians, your good self accepted perhaps, cannot look beyond the
:56:45. > :56:49.electoral cycle? I don't think that is the problem. I'm sure a lot of
:56:50. > :56:55.politicians would like to make decisions aced on proper science,
:56:56. > :56:59.good sciences -- based on. The problem, it seems to me, is we get
:57:00. > :57:04.confused about this. I hate wind generators. The dam things are
:57:05. > :57:09.across our landscapes, polluting our heels and lovely areas. But I
:57:10. > :57:13.believe in what the professor is saying about climate change --
:57:14. > :57:19.polluting our hills. I think we are coming up with bad solutions. I am
:57:20. > :57:26.conflicted, of course. I don't want to see my landscape destroyed in
:57:27. > :57:29.south Wales. Now we have these terribly inefficient subsidised
:57:30. > :57:35.white windmills everywhere. It doesn't make me a reactionary. It is
:57:36. > :57:39.important to remember that scientists are human, they have self
:57:40. > :57:46.interest, they have politics, the leaves, prejudices, that is why over
:57:47. > :57:54.history, circumstances change -- they have politics, beliefs. They
:57:55. > :57:58.all believed in eugenics. The IPCC, they don't come into trying to prove
:57:59. > :58:02.climate change. It is a review of the scientific literature on
:58:03. > :58:06.climate. Scientific literature means it has been through a peer review
:58:07. > :58:11.process. It has been scrutinised by other scientists. All IPC is saying,
:58:12. > :58:16.what is out there in the scientific literature about climate and over
:58:17. > :58:22.woman A, the view is that it is a serious problem -- overwhelmingly.
:58:23. > :58:25.Thank you very much. As always, the debates will continue online and on
:58:26. > :58:32.Twitter. We'll be back on April 27th from York. But for now it's goodbye
:58:33. > :58:37.from Bristol and have a great Easter break. Thank you for watching.